Child Stats

[anest1s]

Just say that it got its leg crushed or whatever you feel that will make a good story. After all you are the DM, if you say the kid is a demigod so it is. Except if you gave your players its character sheet.

 

[Water Bob]

Just say that it got its leg crushed or whatever you feel that will make a good story. After all you are the DM, if you say the kid is a demigod so it is. Except if you gave your players its character sheet.

But that would defeat the uncertainty that comes with rolling dice, and I banked on that to put some tension and drama into the scenario (and it worked like a charm).

The PCs are really attached to this little girl (based on earlier rp sessions). If I arbitrarily kill her, the players feel defeated (she is the object of this "dungeon"--rescuing her) in a damned-no-matter-what-I-do fashion.

If I let her live, then there is no real threat felt by the players.

Don't underestimate the power of dicing for things in a game.

And, if we're going to dice for something that is very important to the players, they need to feel that the dicing is "fair" (that I didn't just pick up a six sider and call for a higher dice throw).

Thus, the REF save and figuring the child stats was the way to go in this scenario.

 

[Herobizkit]

From the d20 Modern SRD:

Children (newborns to age 11) are handled differently from other characters. They do not have classes or levels. They begin with the same ability score package as ordinaries (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), but their ability scores are reduced as follows: -3 Str, -1 Dex, -3 Con, -1 Int, -1 Wis, -1 Cha.

Children have 1d4 hit points plus their Constitution modifier (minimum 1 hit point). They have no skills, feats, action points, or occupations. Their base attack bonus is +0, they have a +0 modifier on all saving throws (plus any modifiers for high or low ability scores), and their Reputation bonus is +0. Children have a +0 modifier to Defense and a normal speed of 20 feet. Children have no effective attacks and should be treated as non-combatants.

When a child turns 12, he or she is considered a young adult and takes his or her first level in one of the six basic classes. At that point, the character becomes an ordinary (or hero, in some cases).

 

[Water Bob]

From the d20 Modern SRD:

Children (newborns to age 11) are handled differently from other characters. They do not have classes or levels. They begin with the same ability score package as ordinaries (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), but their ability scores are reduced as follows: -3 Str, -1 Dex, -3 Con, -1 Int, -1 Wis, -1 Cha.

Children have 1d4 hit points plus their Constitution modifier (minimum 1 hit point). They have no skills, feats, action points, or occupations. Their base attack bonus is +0, they have a +0 modifier on all saving throws (plus any modifiers for high or low ability scores), and their Reputation bonus is +0. Children have a +0 modifier to Defense and a normal speed of 20 feet. Children have no effective attacks and should be treated as non-combatants.

When a child turns 12, he or she is considered a young adult and takes his or her first level in one of the six basic classes. At that point, the character becomes an ordinary (or hero, in some cases).

This is awesome in that it's a d20 rule that fits what I was asking for. But, it's quite flawed, huh?

The rule fits newborns to age 11. So, a 3 year old can have STR 12???

And, that 3 year old will have the same stats when he gets older and stronger at age 5, age 10, etc.?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DonnetteSpe
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6
Novice (Lvl 1)

Reported

 

[Lwaxy]

It really isn't that bad, but you should cap it off at 3 for each stat instead of 1.
Even by end of their first year, children are roughly as smart (if not slightly more so) than your average domesticated dog,

Actually, dogs are thought to have the mental capability of a 2 - 3 year old

 

[anest1s]

Actually, dogs are thought to have the mental capability of a 2 - 3 year old

Usually by ppl who have dogs and no children

 

[Lwaxy]

No, by scientists who work with them to find out.

I had dogs and children and always thought the average dog to be even more clever. Especially when trained well.

But that's getting off topic

 

[anest1s]

No, by scientists who work with them to find out.

I had dogs and children and always thought the average dog to be even more clever. Especially when trained well.

But that's getting off topic

Then you could point out said scientists?

I usually don't believe things "scientists" have tested, if "scientists" have no name (and if google can't find their names).

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Then you could point out said scientists?

I usually don't believe things "scientists" have tested, if "scientists" have no name (and if google can't find their names).

A Quick Google Search Produced This.
Which Lead me To This Guy. His Name is Stanley Coren.
Here's His Book.

...all of which (going back to the OP) leads me to believe a 2 year old child has an INT of 2.