Help my kids make great PCs

[akbearfoot]

My first D&D game was when I was 13...I soaked up the rules like a sponge, but I also had little grasp on what good choices were.

And it was a funny memory because I was ,for unremembered reasons, under the impression that D&D was 'satanic'. I asked the guys warily if it was 'safe to play' and the looks and laughs I got were priceless. I'll never forget that one!

Course my dad to this day, 15 years later, says he 'worries for me' because I'm a gamer.


Let them pick what they want to do, or give them helpful suggestions if they ask without railroading them. Then tailor the game so it remains fun for them...rules bending is a LOT more ok with kids than it is for seasoned rules-lawyers.

 

[Darklone]

When I said "2 out of 3 encounter types", that means: there are three types of encounters.

Specifically: combat, skill / puzzle, social.

Fighters suck at 2/3 of these, and are merely adequate at the third.

-- N

Wow. One of these days when I disagree with the penguin. Shame on me

When I play with kids, I let them PLAY. Dicerolls aren't necessary outside of combat as long as they get along and usually they do. The fighterkids usually play the "knight hero in shining plate" and act like a hero. No need for diplomacy rolls if the kid does it right. (And IMX they do it better than most adults)

Riddles? I prefer riddles for kids that aren't solved by dice rolls either. And thanks to 3rd edition, this doesn't render the rogue futile... search checks still find traps and then the group ponders how to get past. Not to mention the rogues combat utility.

What I wanted to say: Kids often don't need more than a few combat rules to have fun. Plus I prefer low level games with them (up to level 8) which keeps the spellcasters rather easy and the fighter on par with the other chars.

 

[Nifft]

When I play with kids, I let them PLAY. Dicerolls aren't necessary outside of combat as long as they get along and usually they do. The fighterkids usually play the "knight hero in shining plate" and act like a hero. No need for diplomacy rolls if the kid does it right. (And IMX they do it better than most adults)

... and that's (potentially) fine. But you should be aware that you're taking class features away from some PCs in order to give them to all PCs.

Serious question: when you PLAY, how do you answer when a PC asks the question, "Is he lying?"

Cheers, -- N

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Combat casting is widely considered inefficient except where it helps one qualify for a prestige class. I do note that that analysis is more for mid-levels, not low levels.

At the very least, take Skill Focus: Concentration instead. It's not situation-dependent, so the player doesn't have to remember to add it in; while it's "only" +3, it is static on the character sheet.

 

[Nifft]

Wow - didn't expect to generate that much debate!

Both the "ease of use" and "degree of fun" debates go to the heart of what's wrong with 3e, and what we hope / hate / have heard regarding 4e. So yeah. There's some debate.

May have to look at those Complete books for the rogue and cleric...

If you have a Beguiler, you don't need a Rogue.

Any thoughts on Spellthief for Kristan? I'm already picking up a bit that he's envious of the cleric and - more often - the wizard, when they cast spells...

Yes, it's terrible. Don't let anyone play it who's not an expert.

I highly recommend Scout (Complete Adventurer), Warlock (Complete Arcane), Duskblade (PHB-II) and Swordsage (ToB:Bo9S) as simple yet flexible classes.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Storme]

I have little in the way of detail that hasn't already been covered except for one small point:

KISS

Keep it Strictly Simple

As Kids...they are going to LOVE everything that happens as long as it is fun and rewarding. As a result, limit their choices of Feats to Players Handbook. Everything else just adds a big load of information, and some, especially the 8 year old, will have trouble juggling it all. Its up to them when they level, so keep it as simple as possible. You don't NEED the other books anyway.

I like the idea of using a Beguiler for Layla, but she can get just as much fun out of being an enchanter Wizard...especially at lower levels. Go with Beguiler if you want to open up another book full of Feats...which I don't recommend.

I've run MANY games over the decades for kids around the age of 10, and find that they don't really care what they take...as long as they LIKE their character and are having fun. An orc that picks his nose will be outrageously more fun for them than making them spend an hour pouring over books to find feats that they mostly won't care about enough to spend that much time.

Focus on the Game, not the Rules.


Storme

 

[Elethiomel]

I have little in the way of detail that hasn't already been covered except for one small point:

KISS

Keep it Strictly Simple

As Kids...they are going to LOVE everything that happens as long as it is fun and rewarding. As a result, limit their choices of Feats to Players Handbook. Everything else just adds a big load of information, and some, especially the 8 year old, will have trouble juggling it all. Its up to them when they level, so keep it as simple as possible. You don't NEED the other books anyway.

I like the idea of using a Beguiler for Layla, but she can get just as much fun out of being an enchanter Wizard...especially at lower levels. Go with Beguiler if you want to open up another book full of Feats...which I don't recommend.

I've run MANY games over the decades for kids around the age of 10, and find that they don't really care what they take...as long as they LIKE their character and are having fun. An orc that picks his nose will be outrageously more fun for them than making them spend an hour pouring over books to find feats that they mostly won't care about enough to spend that much time.

Focus on the Game, not the Rules.

Thing is, you can import a class from another book and not make the player read that book. You can look through the feats and pick out ones that are fitting for the class, then give them a list of choices tailored to the player's individual understanding of the rules. You don't need to push the book in front of them and make them read the list of feats in order to incorporate that book into your game.

If the Beguiler better represents what this girl wants to be able to do in game than the Enchanter Wizard does, go for it. Having rules support for action tends to be superior because you don't need to make up rules on the spot. That can often lead to inconsistency, and if there's one thing I know of kids, it's that they are very good indeed at spotting inconsistencies.

 

[Darklone]

... and that's (potentially) fine. But you should be aware that you're taking class features away from some PCs in order to give them to all PCs.

Serious question: when you PLAY, how do you answer when a PC asks the question, "Is he lying?"

With kids? I act. Mimic, gestures. Then everyone at the table screams "HE'S A LIAR!" and grab their padded swords and charge me