Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5293559" data-attributes="member: 4937">Children are inherently hard to do mechanically.&nbsp; You always have to give up something.The problem is made harder than it needs to be in stock D20 because size small is an advantage in that its disadvantages are much smaller than its advantages.&nbsp; If you straight up take a race and make it smaller, it gets better under RAW D&amp;D.&nbsp; If that's what being a 'child' means, everyone will want to be one.There are two basic models of children mechanically.&nbsp; Neither is going to be fully satifying.&nbsp; The realistic model of children is that being a child is a huge disadvantage mechanically modelled by large penalties in ability.&nbsp; In the realistic model, being a child grants you large penalties and nothing in exchange.&nbsp; As the campaign advances, these penalties begin to be ammelorated on their own as the child ages into an adult and acquires the abilities you'd expect of an adult member of their race.&nbsp; The end result is an adult character who has the same abilities that they would have if they started as an adult.&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem with the realistic model is that there is absolutely no reason to play a child.&nbsp; The realistic model strongly discourages children as adventurers.The other basic model is a gamist model.&nbsp; In the gamist model 'child' is a template that is permenently applied to the character during character creation.&nbsp; It has various benefits and advantages that taken as a whole balance out, either inherently within the template or (if the template is on the whole a net disadvantage) because taking the template allows the player to choose some offsetting advantage.&nbsp; Under the gamist model, as the campaign advances the passing of time has no effect on the abilities of the character.&nbsp; Instead, the normal progress of character advancement is assumed to represent at least in part the gradual aging and maturation of the character.&nbsp; If the character 'grows up' mechanically this has no effect on the character.&nbsp; It's just flavor.As for your particular rules suggestion, I think that at minimum your child template should apply the same standard modification modifying the size of an NPC does.&nbsp; That is, make them smaller size AND STR -4, CON -4, DEX +2.&nbsp; This unbalanced stat adjustment is critical because smaller size must be seen without unbalanced stat adjustment as a pure win.&nbsp;&nbsp; Intellectual modifiers are realistic, but in my opinion unnecessary.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5293559, member: 4937"] Children are inherently hard to do mechanically. You always have to give up something. The problem is made harder than it needs to be in stock D20 because size small is an advantage in that its disadvantages are much smaller than its advantages. If you straight up take a race and make it smaller, it gets better under RAW D&D. If that's what being a 'child' means, everyone will want to be one. There are two basic models of children mechanically. Neither is going to be fully satifying. The realistic model of children is that being a child is a huge disadvantage mechanically modelled by large penalties in ability. In the realistic model, being a child grants you large penalties and nothing in exchange. As the campaign advances, these penalties begin to be ammelorated on their own as the child ages into an adult and acquires the abilities you'd expect of an adult member of their race. The end result is an adult character who has the same abilities that they would have if they started as an adult. The problem with the realistic model is that there is absolutely no reason to play a child. The realistic model strongly discourages children as adventurers. The other basic model is a gamist model. In the gamist model 'child' is a template that is permenently applied to the character during character creation. It has various benefits and advantages that taken as a whole balance out, either inherently within the template or (if the template is on the whole a net disadvantage) because taking the template allows the player to choose some offsetting advantage. Under the gamist model, as the campaign advances the passing of time has no effect on the abilities of the character. Instead, the normal progress of character advancement is assumed to represent at least in part the gradual aging and maturation of the character. If the character 'grows up' mechanically this has no effect on the character. It's just flavor. As for your particular rules suggestion, I think that at minimum your child template should apply the same standard modification modifying the size of an NPC does. That is, make them smaller size AND STR -4, CON -4, DEX +2. This unbalanced stat adjustment is critical because smaller size must be seen without unbalanced stat adjustment as a pure win. Intellectual modifiers are realistic, but in my opinion unnecessary. [/QUOTE]

Verification