Kid Template? (IE How do I model pre-adult PC races?)

[seedjar]

So, I think the title is fairly self-explanatory. Does anyone have a template for making things younger/immature/smaller? (Namely, humanoids and monstrous humanoids.) I think I saw a template for making juveniles of a given critter once before, but I can't for the life of me remember where. I'm putting together a game for new players and I want the first session to be a bit of a prologue to the rest of their adventures together, so I'd like to option of turning the clock back by several years if I need to. Maybe this should go in the homebrew section, but I'd prefer to get a generally accepted template rather than making one of my own. In a pinch, though, I think I can just knock their size down a step and apply a proportionate penalty to their attack roll and get a good approximation. (Unless someone throws a really impressive Doogie Howser build/backstory at me, they'll all be level 1 of whatever class they're taking.)
Thanks,
~Joe

[Myshlaevsky]

I'd use a 16-point buy with stats starting at 6 and maxing out at 12. Depending on how old they're supposed to be. Racial mods still apply, but could be halved.

[seedjar]

Hmm... that's a good idea. But how would I bring them back up to adult-sized stats? Give them another eight points to modify their stats?
~Joe

[Myshlaevsky]

Ah, I thought there was going to be a timeskip of some sort. If you're playing it straight through their childhood/teens I wouldn't recommend that - it could pigeonhole them and it's difficult to adapt.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

[Quorothorn]

I'm pretty certain Quintessential Sorcerer had a table with ability score penalties for young adult, child and infant age categories.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Just look under the Giants entry in the MM. It has rules for giant children. Mod that a bit and apply to your PC's.

[The Rose Dragon]

In d20 Modern, children get -3 to Str and Con, and -1 to all other stats. And they're small. Use that one.

[Rutee]

I'm not sure I'd nerf Int/Wis/Cha/Dex; I'd rather nerf Skill Points at character creation, since that seems more accurate. Still, 'tis a good template.

[Nikolai_II]

I was going to say -2 str and +2 dex during youth, but I liked the idea of having 6 as baseline too.
In the latter case, let them make their characters as usual, then shave 2 points off each stat. When they grow up, let them have the 2 points back again.

[Nohwl]

i think they should have a bonus to dex, just because they are younger. im going to assume they are human, so i can give age ranges. anything below 12, i would give -3 strength, -3 con, -2 int, -1 wis, +1 dex, and give them a +2 charisma. its harder to hate young children than it is adults so they get a bonus to charisma. if you were going to have them be 13-20, a -1 strength, -1 con, and -2 charisma sounds alright. they have gone through whatever version of school there is, so the int and wis penalties should be gone. the dex bonus is gone because they arent very young anymore and their bodies are almost fully developed, so the strength and con penalties are lowered. the +2 charisma changes to a -2 because noone likes teenagers.

[sonofzeal]

For a kid age 7-11, I'd just make them Small and give them that +2 Dex, -2 Str. Under that age they're really not playable (subtract 2 from all stats maybe), and over that age you'd might as well use normal adult stats.

[EvilElitest]

I'm not sure I'd nerf Int/Wis/Cha/Dex; I'd rather nerf Skill Points at character creation, since that seems more accurate. Still, 'tis a good template.

most kids, at least 13 and down aren't as smart, world weary or as good talkers as when they are older
from
EE

[FMArthur]

Honestly, I'd make the most significant difference a Wis penalty. Other things can go down by 2s including Dexterity (kids don't have more Dex than a 15-30 year old adventurer, sorry. You're all thinking of the size category giving that advantage, which was covered and should be Small) except for Charisma, but Wisdom should be something like -4 or -3. It really is the primary mental difference.

[Bag_of_Holding]

I'd use the aging effects table from SW: saga edition. For a human child between 1-11 years of age, you get -3 to Str and Con, -1 to all other ability scores. A young adult between 12-15 is -1 to all ability scores with 16 and above (until middle age) having no ability adjustments.

[kirbsys]

One of the best ideas I had ever heard of was to actually make them higher level. That spinning move the child used on the play ground was a whirlwind back then, but when he gets older it isn't really good enough to use in real combat. The wizards little puff of fire and smoke he called a fireball was enough to get the bully to leave him alone, but in real life, it could barely light a fire.

[Hal]

I'd say cut all of their adult stats in half for children. Give them skills at half for a first level character. I'd say no feats, but that's going to largely depend on the feats. If there's a racial modifier, use your discretion. For example, I'm betting young Dwarves haven't learned much about identifying every little thing relating to stone just yet, but their Con and Cha scores should still be altered just the same (Apply the half to the adult template, then divide).

[Mewtarthio]

i think they should have a bonus to dex, just because they are younger.

They are harder to grasp because they are smaller. I highly doubt that a child is as dextrous as a mature human. Also, bear in mind that, in DnD, adulthood begins at 15, so claiming that a child should get a Dex bonus is essentially claiming that a prepubescent kid is more dextrous than the average adult.

its harder to hate young children than it is adults so they get a bonus to charisma.

People don't like kids because kids are charismatic. They like kids because kids are naive and innocent, because kids bring back memories of a more carefree time, and because it's an evolutionary advantage to not lop off a kid's head when it trespasses into your territory. If anything, kids would get a penalty to charisma, because nobody ever takes them seriously. No adult would follow a kid into battle, or accept a kid's orders. Charisma isn't about people being happy and nonstalgic when you're around: It's about being able to get people to do what you want.

[Mando Knight]

I don't know how well these will work for D&D stats... but Star Wars SAGA has the following stacking penalties: Child: -3 to STR and CON, -1 to others; Young Adult: -1 to all abilities; Adult: No penalties; Middle Age: -1 to physical abilities, +1 to mental abilities; Old: -2 to physical abilities, +1 to mental abilities; Venerable: -3 to physical abilities, +1 to mental abilities.

They stack as according to the difference of age categories between what they are now and the Adult category, so a Child (1-11 years old human) would have -4 to STR and CON and -2 to all other abilities; and a Venerable (80+ year old human) person would have -6 to STR, CON, and DEX, but a +3 to WIS, INT, and CHA; and an Adult (16-40 year old human) would have no age-related penalties or bonuses. The ages were pulled off of the SAGA Core Rulebook, and may or may not be good guidelines for the age categories for D&D...

[snoopy13a]

I'd say a penalty to most stats. Of course, this is also dependent on age.

Strength- obviously, kids are weaker. -3 or so

Dex- pre-teens are going to be a bit lower, perhaps -1 or -2. 13-15 year old females can actually be better at some things (see figure skaters, gymnists and a few tennis players) so they may be +0 or even +1

Constitution- also lower, -2 or -3

Intelligence- 10-11 year olds should have a negative intelligence modifier as their brains may have not developed into the abstract thinking level (see Piaget) 12-15 year olds should have no modifier.

Wisdom- also lower, -2 or so

Charisma- not as bad, perhaps -1 or -2

[Eldariel]

The obvious:
-Depending on age, probably small.
-Scaling penalty to Strength; their muscles aren't fully developed yet and they aren't normal size so they can't be anywhere near as strong as adults.
-Slight bonus to Dexterity, constantly lowering. Light bodies are extremely agile and many people who don't specifically train dexterity are more dexterous as kids (of course, when talking about children under the age of ~7, this changes as their motorics have yet to fully develop)
-Minimal Constitution-penalty; they obviously aren't as hardy as adults but they can last surprisingly long in strenuous sitiuations. Anyone having watched over children knows how energetic they are and how much steam they have in them.
-Scaling penalty to Int; brains are fully developed around the age of 20. Before that, apply scaling Int penalty.
-Scaling Wisdom penalty, heavy at that; common sense isn't generally childrens' forte.
-No modifiers to charisma; individuals who are charismatic as adults are that as children and while they may seem more 'charming' at the younger age, generally fact of the matter is that they retain that charm in a different form as they grow up and socially inept people rarely become any more apt as they grow.


Of course, there need to be a number of age categories with different modifiers, just like there are for old age to really cover the different stages of development. For example, physical stats practically catch up to adults when they get to their mid teens while mental stats tend to lag behind until their 20s.

[drengnikrafe]

I would say, if they're very little kids, give them serious penalties to Bluff and Diplomacy. Sure, you give them a slight slap on the wrist for being young in charisma, but most kids out there have a heck of a time lying inconspicuously, and it's hard, when you're 6, to convince people of things.
Seriously, if you have a kid, and you ask them "Who made this mess?"... you watch, as they freak out a little, and then try to look innocent, and say "Well, it wasn't me..." and then they avoid your gaze...

[Nohwl]

adulthood is 15? i always thought it was early to mid 20s.

They are harder to grasp because they are smaller.

you have a point, if you said they were small sized instead of medium, that would give them a bonus to being caught.

i think the how well liked you are part of charisma is more important than the how persuasive you are. when you look over the skills for classes, bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate are the ones that deal with how persuasive you are and how you talk to people. disguise, gather information, handle animal, and perform are more about how you come across to other people (and animals) and not based on how persuasive you are. children would come across better than adults because of their innocence, and when you base it off of the skill list, that counts for more than the childs ability to lead and attract followers or how seriously they are taken in a conversation.

No adult would follow a kid into battle, or accept a kid's orders.

i agree with you that no adult would follow a child into battle, but i think that if you take an adult (before adding in age modifiers) with 11 charisma, and a child (before adding in age modifiers) with 11 charisma, the child would be more well liked and come across better to people, and should get a bonus because of it, not a penalty because they arent able to persuade people to their point of view as easily as an adult.

[Eldariel]

I'll repeat: No Charisma-modifier. There's no stat for how well you're liked in D&D. Same with no stat for appearance; that's something you can make up in fluff. Charisma is simply force of personality, the ability to make people listen to what you say and believe it, the ability to control Magic effects and to invoke your natural talents. It's an innate ability that really has little to do with age; some people just are really charismatic while others are less so and those charismatic people are going to be natural leaders even as children while the less charismatic ones are going to follow the natural leaders be they children or adults (or walk alone).

[Dr Bwaa]

Yes, adulthood is 15. DEX should not change for the better when "getting younger," STR and WIS should drop dramatically, and INT and CON should drop some. CHA is force of personality--a rare few kids have a lot of this, but it is really rare. It's not "cuteness" or whatever. And obviously, they should be small.

My proposed stats:
Ages 10-14:
-2 STR
-1 DEX
-2 CON
-2 INT
-4 WIS
-2 CHA

below age 10 (not cumulative with above penalties).
-6 STR
-3 DEX
-4 CON
-4 INT
-6 WIS
-4 CHA

EDIT: I realize it's a rather sharp jump from age 14 to 15, but whatever. Crossing the line into Venerable you suddenly lose HP equal to your HD or your HDx2, on top of everything else.

[Rutee]

People don't like kids because kids are charismatic. They like kids because kids are naive and innocent, because kids bring back memories of a more carefree time, and because it's an evolutionary advantage to not lop off a kid's head when it trespasses into your territory. If anything, kids would get a penalty to charisma, because nobody ever takes them seriously. No adult would follow a kid into battle, or accept a kid's orders. Charisma isn't about people being happy and nonstalgic when you're around: It's about being able to get people to do what you want.

Wouldn't it make more sense to not mod a child's charisma at all, but rather, apply circumstance modifiers?

[Mewtarthio]

Wouldn't it make more sense to not mod a child's charisma at all, but rather, apply circumstance modifiers?

I suppose I can see where you're getting at from a thematic standpoint (like Eldariel's post above, some people just have a certain presence all their lives), but that seems like a bit more bookeeping than is necessary. Sure, you can apply a -X across the board to all Cha-based skills used against an adult, but why not just apply a -2X penalty to Charisma? If you apply the penalty to the score itself, you don't have to bother remembering that circumstance penalty every time a kid tries to persuade someone. True, there are other uses of Charisma, but when are those going to come up for a child?

[Rutee]

Why would I apply a negative to all Charisma checks? In DnD terms, diplomacy should be nearly untouched, but Intimidate /ought/ to be gobsmacked a fair deal. Bluff would be situational, but using Bluff to pass yourself off as a non-threat due to child-dom would be easier then bluffing that you're, say, a member of the City Guard.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think there's been enough said about the ability score modifiers, so I'm going to branch out a little...

I always stat humanoid children as one size smaller, and make them 1/2 HD Commoners. For PCs, If they're around 11-15, I'd probably give them a few skill points to spend on a couple of future class skills. Then I'd look at their racial features and probably reduce or remove most of them (only the ones that are learned rather than innate) to a certain degree depending on the character's actual age.

I also agree that some of these problems can be solved with circumstance modifiers, since a lot depends on the particular character and whoever they are interacting with. Consider how the NPC's attitude toward the PCs is affected by them being children.

[Aquillion]

Honestly, I'd make the most significant difference a Wis penalty. Other things can go down by 2s including Dexterity (kids don't have more Dex than a 15-30 year old adventurer, sorry. You're all thinking of the size category giving that advantage, which was covered and should be Small) except for Charisma, but Wisdom should be something like -4 or -3. It really is the primary mental difference.

One major problem with a wisdom penalty: The biggest non-class-specific thing wisdom impacts, after will saves, is perception -- skills like spot and listen.

But kids have extremely keen senses, particularly hearing; much better than a typical adult's. Giving a kid a penalty to those skills makes no sense; if anything, they should get a benefit.

Likewise, does a penalty to will saves really make sense? Should kids really be easier to dominate, hit with suggestion, and so on?

I'd have to agree that charisma should be handled via circumstance modifiers. A cute kid trying to convince a shopkeeper to give them a discount on ice-cream should, at the very least, get no penalty. A kid trying to convince men to follow him into battle could get a penalty... but let's be honest here, in many settings a woman would get the same penalty. PCs are assumed to be exceptional, and not necessarily subject to the social restrictions of their day... if my kid takes leadership, he's a child-leader; maybe he's a young prince or Ender Wiggin or whatever.

I would say, for that reason, that you could even just give them no penalty at all, for the same reason that female characters get no penalty to strength -- sure, they're kids, but they're exceptional (and while they should logically increase in ability as they get older, this is going to be more than represented by their level gains anyway -- the typical power gain from levels is absurd enough, and disconnected enough from everyone else in your normal D&D world, that it probably really works better here.)

Likewise, a penalty to dex saddles kids with a penalty to tumble, escape artist and balance checks, all of which kids should be much better at when they're the right age. And while limiting skill points or assigning a penalty to knowledge checks with an int penalty might sound like it makes sense, kids are actually perfectly good at some kinds of knowledge -- anyone who's ever asked a kid about dinosaurs or pokemon knows that. There's no reason a kid couldn't have similarly encyclopedic knowledge of undead (covered by Knowledge: Religion), the planes, spells, and so on.

Climb? Handle Animal? Hide? Move Silently? Search? Swim?

The fact is, there are large numbers of skills that represent "basic" things that children can do as well or better than most adults, things that are typically learned at a young age.

My feeling is that a kid would probably have a low level (though high-level prodigies might exist) but beyond that, if a kid is a first-level rogue, that should represent the same amount of learning that an adult first-level rogue has, with full skill points.

Having no int penalty to those skill points is a no-brainer. If they got an int penalty, that would mean that in the long run someone who starts training as a rogue at a very young age will be worse than someone who picks it up as an adult (remember, even though the young age one will start higher level, the adult will catch up thanks to the experience rules, and end up with more skill points despite having spent less time as a rogue.) That doesn't make any sense at all.

I say just handwave it and say that they're heroic. At most, reduce their size. If a typical female character gets no penalty for wrestling with a typical male, there's no reason why a child should get a penalty for wrestling with either.

[Mewtarthio]

Likewise, does a penalty to will saves really make sense? Should kids really be easier to dominate, hit with suggestion, and so on?

Why wouldn't they be? Granted, I've never tested it in the real world, but still, it'd make sense. Kids are, after all, more likely than adults to believe that there's a monster under their beds, so who's to say they wouldn't be more likely to fall for illusions?