• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Child Stats

Int is a little vague, as it depends on how you determine it. A lot of people do it as somewhat like I.Q./10. Wis is also vague, as it includes not just judgement, but perceptiveness. Dex might be high when younger, while Str is lowered. Con should also be a bit low, then go up. Cha might start high, go down, and lower still with puberty, and back up again. All of this changes from person to person though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


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.?
They sure can. But since they're non-combatants, all that matters his how much he can lift or pull. In modern age, there are many body building pre-teens. Just check out Richard Sandrak's bio for an example.

Mind you, just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD have a STR 12.

Also, the age penalties disappear when they hit 12+.

Also also, this is a fantasy game with Dragons and Thri-Kreen. There isn't a LOT that's based on reality. ;)
 

Also also, this is a fantasy game with Dragons and Thri-Kreen. There isn't a LOT that's based on reality. ;)

I always find that a bit of a cop out.

I find that invariably, in the absence of obvious fantastic elements, players assume that the world works in a familiar manner. Indeed, game masters generally assume that the world works in a familiar manner.

So, with something like a Dragon or a Thri-Kreen, the natural assumption is that these unnatural things have behavior and abilities that are unfamiliar.

But, human childen? I don't think I've ever met the player who assumed as a given that because dragons existed, human children had more than the sort of physical abilities that you'd normally associate with human children.

The general rules is always, if it looks like something I'm familiar with, then it acts like something I'm familiar with. Players take an enormous body of knowledge into a game world, and game masters rely on that body of knowledge to share the experience of the game world. I don't have to tell players explicitly that water is wet, that an ocean is a large body of water which is wet but which - on account of its salt - is not good for drinking. I don't have to tell them that solid objects can't generally be based through, that stone is hard and heavy and takes considerable effort to break. These are all assumed.

I don't think most players expect that there will be perfect realism in a game. But I think that most players believe that the rules should provide a believable and acceptable level of casual realism with regards to those things covered by the rules, and that if you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't leave it up to the rules.

So, just because a player is willing to suspend disbelief about fireballs, dragons, and the like, doesn't mean that limitless belief is waiting to be tapped into. On the contrary, the more familiar someone is with something the more that they expect it to act according to their experience. In this sense, RPGs share with other forms of fiction the requirement that they be more real than reality if they wish to avoid shattering the fourth wall by raising questions of plausibility. Even if it were plausible that a 3 year old could exist with a 12 strength, your system should make it impossible or implausible because everyone's experience will lead them to conclude that 3 year olds that are stronger than average adult men are extraordinarily rare. If you are defending the rule by pointing out that it comes maybe within the realm of the possible, you've already lost.
 

My assumption with children in D&D is that if I hit, kick, stab, or otherwise do even a single point of damage to them, they go 'POP' and are no longer relevant to any discussion at hand.

Hence, no need for stats.
 

My assumption with children in D&D is that if I hit, kick, stab, or otherwise do even a single point of damage to them, they go 'POP' and are no longer relevant to any discussion at hand.

Hence, no need for stats.

What's the AC of a child?

I kid, a little, but basically I hear you saying, "For various reasons, I don't want to have children as a part of the stories I tell." I can empathize with that, regardless of what your reasons are, but I come at that from a different direction.

I once considered starting a campaign with a device similar to that used by Stephen King in It, where the first adventure was the backstory for the main adventure - the PC's adventures together as children. For that, I not only needed detailed stats for children, but a detailed way of deriving the stats of the PC's child selves from what the players made as their adult self.

As I said before, I've been in a long running campaign were the PC's started having children, getting married, and so forth. Once you've go 5 or 6 in game years, its quite possible to have a your PC's children as reoccuring NPCs in the game. Knowing their stats is amusing.

In my current campaign, one of the early missions involved rescueing a group of kidnapped children and keeping them alive. The difficulty of doing this would be raised to the near impossible level if children went 'Pop' after taking but a single point of damage. And as a point of realism, terrible as it is to think about children being injured, children are surprisingly durable, sometimes surviving without serious injury things that would kill or cripple an adult.

One of my better miniscenarios (IMHO) involves rescuing a child that falls into a an ancient well - that turns out to be a sacrificial cenote.

In an earlier campaign, I had a gothic horror scenario that involved a pack of half-vampire children.

In another I had the players wipe out a tribe of hobgoblin bandits, only to find in the back of their cave a knot of their children. (Those were statted to go 'Pop', because the thing I was interesting in exploring was genocide.)

I've had on the back burner a side scenario for a while now involving a child sorcerer born with the evil eye and the players involvement with his family and with the townsfolk when the kids existance is discovered. Likewise, I've had on the back burner a side scenario where a child adopts a slaad as a pet and nurses it to health in her basement. While neither NPC is meant to be a combat challenge, neither is exactly a defenseless weakling compared to at least the low level PC's I'd present this challenge to. Knowing exactly what each is capable of is I think as important as knowing the abilities of any other NPC that might directly threaten the players. I wouldn't necessarily want the players to kill either NPC, but on the other hand I can't rule that out as a choice.

And other children have had various minor roles. A world without children is incomplete and a bit too clean for my taste. I don't feel you have much of a claim to 'gritty' if you don't have children. They are useful for conveying extremes of all sorts of things - innocence, hope, courage, depravity, etc.
 

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]: Actually, no, quite the opposite. One of the most fun times I had running a d20 Modern game involved a young 6-year old blonde haired elf kid named Ryan. He had inherited the psychic abilities of his father (a 10th level Psion) but couldn't control them.

Rather than worry about each game effect, or how many HP he had, or AC, I just used him as a 'set piece' to tell the story. His stats never came into play, and if he ever took damage, down he went. Luckily, the PCs were quick to revive and avenge him.

Children are an excellent story-telling tool, but they don't need stats to do it.
 


Noncombatant (no attack), AC 10, +0 all saves, 1d4 hit points as per a 3e D&D Commoner-1 would work fine for OGL Conan* IMO.

It really is not worth worrying about exactly how low her stats are, does she get +1 AC for small size, etc etc.

An equally effective way of doing it when rocks fall is to roll a d6: "1-3 she's killed, 4-6 she survives".

'Roll a d6' is the most effective GMing tool known to Man. :D

*OGL Conan tends to use 'Heroic' stat lines for what would be 'average' NPCs in 3e D&D. If statting a small child in actual 3e D&D I'd keep the default AC 10 and +0 to saves, but would lower hit points to 1-2 instead of 1-4. Children may be robust in some ways (eg vs falling damage), but small size and lack of muscle mass make small people including children more vulnerable to weapon damage and similar.
 
Last edited:

It seems unlikely to me that you'd ever need to know a child NPC's exact STR, but you can work it out by considering what is average adult male STR, then -4 for every halving.

In traditional D&D, average adult male STR is 10. But in OGL Conan, AIR the mundane NPC stat blocks for 'Turanian soldier' and such tend to have STR 15. And Cimmerians get +2 STR. I'd suggest using either STR 13 or 15 for the baseline. Then if a child is 1/8 as strong that's -12. 1/6 would be -10.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top