Age by Level

[Omegas]

Someone asked how I track age in game. I am not sure what source this may have be published in, but I know it is a Wizards variant. I was exposed to it at a Convention many years ago.


RAW [rules as written] does not support characters reaching epic levels before aging. Heroes can be prodigies to start with by excluding the initial education years, but to have an epic level youth, pushes the limits of D&D. Think if it like this, in a handful of short years or even months a character can reach their maximum potential as near Gods, after which (lvl 40), they never advance further regardless of how long they adventure.

Though this is a fantasy game it offers suggested time lapses from everything from travel, to crafting items, and much more. The problem is that few DMs bother to track in game time, and by ignoring this game feature, they effectively debunk game features like druid & monk Timeless Body.

Wizards offered this variant as a clarification; ... Between adventures, quest, or wherever the story line has the opportunity for a period of down time – a character should catch up with their respective age. Leveling represents the experiences earned in an adventure, time spent training, and reflecting on those experiences. A wizard, for example, needs time to study new spells. This can consist of searching countless texts, merchants, or consulting masters to find the spells they are interested in learning, which all takes a great deal of time. This concept does not only apply to wizards and their musty books, it applies to every aspect of character advancement including new abilities, feats, BAB, and even simple skills. To learn characters have to repeatedly practice, before they level, and it should never be assumed that the character simply consumes every waking moment (while not adventuring) preparing to level. A character first level takes several years to prepare for, so each level there after should represent a significant period of time based on the character’s race. Humans pick up knowledge quickly whereas elves can practice for many years to perfect their skills. When a character levels also adjust their age as follows;

Starting ages page 109 PHB.
Plus a number of years per level as follows; – Note these numbers are based on race longevities over 40 levels.

Human........... (1.0)
Dwarf............ (4.5)
Elf.................. (5.0)
Gnome........... (3.0)
Half - Elf....... (2.0)
Half - Orc...... (1.0)
Halfling......... (1.5)

When leveling in the middle of a mission, this does not represent their current age but what their age should be after their next lapse in the story line. For the duration of a current mission or quest their age should remain the same. DMs should evaluate each point when aging is appropriate. These lapse can also be good periods to adjust character wealth or allow the story environment to rebuild / develop.

As most races have different longevities, it can be simply explained that adventuring is hard on characters. Like a life of hard manual labor, adventure ages a character faster then normal. There will always be conflicts with short lived races verse long live ones, like elves, but it does not change the fact that an epic level youth is broken. An elf should not achieve max level in what would be considered their teenager years only to set on their thumbs for the rest of their very long lives. As there is no way to bring characters back to life who have died of old age, characters with vast differences in longevity will have to accept that they meet each other at a nonspecific periods in their lives.

Players may disagree with this variant, but keep in mind that a player’s perspective of game play is significantly faster then that of a character’s perspective of in game time. Few races would set up a community in a hostile environment. If attacks happen more than once every few months then no community would keep up a population, but from the perspective of the player, they can battle several times in the course of one session. If your players wait around in a tavern for the next fool to run in with a quest, then tell them there was nothing for several in game months or years.

With this variant; normal characters will only ever experience the effects of middle age, while few epic characters (level 20 +) will ever reach venerable ages before level 40 and this is limited to disciplined classes like monks and wizards. This variant provides balance to DMs that find tracking in-game time too tedious. It can also offer players a method of evaluating enemies. Most adventures start out young in life, so if the party faces an old fighter then there is a good chance that he is extremely skilled.

In 3.5 “AGE” is commonly refereed to as an affliction. It is not a disease but a lasting condition that can not be cured without powerful magic. There are several magical methods available to epic character to reduce their physical age. The best of which is the wish or miracle spell. Each time it is cast it reduces the player age by one age category +1year per age altering spells that has been cast on the character.

You can sum up a dwarf's level by the length of their beard.

This system has little to no effect, up until level 22ish, other then preventing children, teens, or young adults from become epic characters. DMs do not need not track in-game time, simply have the players adjust their age when leveling.

A Homebrewed alteration to this.
Core aging does pose more of an impact to Warrior and Expert types after level 35ish. Granted by that time the cost of reversing aging is ridiculously inexpensive. I have never liked the aging effects listed on pg 109. It seems overly generic and unrealistic.

Normal D&D Aging

Middle Age
-1 Str, Dex, and Con
+1 Int, Wis, Cha

Old Age
-2 Str, Dex, and Con
+1 Int, Wis, Cha

Venerable Age
-3 Str, Dex, and Con
+1 Int, Wis, Cha

Alternative Aging.
Instead of offering a flat +1 to all non-physical attributes, offer the player a choice to reallocate the +1 Cha to one of the physical attributes.

This will allow players to reduce the negative effect of aging, to a point. Aging should represent a loss of Physique but if a character dedicates their life to maintaining their body then they should be able to reduce the effects of age.

How to revers aging.
The best method is the Wish spell. In early editions, a deterrent to the Wish spell was that it caused the caster to age. In 3.5 the spell is significantly weaker. Also in 3.5 the effects of aging are occasional refereed to as an affliction which is covered under the Wish spell.

A "potentially" less expensive method is the Reincarnation spell. Though a character has to die in order to be reincarnated it is far less expensive then the Wish spell. The down side is the new young body is of a random race. The dead character does have the choice to refuse the new body, in which case the spell fails and must be attempted again (possible chance for a better body)

Many could argue that the use of any item or prolonged effect that provides "regeneration" also stops physical aging. This, however, does not stop characters from counting their real age by level. It merely means they will not physically age and thus never change the category of their age.

Finally there are many magical item "quarks" that can make a character younger or older while they are using an item. These additional magical effects normally do not raise the cost of the item.

The Pros and Cons of Aging by LevelProThe main advantage is clear. The whole point of "age by level" is to bridge the gape between age and skill.

At level 40 a character has no more room to grow so having a God level teenager is more of a punishment to a character, then having a fulfilling life of adventure that lead them to that point. Think of it as if the roles were reversed. Your a level 40 character and you players is pretty much done with you, so your going to be filled in a dust old folder. Would you rather be the young legend that will never again see adventure for the remainder of their long life, or the retiring old warrior ready to live out the rest of their days in peace.

ProCharacters now have a better way evaluating the risk of savage / civilized races. Age = Skill, so the older something is the more likely they know what they are doing.

ConThe difference in age between sort lived races (human, half-orc, halfling) and long lived races (elf, dwarf).

It may be hard to grasp how an elf could age 5 years while a human only aged 1 but it is no different then having an epic level teenage with nothing left to do for the rest of it's existence.

[limejuicepowder]

Each race learns at a different rate. Humans pick up knowledge quickly where as elves can practice for years to perfect their skills.


This I have a problem with. Basically, it says the long-lived races are incredible slow (aka, stupid) to learn ANYTHING (think about it this way: most elves would reach their teens before they are potty trained). Meta-gaming, this is all in the name of maintaining relative age to power through a character's career. Why bother? Elves and dwarves live for a mad long time; it stands to reason that they have a better chance of being extremely powerful.

Really, I find the whole idea of elves and dwarves not reaching maturity until most humans are dead and gone rather ridicules. An elf is 115 years old, level 1, and ready to begin his first adventure? Seriously? What the heck has he been doing?

Aging characters between adventures and as the plot allows makes total sense, but I see no reason to tie it to character level.

Edit: Also, making age go up automatically with level ONCE AGAIN favors spellcasters. Except for gishes, every caster in the world would gladly trade away points of attributes they barely use for bonuses in the ones they do. Mundanes aren't so lucky, are they?

[Thomasinx]

Well, that answers my question (I was the one asking you how you tracked age). Since your players in your current campaign are currently burning all their XP on crafting instead of levelling, this makes your players effectively immortal.

As a method of implementing this, would you track age by level? or by experience gained? (ie, if a player gains enough accumulated experience to level, they age even if they spend the XP on something else)

Personally I prefer just to use RAW age. It also means you won't have players that age 1 or 2 years in the same time period you have players aging 10 years.

[Omegas]

Really, I find the whole idea of elves and dwarves not reaching maturity until most humans are dead and gone rather ridicules. A In some way I would agree with you, In others not so much. My cat grew into adulthood in a little less then 1 year where it took me 14. Granted a cat is not a race but it is a good example of longevity. Some of the books I read suggest that Elves raise their young in nursery villages, kind of like some of the Zelda games. They are raised their infants to an age equivalent to a human 6 year old and then give a small house, food, and basic needs. Usually a few caretakers watch over them.

As for Dwarves their children spend more time in the mines and work shop then the adults.

It's less an issue of intelligence and more of reaching an age of maturity. I know many adults that are just as naive or spirited as a child. To be honest I would enjoy living as an elf. Clinging to the innocence of youth and the wanderlust that comes with being young and believing you can do anything.

My own youth resembled a life more like a Dwarf. From the age of 13 on up I worked in a factory doing a mans work to help my family. Perspective is a point of view. If you can put yourself in that culture and see it from their side then it is not that hard to fathom.


As a method of implementing this, would you track age by level? or by experience gained? (ie, if a player gains enough accumulated experience to level, they age even if they spend the XP on something else)

Well there not immortal. Although tracking their EXP would be a good way of keeping my crafters from grinding years I simply take the extra laps of time and tack in on their age much like the years of class training. They gained their age from the previous level. Generally I would only track excessive downtime if it represented more then 1/4 of their average age by level. While they are goofing off they are aging in excess of their age by level.

[Ranting Fool]

at the moment i'm keeping track of time (A lot of extra paperwork) but once each major quest is done I say they have downtime to "practice their skills/rest and relax" and it being longer for higher levels then lower...

Though I have it less for aging and more for alowing the world to change based on their actions. (They saved X town, that town has now grown and there is a statue of them and the people cheer them when they come back to town) and the world and plot can advance without being rushed.

[tyckspoon]

at the moment i'm keeping track of time (A lot of extra paperwork) but once each major quest is done I say they have downtime to "practice their skills/rest and relax" and it being longer for higher levels then lower...

Though I have it less for aging and more for alowing the world to change based on their actions. (They saved X town, that town has now grown and there is a statue of them and the people cheer them when they come back to town) and the world and plot can advance without being rushed.

As best as I can tell this is actually one of the unwritten assumptions of the game, one of those things the devs thought Everybody Did and so they didn't have to mention it- Adventurers don't spend every single day adventuring. In between your major adventures you're 'supposed' to spend a couple of weeks or months off- use those 'flavor' points you have in Craft or Profession or Perform, attend to your societal responsibilities, and so on. It relieves the setting weirdness of having no-name nobodies turn into setting-defining Big Names in six months, it makes characters more into people and less Wandering Superpower Murderhobos, and it lets Wizards and crafters actually work (making items and scribing down new spells takes *forever* in the context of a game where you're always bouncing from crisis to crisis.)

[Ranting Fool]

(making items and scribing down new spells takes *forever* in the context of a game where you're always bouncing from crisis to crisis.)

Yes very much so :smallbiggrin:

In the past my Players have told me they plan to:

Do useful downtime crafting

Craft MW weapons for a small towns guards

Go to the local Good Church and offer Free Healing to anyone who is sick and needy (Mid-High level casters being rare in smaller towns/city)

Spend time turned into a Tree to commune more with nature

Spend the time using bardic music going round all the tavens every evening telling tales of how HE was the one who saved the day and everyone else just helped out a bit so all the glory goes to the Halfling Bard who failed to do anything useful other then inspire in the last final big boss fight

Train with the local town guard showing them his years of Fighter Exp and teach a few Exotic weapon Prof to people for free

Get drunk every night for the two month because what is the point of killing a dragon if you can't party once in a while

Start a charity and orphanage

and many more random things that are very good for building up characters (And for plot hooks)

[Ravens_cry]

Tangent: Why do some people insist on putting down walls of text with in colours with atrocious contrast?
It fails at communication for me, as my eyes just glaze over and I read nothing. That obviously was not your intent, you obviously took the time to craft an otherwise well formatted lengthy post, only to ruin it, for this one at least, by choosing to use eye searing blue lettering. The only things worse would be cyan blue or yellow.
Why, in gods names, why? :smallsigh:

[Omegas]

, by choosing to use eye searing blue lettering. The only things worse would be cyan blue or yellow.
Why, in gods names, why? :smallsigh: Really? Well I apologize. I dont like to plagiarize. Using a different color simply made it easy to indicate what a Wizard Writer wrote it. (and thus I did not want to take credit for it) I have had the honor of meeting several of the writers. I have played at more conventions then I care to admit.

[Taelas]

You could have just quoted it. :smallwink:

[Ranting Fool]

You could have just quoted it. :smallwink:

That's crazy talk! :smalltongue:

[JadePhoenix]

"When looking in a mirror you see exactly who you chose to be. Are you happy with the reflection that stairs back?"

Stares. Please. Stares.
These are stairs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Stairway_in_ford_plant_in_LA_from_HABS.jpg/220px-Stairway_in_ford_plant_in_LA_from_HABS.jpg

[Ravens_cry]

You could have just quoted it. :smallwink:
Or simply put a disclaimer saying words to the effect of "This isn't mine, but I thought it worth putting here so others can share in the wisdom I have received."
Thank you.:smallsmile:
I'm not sure I would use such a system in light of the age penalties and bonuses, and it's a bit too AD&D "Let's add a table for everything" for my tastes, but if it works for you . . .

[Omegas]

There is that better?




It relieves the setting weirdness of having no-name nobodies turn into setting-defining Big Names in six months, it makes characters more into people and less Wandering Superpower Murderhobos, and it lets Wizards and crafters actually work Exactly. It takes years alone to advance to level "1".

This is not so unwriten. This is word for word from a sheet I received from the hands of an actual writer. They were handing them out at random at a convention as an attendance prize. My friend receive the same one. By the end of the convention I had 6 and my friend received 3. Throughout the gaming the writer indicated these where true Variants.

So it should be published somewhere. Though considering its minor impact on game play it is probably in a dusty archive.

Never the less I like the ability to judge your opponents ability (level) best. The thing is that there is no good way of determining the level of a experienced opponent. A first level Half orc can be scared from head to stubby toe and be equipped with all magical junk and you have no way of knowing that he is not a level 20 elite with top shelf gear. By making age a identifier with skill it's easy to say this guy may be better then you.

This is mainly because I dont think players should be babied. There are bigger fish in every sea. So if someone is trying to pick a fight, you may just be better off tucking tail and backing down. The concept of = "My DM is not suppose to expose us to things we cant handle" is broken and completely wrong.

[Jack_Simth]

Someone asked how I track age in game. I am not sure what source this may have be published in, but I know it is a Wizards variant. I was exposed to it at a Convention many years ago.



You can sum up a dwarf's level by the length of their beard.
So... what happens when you have both a human and an elf who adventure together? Does the human have to wait for the elf to finish levelling up before they can go on another adventure, or does the elf have to suck up being progressively further behind in levels? Do they both just mystically age enough years so that they line up in level, despite that implying different time planes or some such?

[Water_Bear]

I like the idea of this as a way to estimate character's ages at the start of a campaign; fewer Venerable Elf Druid 2s and Loli Catfolk Sorceress 20s would suit me just fine. But actually using that chart in play?

In every campaign I've ever run, the main villain is doing something. If the players spend a year or more between every couple of sessions*, well, what on Oerth happened to the BBEG? Did they fall down a well?

Plus, since every race has a different rate of advancement, and the chart says to skip all the PCs forwards per "downtime" break. Each timeskip the Elf gets 7 years older the Gnome gets 4.5 years older and the Human only ages a year and a half?! The hell?

Don't get me wrong I believe in downtime between fights. Usually one of my sessions has one large 'Spectacle' fight after 2-3 days of IC role-playing and side-quests, and there is up to a week between sessions due to traveling time, crafting or just characters kicking their feet up. But if your players are sitting around for weeks or months, what is happening to the world in the meantime?

My 2cp, for the little it's worth. :smallsmile:

*I know it says to use it in lapses in the story, but... has anyone ever had a campaign keep going after the major threat was stopped? Why not start a new campaign entirely?

[Jack_Simth]

In every campaign I've ever run, the main villain is doing something. If the players spend a year or more between every couple of sessions*, well, what on Oerth happened to the BBEG? Did they fall down a well? Quietly rebuilding forces, digging out dungeons, building traps, crafting items, handling the groundwork for manipulating princes....

[Morithias]

*I know it says to use it in lapses in the story, but... has anyone ever had a campaign keep going after the major threat was stopped? Why not start a new campaign entirely?

Hell Yes I have. In fact my setting has bloody CONTINUITY. Using this system would completely destroy my ability to do such a thing!

[The Glyphstone]

I like the idea of this as a way to estimate character's ages at the start of a campaign; fewer Venerable Elf Druid 2s and Loli Catfolk Sorceress 20s would suit me just fine. But actually using that chart in play?

In every campaign I've ever run, the main villain is doing something. If the players spend a year or more between every couple of sessions*, well, what on Oerth happened to the BBEG? Did they fall down a well?

Plus, since every race has a different rate of advancement, and the chart says to skip all the PCs forwards per "downtime" break. Each timeskip the Elf gets 7 years older the Gnome gets 4.5 years older and the Human only ages a year and a half?! The hell?

Don't get me wrong I believe in downtime between fights. Usually one of my sessions has one large 'Spectacle' fight after 2-3 days of IC role-playing and side-quests, and there is up to a week between sessions due to traveling time, crafting or just characters kicking their feet up. But if your players are sitting around for weeks or months, what is happening to the world in the meantime?

My 2cp, for the little it's worth. :smallsmile:

*I know it says to use it in lapses in the story, but... has anyone ever had a campaign keep going after the major threat was stopped? Why not start a new campaign entirely?

I think the idea isn't for years between sessions, but years between quest arcs/campaigns - so the BBEG isn't doing anything, because he's been defeated. The Downtime for the players is the time when either there is no new BBEG to defeat yet, or the impending new BBEG is still working his way up to BBEG status. This can last for years, hence the time skip.

[Taelas]

So... what happens when you have both a human and an elf who adventure together? Does the human have to wait for the elf to finish levelling up before they can go on another adventure, or does the elf have to suck up being progressively further behind in levels? Do they both just mystically age enough years so that they line up in level, despite that implying different time planes or some such?

It's actually addressed in the original quote. Adventuring is "hard on characters", according to it, so they age "faster than normal". I find this rather ludicrous, personally, but hey.

I wouldn't touch the system with a standard-issue ten-foot pole because of the issues it presents, especially how it completely demolishes any hope for any melee character ever.

[Omegas]

So... what happens when you have both a human and an elf who adventure together? Does the human have to wait for the elf to finish levelling up before they can go on another adventure, or does the elf have to suck up being progressively further behind in levels? Do they both just mystically age enough years so that they line up in level, despite that implying different time planes or some such?Its hard to say. It is a variant and i did not write it.

If I had to guess then I would say that you could simply assume the party members did not realize the full age of their allies when they first met. Or more appropriately, As it says - Adventuring is hard on characters. Much like LOTR Frodo & Bilbo both felt the weight of many years. Bilbo because he experienced far more year then natural and Frodo because he was exposed to experiences that shortened his overall perspective. This is all hypothetical but you could suggest that hardships were down a body as much as age.


In every campaign I've ever run, the main villain is doing something. If the players spend a year or more between every couple of sessions*, well, what on Oerth happened to the BBEG? Did they fall down a well?

*I know it says to use it in lapses in the story, but... has anyone ever had a campaign keep going after the major threat was stopped? Why not start a new campaign entirely? You could but there also should be some periods of downtime. A party could raise 7 levels in one fast paced campaign but there after (at some point) they should have a lenghty period where little to nothing happens.

I wouldn't touch the system with a standard-issue ten-foot pole because of the issues it presents, especially how it completely demolishes any hope for any melee character ever.
You see I dont get that. A minimal amount of stat negs does not counter a good fighter. I have no problem playing a venerable barbarian, fighter, or paladin. 1 to 2 Physical stat +2 non-Physical stats can easily be countered with an amulet by that level or tomes, and by lvl 35 its easy to pay to have aging reversed with any spell capable of doing so. So you really should never take the -6.

[Ranting Fool]

Exactly. It takes years alone to advance to level "1".

...

Never the less I like the ability to judge your opponents ability (level) best. The thing is that there is no good way of determining the level of a experienced opponent. A first level Half orc can be scared from head to stubby toe and be equipped with all magical junk and you have no way of knowing that he is not a level 20 elite with top shelf gear. By making age a identifier with skill it's easy to say this guy may be better then you.

The concept of "My DM is not suppose to expose us to things we cant handle" is broken and completely wrong.

Last part first: My view is that the DM (Most often me) is there to make sure everyone (or as much of the players as you can since some people can just be grumpy) is having fun. Killing players off at random because i'm in a bad mood is a bad thing. But my players thinking "Ranting Fool will never put in an NPC that I don't stand a chance of beating, I'll just ignore the good npc's hints to run from the BBEG and I'll charge him right now!"

Though I do like a random NPC with a good bluff skill... I am the BBEG of doom run from me! When they could crush him in a stand up fight is rather good fun from time to time.

Players who think the DM will not let their character die don't ever feel any danger... and how can there be the thrill of winning if there isn't at least a chance of failure (and death)

As for Level by Age. Most of my NPC's will be aged depending on their level, not the BBEG or Other Adventuring Parties but everyone else in the world is meant to take longer to level up (partly because they don't go out nearly die 5-10 times per week) so the Sage they chat to is very old or the old Sword Master is past his prime. Though War Vets from a war only a few years past often are much higher level then their age would show.

Thats just me though :smallsmile:

[JadePhoenix]

I think d20 Modern has a rule for age by level.

[Omegas]

Players who think the DM will not let their character die don't ever feel any danger... and how can there be the thrill of winning if there isn't at least a chance of failure (and death)
Agreed. And that is how I ment it. Players should not believe they can not be defeated. They should be beaten and left for dead from time to time. Another factor is being defeated should not always = death. DMs should not be vengeful but players should not be looking to prove their point by stabbing the opposition in the face. There is a whole list of skills and techniques which encompass a vast portion of D&D, that a majority of player never use because their DMs allow the party to play like thugs.

Your level 2 and there is a dragon about 1/2 of a mile down the road (do you charge or hide?) Some players would say it was the DMs fault they die at the hands of a dragon.

Back on Age

Remember this is D&D. There are troves of ways to reduce your age. This age by level is the natural progression of a characters life. That does not mean that they can not Wish to be younger (one age bracket) or perhaps even die and get a fresh young body from a reincarnate spell. (not exactly desirable but inexpensive and effective) In 1st and 2nd edition wish actually caused you to age. It was a good way to keep people from abusing it. But in 3.0 an 3.5 the effects of aging are defined in several places as an affliction which wish can remove.

[Taelas]

You see I dont get that. A minimal amount of stat negs does not counter a good fighter. I have not problem playing a venerable barbarian, fighter, or paladin. =6 Physical stat +3 non-Physical stats can easily be countered with an amulet by that level or tomes.

No. Even if those items are not already assumed to be in place, you are now asking your melee players to sink the majority of their wealth into items that only shore up vulnerabilities, while the caster players get free boosts to their primary stats, with negligible penalties to stats they already don't care about (save Con).

The melee players have sunk their wealth into nothing, while the casters are free to devote theirs to their strengths rather than to shore up weaknesses.

The absolutely massive disparity would make me quit any game involving this at once.

[TuggyNE]

A minimal amount of stat negs does not counter a good fighter. I have not problem playing a venerable barbarian, fighter, or paladin. =6 Physical stat +3 non-Physical stats can easily be countered with an amulet by that level or tomes.

The problem is that at mid- to high-op, the amulets and tomes are assumed just to keep pace, and even then are not really enough. Putting in further penalties is just adding insult to Tier 4/5 injury. (Honestly, I consider myself usually a low- to mid-op player, but I would not play a Barbarian 20 without spending a substantial fraction WBL on stat-boosting items, including tomes.)

[White_Drake]

So... what happens when you have both a human and an elf who adventure together? Does the human have to wait for the elf to finish levelling up before they can go on another adventure, or does the elf have to suck up being progressively further behind in levels? Do they both just mystically age enough years so that they line up in level, despite that implying different time planes or some such?

Theory of Relativity: The faster you go the slower time goes; humans have much slower metabolisms than elves, therefore what seems to be 1.5 years for a human is actually 7 years for an elf. Honestly, the idea of forcing characters to age at proportional rates to their total lifespan seems ridiculous to me, there's a reason that they printed more than one race row in the aging effects table. I'm sorry Half-Orc, but you'll just have to suck it up and accept that by the time an Elf finally finishes adolescence you will have died twice and be back to maturity. By this standard, would Orcs mature at age eight? I might have a problem stabbing them in the face if I knew that they were only eight years old... A big problem though, is that looking at comparative metabolisms based off age, why do elves have to eat? I mean they could probably get away with a monthly sandwich.

[Omegas]

No. Even if those items are not already assumed to be in place, you are now asking your melee players to sink the majority of their wealth into items that only shore up vulnerabilities, while the caster players get free boosts to their primary stats, with negligible penalties to stats they already don't care about (save Con).

The melee players have sunk their wealth into nothing, while the casters are free to devote theirs to their strengths rather than to shore up weaknesses.

The absolutely massive disparity would make me quit any game involving this at once. By the time they feel these effect their WBL would more then compensate. Your also forgetting that many (not all) mage and export types poor significant amount of wealth in supporting the group where most warrior types focus on the next armor of weapon buff.

[Ranting Fool]

...you are now asking your melee players to sink the majority of their wealth into items that only shore up vulnerabilities, while the caster players get free boosts to their primary stats, with negligible penalties to stats they already don't care about (save Con).


I've always found it odd that when players get really very old they get smarter and wiser all the time... and none of them ever risk going senile

[Omegas]

I've always found it odd that when players get really very old they get smarter and wiser all the time... and none of them ever risk going senile that is very true but this is D&D and they are heros so that says something.


The problem is that at mid- to high-op, the amulets and tomes are assumed just to keep pace, and even then are not really enough. Putting in further penalties is just adding insult to Tier 4/5 injury. (Honestly, I consider myself usually a low- to mid-op player, but I would not play a Barbarian 20 without spending a substantial fraction WBL on stat-boosting items, including tomes.) I agree there is a cost to keeping a handsome face but what is the the going rate for a reincarnate spell? Or if you dont want to kick the bucket with venerable knees, lets take the high road and pay for a full on wish spell. By level 20ish could you afford it? WBL does not assume that every copper piece is invested in your character's gear. A good portion should be invested in services and expendables. There too a good adventurer could have easily built up the affiliations to cover the cost outright. By the rules you could even have a magical item make you younger as a magical quark.

This variant merely outlines the natural progression of an adventures age with out the interference of magic.

Yes, but why should you need to spend anything just to compensate for a disadvantage? I'd rather just even the playing field instead of making the weaker athlete pay even more to keep up.
Because characters and classes have weaknesses. Why would a mage buy a Str belt? Because they cant carry all of their crap. Characters are not perfect the are simply better then the bulk of NPCs. Having weaknesses and being able to exploit them on the battle field makes playing the game more fun. It would not be as useful to grapple a goblin with a 2 handed weapon if they did not take the negatives to grapple for being small.

[Fatebreaker]

By the time they feel these effect their WBL would more then compensate. Your also forgetting that many (not all) mage and export types poor significant amount of wealth in supporting the group where most warrior types focus on the next armor of weapon buff.


I agree there is a cost to keeping a handsome face but what is the the going rate for a reincarnate spell? Or if you dont want to kick the bucket with venerable knees, lets take the high road and pay for a full on wish spell. By level 20ish could you afford it? WBL does not assume that every copper piece is invested in your character's gear. A good portion should be invested in services and expendables. There too a good adventurer could have easily built up the affiliations to cover the cost outright.

The important part isn't whether they can afford it. The important part is that if a melee and a caster invest equal wealth into primary stats, the melee is investing wealth to just stay in place, while the caster is actually moving forward.

[Omegas]

The important part isn't whether they can afford it. The important part is that if a melee and a caster invest equal wealth into primary stats, the melee is investing wealth to just stay in place, while the caster is actually moving forward. And the mage invested in a large portion of their wealth into help keep the party alive. An expense they normally can not get back.

[danzibr]

Stares. Please. Stares.
These are stairs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Stairway_in_ford_plant_in_LA_from_HABS.jpg/220px-Stairway_in_ford_plant_in_LA_from_HABS.jpg
You've never had a mirror stair back at you?

Anyways, when I've played and DM'd both we never keep track of age. Or rather, the adventures go quickly enough that aging isn't an issue.

[Omegas]

Anyways, when I've played and DM'd both we never keep track of age. Or rather, the adventures go quickly enough that aging isn't an issue.

And that is how most people play. As I pointed out this is a very minor variant. As easily used as it can be dismissed.

investing wealth
WBL = Expense

In the big picture of D&D there are less lasting items that benefit a mage then a fighter type. Once a fighter has a sword they can use it until they find something better and sell it, at a fair price. In reveres; the Mage's wand is worthless once depleted. Assuming that the Expert and Mage types are suppose to pick up the tab for everything is not justifiable.

Its all to easy to invest in a shinny bit of metal while other party members are forced to choose between buying the support stuff to keep you alive or buy better gear for their self.

My point is traditionally Warrior types do not invest Equally in other expenses. They also don't normally help cover the cost of compensating for other PC's weaknesses. So why should they be expected the expense to be any less for their weaknesses?

[Lappy9001]

I think it's a pretty cool idea, given the right group and play style. Our only long-lived adventure took place in just a bit under a year (in-game) as the characters powered through levels 3 to 15, but I can see it working for the right group of roleplayers.

And I agree about telling a dwarf's level by the length of their beard :smallcool:

[Taelas]

By the time they feel these effect their WBL would more then compensate. Your also forgetting that many (not all) mage and export types poor significant amount of wealth in supporting the group where most warrior types focus on the next armor of weapon buff.

What? This doesn't even begin to make sense.

A wand of magic missile doesn't support "the group", it supports the wizard who got it, period. If your party won't provide the gold pieces for items like wands of vigor, then don't let them benefit. If a caster is willing to eat the cost for such items without asking for payment, then that is that caster's choice. It should never be assumed to be the standard; that is just terrible.

Again: the wealth by level does not compensate, because the casters get the same wealth that the melee characters do, and if melee characters have to put wealth into shoring up weaknesses where casters don't have to, casters get more wealth.

I find the "rule" horribly disadvantageous for melee characters, and nothing you have said convinces me otherwise.

[Omegas]

What? This doesn't even begin to make sense.

A wand of magic missile doesn't support "the group", it supports the wizard who got it, period. If your party won't provide the gold pieces for items like wands of vigor, then don't let them benefit. If a caster is willing to eat the cost for such items without asking for payment, then that is that caster's choice. It should never be assumed to be the standard; that is just terrible.

Again: the wealth by level does not compensate, because the casters get the same wealth that the melee characters do, and if melee characters have to put wealth into shoring up weaknesses where casters don't have to, casters get more wealth.

I find the "rule" horribly disadvantageous for melee characters, and nothing you have said convinces me otherwise.

Your assuming that the Mage does not have to compensate for his own weaknesses. Like I pointed out. A wand once depleted is worthless. But no matter how many chinks are in the +1 sword that the warrior has run through unnumbered unsavery creatures guts. It can still be sold for a good portion of its true value.

Many of the magical item for mages decrease their value with every use and few warrior battle items can say the same. Furthermore as the warrior type advances in skills their ability to damage with whatever weapon they are using increases, where as, a staff or wand is set at the caster level it was created.

Its foolish to assume that warriors are nurfed in wealth when Mages have to deal with similar handicaps as a standard part of their advancement. They get little to nothing in return for their used gear and Warriors cry about paying for 3 medium to high level spell services? That's what does not make since.

Perhaps your assuming that you have to compensate for each stat point which would be wrong. Magically you have to compensate for age not abilities. Once your age drops you below a level all the effect fad off too.

After level 20 most characters are advancing into the bottom stages of godhood so they should be at a point where they either retire of find a way to eliminate age as a factor altogether.

[Fatebreaker]

And the mage invested in a large portion of their wealth, they can not get back to help keep the party alive.

In the big picture of D&D there are less lasting items that benefit a mage then a fighter type. Once a fighter has a sword they can use it until they find something better and sell it fairly well. But the mage's wand is worthless once depleted. Assuming that the Expert and Mage types are suppose to pick up the tab for everything is not justifiable.

Its all to easy to invest in a shinny bit of metal while your other party members have to debate on buying the support stuff to keep you alive or buy better gear for their self.

My point is traditionally Warrior types do not invest Equally in other expenses. They also don't normally help cover the cost of compensating for other PC's weaknesses. So why should they be expected the expense to be any less for their weaknesses?

Err... none of that is relevant to what I'm saying.

Perhaps an example will help. We have a Fighter-player (primary stat of Strength) and a Wizard-player (primary stat of Intellect). Each goes out to purchase a magic item for their primary stat.

The Belt of Giant Strength +4 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltofGiantStrength) is 16,000 gold.

The Headband of Intellect +4 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#headbandofIntellect) is also 16,000 gold.

Each player invests 16,000 gold for a +4 bonus to their primary stat. However, with old age, the Fighter-player must spend more money to maintain the same benefit. In this case, he must spend 36,000 gold to obtain a Belt of Giant Strength +6 to maintain his +4 bonus (+6 to strength for the belt, -2 to strength for being in the old category). He must spend 20,000 more gold to get the same benefit. The Wizard-player, meanwhile, at no more cost, gains a free bonus to his intellect.

The Fighter-player, instead of spending money to improve, is spending more money to not suck.

--

On a sidenote, I think you're trying to argue that age penalties are a "tax" on melee for previously draining the wealth of casters. Is that right? That seems to be your argument. You've made more than a few statements in that vein.

If a cleric invests money in healing the party, and the player wanted to play a healer, then the Cleric-player is investing money to better fulfill his role. When he buys a Periapt of Wisdom +4 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#periaptofWisdom) (also for 16,000 gold), he's buying a tool which helps him and improves him. The fact that it improves his ability to keep the fighter alive shouldn't be held against the fighter, because a healing cleric contributes to the party by healing.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that casters "pick up the tab for everything." That may be true in your group, but that's not something presumed by the mechanics of the game, and nor should it be.

--

Edit: I totally forgot that age penalties are cumulative. So that Old Fighter-player, even with an extra 20,000 gold invested over his Wizard-player buddy, is actually at +3 instead of +6. The Wizard-player, having spent 20,000 gold less, is now at +6 instead of his purchased +4.

That's right. The fighter paid 36,000 gold vs. 16,000 gold to receive half the bonus in his primary stat.

[Water_Bear]

In the big picture of D&D there are less lasting items that benefit a mage then a fighter type.

That is technically true, but it just emphasizes even more why Melee builds need their WBL to function. Lets just look at what different classes spend money on and how much they need them;


Melee:
Ability Boosting Items: Absolutely Necessary, and actually factored into CR by the game designers.
Armor and other AC Boosters: Absolutely Necessary. While AC sucks, it is still the best defense most Melee characters can get. I would also personally include items which give Blur or Mirror Image here as well.
Save Boosting Items: Absolutely Necessary if they are expected to survive Save or Die / Save or Lose spells and abilities.
Items to Replace Missing Class Features: Absolutely needed so that, for example, a Rogue isn't (even more) useless whenever an Undead or Construct shows up or so that a Fighter can fight a Flying / Teleporting opponent.
Weapons: Absolutely Necessary, and again AC for monsters is set based on the assumption each melee character has the best weapon enhancements available at each level.
Utility Items: Important; a Rogue still needs a Hat of Disguise and a quiver full of wands to stay relevant at every level, and they actually have skill points.


Casters:
Ability Boosting Items: Important, but can be replicated with low level spells.
Save Boosting Items: Important, but again are just one layer of a Caster's defenses.
Expensive Material Components: More or less optional, unless playing a Necromancer. This also includes things like a Wizard's spellbook.
Utility Items: Almost all of these are just ways for non-casters to get access to spells. Spellcasters have the spells.
Crafting: Crafting actually makes the rest of your items 50% cheaper! It costs negative money!


Non-casters are item dependent and their WBL is as core to their class's functioning as their BAB. Casters, especially Sorcerers and other non-crafting spontaneous spellcasters, do not need a lot of money; their WBL could be slashed in half without losing functionality.

Thus; If you force Melee characters to spend more money to avert Age Penalties, while giving Casters free Age Bonuses you are just widening the Wealth divide.

[Taelas]

Your assuming that the Mage does not have to compensate for his own weaknesses. Like I pointed out. A wand once depleted is worthless. But no matter how many chinks are in the +1 sword that the warrior has run through unnumbered unsavery creatures guts. It can still be sold for a good portion of its true value.
Yeah, that doesn't matter at all. If you don't like wands, don't buy wands.


Many of the magical item for mages decrease their value with every use and few warrior battle items can say the same. Furthermore as the warrior type advances in skills their ability to damage with whatever weapon they are using increases, where as, a staff or wand is set at the caster level it was created.

Its foolish to assume that warriors are nurfed in wealth when Mages have to deal with similar handicaps as a standard part of their advancement. They get little to nothing in return for their used gear and Warriors cry about paying for 3 medium to high level spell services? That's what does not make since.
Melee characters need to buy magic items like swords and armors to function. A caster does not need a wand to function. You are arguing that consumables (a benefit) is somehow equal to equipment (a requirement).

The thing you are assuming is a benefit is a detriment.

Casters need less gear than melee characters. They already have more wealth to spend on consumables because they don't need a golf bag full of different weapons for different enemies. You are arguing that they should have even more wealth.

This is ignoring the fact that the items you say should "compensate" for the drawbacks of aging are already incorporated into the most basic gear for a high-level melee character. They already have those items, without considering the effects of aging, and they still don't function as well as casters.


Perhaps your assuming that you have to compensate for each stat point which would be wrong. Magically you have to compensate for age not abilities. Once your age drops you below a level all the effect fad off too.

After level 20 most characters are advancing into the bottom stages of godhood so they should be at a point where they either retire of find a way to eliminate age as a factor altogether.
You don't get it.

Casters don't have to do this.

A wizard can be level 20, venerable, and still go on adventures until the day he drops dead, with virtually no drawbacks and penalties (he has a minor inconvenience from a -6 Con score and a possible maybe from a -6 Dex score, but that's it). A fighter who is level 20 and venerable needs to invest a hefty amount of resources into either "compensating" for his drawbacks (which just means he won't get the benefit a younger warrior would), or somehow cheesing his way around age (in which case, why are you making age a factor in the first place?!).

Why should I be forced to let my character undergo reincarnation? It's ridiculous.

[Omegas]

The Fighter-player, instead of spending money to improve, is spending more money to not suck.
Agreed but your associating the cost of a buff item to counter your handicap with there are easier and less costly ways. Its like comparing a Staff of the Magi to a +1 sword, it makes no since.

There are many ways to make a character Physically Younger despite their actual age (at a fraction of the cost) So your +4 would still benefit you fully.

I think you all are hung up on the -6 and not doing the math. Let me brake it down for you in a way that should be easier to grasp. Human Warrior type.

:smallannoyed: About level 10 +/-1 you reach middle age. I take -1 to my primary stats. Not the end of the world but nothing more then could be thrown my way in normal battle. From level ten to my next age increase, I could afford to counter this with buff items, but honestly its a small drop in the bucket compared to the future -6. I might worry about my primary stat but this is not a kick to the family jewels for a fighter at this stage. Its even probable I will stumble on a few items to counter this issue. My only cost effective recourse would be to be brought back to live in a younger body (reincarnation). Not overly costly should I die, but the party is going to have to cover the cost anyway to get me back.

:smallannoyed: About level 21 +/-2 I reach Old Age. Negative -3 to my primary stats. Ok now it is official more then an annoyance. Level 21ish I think I can afford one wish spell to turn back the clock of this affliction. There are 4 other spells that come to mind that would also work, but they evolve extra steps and are not worth the difference in cost. You know our mage should be able to cast it at this point so it would only cost me the material components and a little compensation for the Exp loss. If not I would find someone I trust, pay for the reincarnation spell and drink some seriously fatal poison.

:smallconfused: Should I go on to level 34ish now that hope you can see my point?

These are (a few) of the easiest ways to revers the effects of age in D&D. They are inexpensive or at least a comparable expenditure for WBL. No greater or less then the losses other classes face or countering their in-game wealth weaknesses.

This system tracks a characters present age, which includes their magically adjusted age. If they want to go full elder by level 40 that is their choice. And all of the other races age equivalent to my example above.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

There are many ways to make a character Physically Younger despite their actual age (at a fraction of the cost) So your +4 would still benefit you fully.

While I'm aware of that, the "best" example is reincarnate or its big brother "Last Breath," which leads to that awkward moment of the former dwarf saying something like:


Wait, I'm... I'm a goblin?! Druid, you know this won't stand: get me dagger and do it again. Iffen 'm short, make me a gnome, not some greenskinned gobby!

It's odd and humorous, but all the same disconcerting. Clearly, the best method is to be a Warforged and "instant level" because magical wooden brains are the best.[/sarcasm]

[Omegas]

While I'm aware of that, the "best" example is reincarnate or its big brother "Last Breath," which leads to that awkward moment of the former dwarf saying something like You know I dont recal the details of that spell but I do know if you don't like the body you can refuse to come back, forcing them to try again. And as you pointed out there are better spells they just cost more. These are the least expensive alternatives.

[Water_Bear]

As a rule, when you have to Reincarnate multiple times in your campaign something is wrong.

I like the idea of this Variant Rule. It is a nice way to figure out how old a character ought to be at the beginning of a campaign. After that it looks like a nightmare, what with the time-shifting Elves, gimped Fighters, years of downtime between story arcs.

Adventurers level faster because they have to step up or die horribly. 99% of Elf Wizards will grind out a slow 7 years of study per level, but the 1% who adventure end up unimaginably powerful or dead.

Maybe I'm not looking at this fairly, but I think it is a useful guideline for building a higher than 1st level character but nothing more. It just causes too many problems if you try to follow it as written.

[Taelas]

Regardless of the size of the actual impact, it still doesn't make sense to do this.

Yes, it is more realistic, but that does not mean it is desirable. You are introducing a rule which does nothing but hurt melee characters (no matter how little), while at the same time benefitting casters (again, no matter how little). This is extremely counterproductive, as casters are already the top of the pile.

Also, your assumption is that all characters start their careers at close to minimum age, which is not always the case. Some players prefer to make their character more mature (such as late twenties for a human fighter), purely for story reasons.

Personally, I would be inclined to hand-wave physical penalties for someone wishing to make their fighter middle-aged (while still providing the mental bonuses). It's a game, not a reality simulator. If someone wants to be a grizzled veteran, I don't see it as necessary to punish him for it.

[Omegas]

As a rule, when you have to Reincarnate multiple times in your campaign something is wrong.

I like the idea of this Variant Rule. It is a nice way to figure out how old a character ought to be at the beginning of a campaign. After that it looks like a nightmare, what with the time-shifting Elves, gimped Fighters, years of downtime between story arcs.

Adventurers level faster because they have to step up or die horribly. 99% of Elf Wizards will grind out a slow 7 years of study per level, but the 1% who adventure end up unimaginably powerful or dead.

Maybe I'm not looking at this fairly, but I think it is a useful guideline for building a higher than 1st level character but nothing more. It just causes too many problems if you try to follow it as written.

Another way to look it is from the flip perspective. Follow a chronological time line and what do you get. A human and elf party up at level 1 as teenagers (equivalently) and by level 20 the human is ready to be put out to pasture while the elf is still barely an adult?

I try to see everything from both sides of the street. Both point of view if you will. If having a teenage human pop up in levels in a few short years to be Epic character, and have the potential to save or devastate a kingdom, does not sound like a ticking time bomb. (from the perspective of any government), then why would it be any different for an elf?

I'm not saying this system is perfect but it makes since to a point. Age is not that hard to overcome and it is a bit childish to have epic children.

Yes, it is more realistic, but that does not mean it is desirable. You are introducing a rule which does nothing but hurt melee characters (no matter how little), while at the same time benefitting casters (again, no matter how little).

Is aging in real life desirable. I look in the mirror every day and find a new white hair. It does not matter if your a mage, warrior, or a farmer, getting old happens. Age is still a part of the game and just because it has undesirable effects is no excuse to not use it.

There are a lot undesirable effect in the game. I'd like to be able to toss on an amulet that buffs my spell casting and get bonus spells when I put it on but that is not how it works. I'd like to count my damaged HP first when subtracting temporary HP, again that is not how it works. It would not be in the book if they did not intend you to use it.

[Fatebreaker]

Agreed but your associating the cost of a buff item to counter your handicap with there are easier and less costly ways.

Man, I have no idea what you're trying to say I'm trying to say.


There are many ways to make a character Physically Younger despite their actual age (at a fraction of the cost) So your +4 would still benefit you fully.

There may be ways to counter the physical aging process, but that's just another way for the melee-types to sink money into standing still, while the casters naturally improve for free.

Instead of spending the money on bigger numbers, you have chosen to spend the money to keep smaller numbers and negate the penalties.

However you spin it, you are still forcing melee to spend money to maintain rather than advance, while giving free bonuses to casters.


I think you all are hung up on the -6 and not doing the math. Let me brake it down for you in a way that should be easier to grasp.

...I did math. I showed you the math. I will show you the math again.

The Fighter-player and the Wizard-player each reach Old age. -3 to their physical states, +2 to their mental stats.

Fighter-player buys a +6 Strength belt (36,000 gold), the Wizard-player buys a +4 Intelligence headband (16,000 gold).

The final stats are fighter at +3 Strength (+6/-3), and wizard at +6 Intelligence (+4/+2).

The fighter pays 36,000 gold vs. 16,000 gold to receive half the bonus in his primary stat.

It does not matter how long this takes. That is still a thing.


My only cost effective recourse would be to be brought back to live in a younger body (reincarnation).


I would find someone I trust, pay for the reincarnation spell and drink some seriously fatal poison.


These are (a few) of the easiest ways to revers the effects of age in D&D. They are inexpensive or at least a comparable expenditure for WBL. No greater or less then the losses other classes face or countering their in-game wealth weaknesses.

This system tracks a characters present age, which includes their magically adjusted age. If they want to go full elder by level 40 that is their choice. And all of the other races age equivalent to my example above.

Reincarnate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) costs me a level, gives me a crapshoot on new abilities, costs me memories, and, oh, explicitly tells me that my previous classes may be wasted:

"It’s possible for the change in the subject’s ability scores to make it difficult for it to pursue its previous character class. If this is the case, the subject is well advised to become a multiclass character."

This is not a viable solution to aging penalties.

[Omegas]

There may be ways to counter the physical aging process, but that's just another way for the melee-types to sink money into standing still, while the casters naturally improve for free.At level 20 (OLD) you should have around 760,000g. Your complaining about measly +4 item when your taking a negative 3. I am fairly certain that the horrible cost of making your self younger with a better spell is still far below your income curve. Something tells me it is well within your expendable expenses. If you wanted to you could knock it up to the wish spell and still afford the shiny sword you have be eyeing, along with all the other bobbles it takes to make a good fighter.

Face it even with a full party, the fighter is still going to have to pay for non-crafting magical services from time to time. Next you will be saying the cost of the mead is too high in the taverns, and it kept you from buying that one item that would have save a party member, or perhaps you have not played an epic character all that much.

I am not trying to be demeaning but your talking about a little more then pocket change at that level. The difference between owning a convenience item.

[Morithias]

With this variant; characters will start to reach the early stages of old age near level 20 and venerable ages around level 30. With few exceptions most races can live to level 40.

Okay here's one problem with this concept.

I am currently running a campaign called the "Cliche" campaign. It's your basic JRPG plot of a bunch of young adult heroes going off to fight some big bad.

It starts at level 3...and ends at level 30 approximately.

Given their current rate of growth and given the location of the 7 stars, I estimate this campaign will take about 3 in-game years.

Normally if they were ordinary humans, this variant would mean that they would have to spend about 40-50 years or however long it takes for them to reach venerable before I could use these characters again.

But here's the thing....they're all members of a race called the "dracovians" and this race has extremely long life span....as in venerable is around 1000 years old, even though they reach young adult after 14 years just like humans. (They're basically to dragons what Tieflings are to fiends).

This variant would mean I couldn't use these character for 1000 in game years...and do you realize how outdated they would be after 1000 years? I don't know about you but my world's magic and technology doesn't stay in stasis. In 1000 years people will probably be using ak-47s and atom bombs.

In other words...that level 30 fighter? Completely outdated, the ability to swing a sword has no meaning anymore.

Hell even your average elf has this problem. In the amount of time it takes an elf to gain 4-5 levels using your variant, half their spells have been replaced with better versions.

Once you introduce an evolving technology and magic system, this variant crashes and burns, and if you don't...well..you're basically saying no one is ever going to invent anything new, or no new spells are going to replace old ones.

[Fatebreaker]

At level 20 (OLD) you should have around 760,000g. Your complaining about measly +4 item when your taking a negative 3. I am fairly certain that the horrible cost of making your self younger with a better spell is still far below your income curve. Something tells me it is well within your expendable expenses. If you wanted to you could knock it up to the wish spell and still afford the shiny sword you have be eyeing, along with all the other bobbles it takes to make a good fighter.

It doesn't matter how much you spend. You are still forcing melee to spend money to maintain rather than advance, while giving free bonuses to casters.

Even if melee and casters were equivalent in power and equivalent in their need to invest wealth back into themselves, that would not be a positive change.

With the disparity between the two, forcefully linking level and age is a baffling rule that only punishes your melee players.


Face it even with a full party, the fighter is still going to have to pay for non-crafting magical services from time to time. Next you will be saying the cost of the mead is too high in the taverns, and it kept you from buying that one item that would have save a party member, or perhaps you have not played an epic character all that much.

...a mug of ale costs 4c. Four. Copper.

It costs four copper for all the classes equally.

You would have to drink nine hundred thousand mugs of ale to equal the cost of that +6 Strength belt which only grants you a +3 bonus. Oddly enough, that's exactly the number of mugs of ale it takes to forget about how the DM screwed you over for twice the cost and half the benefit of your caster buddy, who still has five hundred thousand more mugs of ale to drink while you sit there, broke and sober.

You would have to drink nineteen million mugs of ale to drain the 760,000 gold you amass by level twenty.

Seriously? You're going with "the cost of mead is too high" as your defense?


I am not trying to be demeaning but your talking about a little more then pocket change at that level. The difference between owning a convenience item.

36,000 gold for a "+3" is 4.7% of your 760,000 gold.

16,000 gold for a "+6" is 2.1% of your 760,000 gold.

Seriously, dude. Double the benefit, less than half the cost. There's no good reason to inflict that on your melee players. They've got enough troubles as it is.

[Omegas]

It doesn't matter how much you spend. You are still forcing melee to spend money to maintain rather than advance, while giving free bonuses to casters. Your keep saying that but no matter how many times you say it does not make it true. Fighters can spend money to buy a sword that makes them hit better but a mage can only get spell focus in one school. It never gets better. Fighters are strong of fortitude but week of will but your not complaining that a mage has an unfair amount of will. Its a class weakness no different then anything else.


Even if melee and casters were equivalent in power and equivalent in their need to invest wealth back into themselves, that would not be a positive change.

With the disparity between the two, forcefully linking level and age is a baffling rule that only punishes your melee players.
Wrong. It hurts all. You are assume that the mage's primary stat is linked to there spell casting ability, but a mage really should have accounteed for their spell casting attribute way before level 20, and without the aid of aging. If they have not found the way to cast their highest level spells by then they where built poorly, no different then a fighter with the wrong gear. A mage needs Con and Dex, many of the best spells are ranged attack which means this hurts them equally. That fact that they may get one extra bonus spell and a tiny +1 to their spell DCs does not make up for the inability to hit targets and the massive loss of HP compared to other types. You want to talk percentages = the -6 Con to means -60 HP at level 30ish. To a 30 high level fighter that's nothing to a mage it can be devastating.

...a mug of ale costs 4c. Four. Copper.
36,000 gold for a "+3" is 4.7% of your 760,000 gold.

16,000 gold for a "+6" is 2.1% of your 760,000 gold.
You keep reverting to the worst possible method to counter the effects of aging as a stepping stone to your argument. Its like saying a limb fell on your roof so you need a new house rather then repairing your roof. You fail to prove a point. Seriously Pay someone to make you younger and stop crying about it.


This variant would mean I couldn't use these character for 1000 in game years...and do you realize how outdated they would be after 1000 years? I don't know about you but my world's magic and technology doesn't stay in stasis. In 1000 years people will probably be using ak-47s and atom bombs.

In other words...that level 30 fighter? Completely outdated, the ability to swing a sword has no meaning anymore.
D&D is not played that way. There is no designated point when any of the worlds reach the modern age. You can add lasers, space ships, and mech suits all you want, but the closest D&D gets to it are ray spell, airships, and golems. There is also nothing suggesting they would follow the same path we as real humans did. Surfer, Carbon, and salt-peter could make a gun powder with a fraction of the effect we know it to be. Look at many of the cultures in our world that did not make it. What would our world look like if Egyptians, or Mayans never fell out of power? Our world and technoligeis would be totally different. And, that's not to say that we still would not reach this point due to religious persecution.

[PersonMan]

Wrong. It hurts all. You are assume that the mage's primary stat is linked to there spell casting ability, but a mage really should have accounteed for their spell casting attribute way before level 20, and without the aid of aging. If they have not found the way to cast their highest level spells by then they where built poorly, no different then a fighter with the wrong gear. A mage needs Con and Dex, many of the best spells are ranged attack which means this hurts them equally. That fact that they may get one extra bonus spell and a tiny +1 to their spell DCs does not make up for the inability to hit targets and the massive loss of HP compared to other types. You want to talk percentages = the -6 Con to means -60 HP at level 30ish. To a 30 high level fighter that's nothing to a mage it can be devastating.

The first part is true. A mage who can't cast level 9 spells by level 20 is built badly. However, even the best-built mage won't complain about a free +1 (or +2, if their Int was odd) bonus to the save DCs of their spells.

Spell Focus gives you a +1 bonus to the save DCs of your spells in one school. Assuming you didn't specialize, this aging is giving you the equivalent of 8 feats. If your Int was odd, it's 16 free feats!

Even though, to be honest, a +1 or +2 bonus to spell save DCs is fairly minor at level 20 or 30, it's still something. If I'm a fit athlete, giving me great new shoes that only help a little more than normal ones while giving my injured, out of shape opponent bad shoes that make him need to go out and buy ones for himself isn't fair at all.

Many spells require ranged touch attacks, which are based on Dex, true, but:

1. A mage has other options. Wall of X, Black Tentacles, Forcecage, etc. don't need to hit.

2. Touch ACs are lower than normal ones. A wizard might need to hit touch AC 20, but a fighter needs to hit AC 39. They both have a -3 to hit from aging penalties. For the first, the difference between a +12 and a +15 is fairly meaningless, as they'll hit most of the time either way. A fighter, though, can go from 'can hit it fairly often with my +26' to 'my +23 isn't going to be of much use here' with the same penalty.

As far as AC and HP are concerned, casters have options for that, too. Greater Invisibility, Mage Armor, Shield and Mirror Image make it difficult to attack you even with a -3 to your AC from lost Dex. Often, you won't even be getting hit, so having a low HP pool is fairly meaningless. Then again, there's someone who is expected to be at the front, getting hit and hitting things, all the time, who might end up dying because of a crit bringing him to -11 instead of 19.

The problem is that wizards and their ilk are way ahead of mundanes at level 20. Giving them even the smallest bonus, without giving a much larger one to mundanes, isn't fair. They don't care about a +1 to save DCs. A -3 to AC and to hit, as well as 30 HP, are an annoying loss, but those can be covered by standard spell defenses.

A fighter doesn't care about 1 more skill point per level (that, by RAW, isn't even retroactive, so by the time you get it it's all but useless). A +1 bonus to Will saves is...almost nothing, and a tiny bonus to Cha doesn't really matter, either. -6 Strength, though, means he's doing 3 less damage on every hit than before, and is 15% less likely to hit. -6 Dex means that his AC, which is damn important as he's on the front line, is 3 lower. -6 Con means that he has 30 less HP, which can be the difference between life and death and is even more likely to matter than the wizard's HP (Hey, where did he go, anyways? I could swear he was over there just a second ago...no, wait, he just teleported, invisible, to another part of the battlefield. Meanwhile, the monster smacks me. Again.).


You keep reverting to the worst possible method to counter the effects of aging as a stepping stone to your argument. Its like saying a limb fell on your roof so you need a new house rather then repairing your roof. You fail to prove a point. Seriously Pay someone to make you younger and stop crying about it.

This has the same problem as my above example. Why should an athlete who is injured and unfit have to pay money, time and energy just to negate his disadvantage, while the strong, well-trained one is given better things?

The problem is that, on paper, the disadvantages are equal. Wizards, though, have dozens of ways to cover up the weaknesses given to them by aging, without spending money or beefing up their defenses by much. Fighters, on the other hand, have to spend money. If they buy, say, an item that gives them +3 to their AC, they've just spent money that does nothing but negate less than half of a penalty (remember skills and saves).

A wizard with -3 AC and -30 HP can make himself invisible, flying, Mirror Imaged, Mage Armored, Shielded and Stoneskinned. To do this, he doesn't spend much money and might not even be increasing his defenses, if he's particularly paranoid.

A fighter with -3 AC and -30 HP is right next to the big monster, hoping that those 3 points of AC he's missing don't mean that the 30 HP he doesn't have mean he dies.


A wizard can do with spells what the fighter must spend thousands of gold to do - but a wizard is already stronger than a fighter. How is this fair?

EDIT: Generally, being gone for 1000 years that a lot of things will change. Your home might be the ruins of an ancient empire, now. Unless everything is horribly stagnant, new things will be invented, even if they aren't guns or bombs. Maybe someone created three new types of golems, or a new school of magic. Maybe mages now rule the world after a cataclysm forced magic-users into positions of authority, as they were the only ones who could protect and save the masses?

[Omegas]

his has the same problem as my above example. Why should an athlete who is injured and unfit have to pay money, time and energy just to negate his disadvantage, while the strong, well-trained one is given better things?

You make many good points but your still trying to compensate for your running injury by purchasing a pair of $500 shoes when you can simply take a 30 cent aspirin or a $5 therapy rub from a Phy-trainer.

I could rebuttal every point, but you said as much to support balancing my side as yours. Fighter AC for example. They could invest in a heavier armor with a lower max dex and not be out anything in effective cost per level. Its not like they are fixed to one solution, both sides have options.

In many case, due to the odds of survive, its likely that a fighter type will die from time to time. In which case their party solve two of the fighter's problems with one spell. Also it is more then likely that the party will stumble on items that a fighter would not normally buy, but they would use to counter the effects of age if they had the item in hand. In most case party members divide items up by "who the item benefits the most" before dividing loot. Its a rare occasion when players nit pic over gold pieces when they split up rubies.

If 3 pts to hit and damage to a proto-gods (level 35ish) abilities are the deciding factor between victory and death, then they should reevaluate their combat tactics. The fighter dimi-god may want to better prepare for the next daunting epic adventure.

The point is that if a player is advancing into Epic God hood then they should have hand more then sufficient time to find an inexpensive counter to the minor negatives of aging.

[Acanous]

what is this I don't even.

There is a wealth gap between primary casters and melee characters.
The developers of the game saught to mend this gap by creating spells with expensive material components.
Those components aren't really all that expensive, and most spells with expensive material components can be completely ignored, as you can get the same effect for free using a different spell. Alternatively, you can pay the cost once, and lock the spell into a consumpive field.

This was *Not* intended to be how casters were played, but I digress
Melee characters need to spend a little over 300,000 GP on a weapon and an armor, by level 20. This is the *Absolute minimum*
Really, you're going to be looking at 200k for a +10 weapon, 100k for a +10 armor, 100k for a +10 shield, then add on a bunch of stuff like lenses of true seeing and boots of flying etc. Finally, the melee character needs to pump 2-3 ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) with +5 books and +6 items.

Casters? They have no minimum equiptment to be effective, and you're looking at ONE, *Maybe* two stats that you're going to pump with books and items. One is your primary casting stat, the other is con.
This is assuming you don't run around polymorphed into something beefy.

All in all, the discrepancy between caster and non-caster wealth is 300,000 GP. It leaves the fighter 200k to tool around with and make himself unique.
it leaves the wizard enough cash to buy every kingdom on your planet.

Now the fighter is taking nerfs, and the wizard is taking buffs.

I know the ammount of money to reincarnate yourself is small at that level, but look at how much money each has spent; the wizard spends roughly 250,000 GP on equiptment. He has 500,000 remaining. The fighter has 200,000 GP remaining. Reincarnate actually matters to the fighter, as it is the difference between having a backup weapon and not.

[Omegas]

The fighter has 200,000 GP remaining. Reincarnate actually matters to the fighter, as it is the difference between having a backup weapon and not.If they can afford a good backup weapon (for their level) at the cost of a res or other revers age spell, then I would wonder to guess if the pumped too much into charisma and appraise.

And this falls back on an earlier point. The Expert and Mage characters usually have to pay to bring their fighter type back to life. It does not normally come out of his wealth as fighter's normally spend every copper on their gear, which as you pointed out they dont need to.

I have play this variant all three ways. I have been a mage, expert, and needy fighter type. It is a minor annoyance at best that can easily be overcome with in game magic spells. (Not with pricy items that compensate for the effect.) A good role player can build up their status in a faction or affiliation to cover the cost, without any out of pocket expense.

Plus everyone is ignoring that this it is part of the game. The writers did not put it into the books simply to be ignored. As stated above - there are many undesirable effects in D&D.

[shadow_archmagi]

I've always found it odd that when players get really very old they get smarter and wiser all the time... and none of them ever risk going senile

Well, most research I've seen has shown that if you're constantly learning and exposing yourself to new environments and keeping physically active, you're at a much lower risk for things like Alzheimer's. As such, it's no surprise that adventurers are perfectly safe.

[Sutremaine]

Let me brake it down for you in a way that should be easier to grasp. Human Warrior type.

:smallannoyed: About level 10 +/-1 you reach middle age. I take -1 to my primary stats. [....]

:smallannoyed: About level 21 +/-2 I reach Old Age. Negative -3 to my primary stats. [....]
Would you mind doing the same breakdown for a Human Wizard / Human Spellcaster type?

[Slipperychicken]

What? This doesn't even begin to make sense.

A wand of magic missile doesn't support "the group", it supports the wizard who got it, period. If your party won't provide the gold pieces for items like wands of vigor, then don't let them benefit.

I'd say killing your enemies faster/better helps the party. If that wasn't the case, why allow fighters in at the group all? All they do is blow your loot on swords to deal damage.

Also, a DM ought to compensate for consumables, or the PC should have money-making schemes in place. If you look at the spellcasting services rules alone a mage can crank out thousands with just a day's worth of spells and the actions to cast them. If he used this to his advantage given downtime, he'd be rocketing ahead of WBL.

[Omegas]

Would you mind doing the same breakdown for a Human Wizard / Human Spellcaster type? It really is not all that different.

Fighter vs Mage lvl 10
With an even con score the fighter loses a small % of HP but simply swaps armor out so he is not losing any AC. He does 1 pt of damage less per swing but he gets a second attack.

The -1 to hit is shared by both the fighter's melee strikes and the mage's ranged strikes.

With an even con score the mage loses 10 HP which could be upward of 1/4 of their overall HP. The mage can not swap armors so with his spells he still takes -1 AC. (much like a fighers armor is part of their CR so too is a mages spells) The mage is still limited to casting one spell per round. On an odd ability score the mage does get a +1 to his spell saves.

Summery of level 10.
Fighter -10%hp, +1 attack -2damage, no negs to AC.
Mage - 25%hp, -1 AC +1 to spell DCs
Some how I think the fighter wins this round. +1 to spell saves does not make up for -15% HP -1AC. If you want to argue spells its highly debatable to damage. The high end of magic for level 10 is higher then two attacks if you don't calculate the potential of critical. Plus the best spells are barely at an adolescent power as they only get stronger with more levels. Also not all mages are composed of damaging spells. They also invest in party buffing, area effect, enemy hampering, and distractions. A fighter is strait damage race.

Summery of level 20
at this point it is an easy fix to knock it back down to middle age. But if you did not

An intelligent fighter would have found some way to put at least one point in Con so that they did not feel the effects of HP loss a second time. Again they can simply swaps out their armor with a higher Ac lower max dex model losing anything to their AC score. Much like his con score a wise would invest in their primary fighting stat but this time they would be ensured at least a -1 to damage and 4 attacks.

The -2 to hit is shared by both the fighter's melee strikes and the mage's ranged strikes.

Much like the fighter, and intelligent mage would have found some way to put at least one point in Con so that they did not feel the effects of HP loss a second time, to be honest they can not afford not to. The mage can not swap armors so even with his spells he still takes -2 AC. The mage is still limited to casting one spell per round. On an odd ability score the mage does get a +2 to his spell saves and 1 bonus spell in spell levels they dont care about anyway.

The big advantage for mages is that their spells have mostly all matured. If they are smart their metamagic feats let them get the full benifit of each spell. This is why (with aging aside) mages are normally more powerful at higher levels.

Its sad both fighters and mages have to invest in thing they would not normal desire to raise just to counter this small effect that only really hampers then as young gods. I guess Zeus just like the look of the white beard perhaps it make him feel more distinguished.

Also, a DM ought to compensate for consumables, or the PC should have money-making schemes in place. agreed to a point. Its like I said many time a player of that level should be in an affiliation that can more then cover the cost.

[Ashtagon]

Mage - 25%hp, -1 AC +1 to spell DCs

At level 10+, if a mage is still worrying about hp and AC, he's doing it wrong.

[PersonMan]

You make many good points but your still trying to compensate for your running injury by purchasing a pair of $500 shoes when you can simply take a 30 cent aspirin or a $5 therapy rub from a Phy-trainer.

Yes, but why should you need to spend anything just to compensate for a disadvantage? I'd rather just even the playing field instead of making the weaker athlete pay even more to keep up.

[QUOTE]I could rebuttal every point, but you said as much to support balancing my side as yours. Fighter AC for example. They could invest in a heavier armor with a lower max dex and not be out anything in effective cost per level. Its not like they are fixed to one solution, both sides have options.[QUOTE]

They still lose out on Reflex saves and all Dex-based skills, which they need more than casters.

[Omegas]

At level 10+, if a mage is still worrying about hp and AC, he's doing it wrong.True but D&D is more then a straight up battle. In a supprize round an abusing party can swarm the mage. If the mage lose initiative the full attacks will take him out of the fight before he can get the his short term defenses up.

Yes, but why should you need to spend anything just to compensate for a disadvantage? I'd rather just even the playing field instead of making the weaker athlete pay even more to keep up.
Because characters and classes have weaknesses. Why would a mage buy a Str belt? Because they cant carry all of their crap. Characters are not perfect the are simply better then the bulk of NPCs. Having weaknesses and being able to exploit them in your enemies on the battle field makes playing the game more fun. It would not be as useful to grapple a goblin with a 2 handed weapon if they did not take the negatives to grapple for being small.

I think too many player get hung up on the "I am the absolute best the world had to offer" when they just need to do their best to help the party. Yes striking a little bit better and harder does help the party but your true strength is team work. The fighter is not only a beat stick. He should be the tank that lets the moves in the threatens space so the expert types get their flanking bonuses / sneak attacks. He should be the shield that protects the mage type so they can rain fire on the enemies. All of this while making the enemy less attractive with each swing of his sword.

If the fighter can stand out there at take as much as he dishes out then he is doing far more then simply +3 to hit and damage as an epic character.

[Taelas]

I'd say killing your enemies faster/better helps the party. If that wasn't the case, why allow fighters in at the group all? All they do is blow your loot on swords to deal damage.

Also, a DM ought to compensate for consumables, or the PC should have money-making schemes in place. If you look at the spellcasting services rules alone a mage can crank out thousands with just a day's worth of spells and the actions to cast them. If he used this to his advantage given downtime, he'd be rocketing ahead of WBL.

It helps the wizard help the party. There is a difference. A wand of vigor directly helps the party by providing out-of-combat healing.

As for consumables, why on earth should the DM compensate for them? There is no reason for this whatsoever.

[Omegas]

It helps the wizard help the party. There is a difference. A wand of vigor directly helps the party by providing out-of-combat healing.

As for consumables, why on earth should the DM compensate for them? There is no reason for this whatsoever.Except that players can fall out of the standard WBL and thus be insufficient for their challenges. A group without a healer would find the need to purchase a significant amount of healing potions to keep up with other adventures.

If a group is investing (note I dont mean hoarding) in expendable then they should not fall out of WBL for it. At the least they should be at the bottom of the bracket for their level.

[PersonMan]

Because characters and classes have weaknesses. Why would a mage buy a Str belt? Because they cant carry all of their crap. Characters are not perfect the are simply better then the bulk of NPCs. Having weaknesses and being able to exploit them in your enemies on the battle field makes playing the game more fun. It would not be as useful to grapple a goblin with a 2 handed weapon if they did not take the negatives to grapple for being small.

So you think that wizards should be able to bend reality, create new planes, conquer the world and similar while fighters are stuck hitting things?

It's not about being perfect or having weaknesses, it's about a few classes being far more powerful than the others, and about hurting the weak classes even more.


I think too many player get hung up on the "I am the absolute best the world had to offer" when they just need to do their best to help the party.

I don't know where you got this idea. Often, in higher-op games a fighter is struggling to contribute to the party in a meaningful way. Therefore, making it even harder for them to do so is a bad thing, as it detracts from teamwork by making the others simply have to carry the useless fighter.

[Taelas]

Except that players can fall out of the standard WBL and thus be insufficient for their challenges. A group without a healer would find the need to purchase a significant amount of healing potions to keep up with other adventures.

If a group is investing (note I dont mean hoarding) in expendable then they should not fall out of WBL for it. At the least they should be at the bottom of the bracket for their level.

If a group invests in consumables, then that is the group's choice. If it's a bad idea (i.e. they fall out of the expected wealth by level for excessive consumable use), then that is their own fault. The DM does not have to compensate for that.

[Sutremaine]

Just going to pick out a few choice quotes here...



The -1 to hit is shared by both the fighter's melee strikes and the mage's ranged strikes.
The fighter's ranged strikes suffer as well. The mage's area attacks and save-targeting spells do not.

The mage has options that the fighter does not. -1 to attack rolls is far more significant for the fighter, as a far greater percentage of the fighter's potential actions rely on attack rolls to succeed.


The mage is still limited to casting one spell per round.
Unless they use swift spells or Quickened spells that take up high-level spell slots... spell slots that have a high chance of being granted by age increases. Are you really assuming that Wizards will spend the benefits of their increasing primary stats on shoring up the Fighter's decreasing primary stats?


On an odd ability score the mage does get a +1 to his spell saves.
Just like the Fighter, who on an odd ability score gets a +1 to attack! Except not, because the Fighter gets a penalty instead.


Also not all mages are composed of damaging spells. They also invest in party buffing, area effect, enemy hampering, and distractions. A fighter is strait damage race.
Heh, this is what I ended up saying above, pretty much. The difference is that you see this as supporting your position, which I find baffling. Straight damage is directly reduced by decreases to physical stats and unaffected by mental stats. Buffing, area effect, enemy hampering, and distractions are unaffected by physical stats and increased by mental stats, either directly (in the case of area effects requiring saves) or indirectly (in the case of buff spells occupying slots granted by increases in casting stat).

You know this, and you still think it's fair? Again, I ask, do you expect the classes strengthened by this rule to help out the classes weakened by this rule?


The mage is still limited to casting one spell per round.
At level 20? I really think you don't understand the extent of the changes you're making to the system. Have you ever run a high-level campaign with these rules? Do you ban Time Stop?

One more thing: a thought experiment. You're saying that the age-related changes to stats work out just as well for any two classes you could name, right? Imagine it's Bizarro World, and instead of penalties to physical stats and bonuses to mental stats it works the other way round. Venerable gives you -6 to Int, Wis, and Cha, and +3 to Str, Dex, and Wis.

[Fatebreaker]

Your keep saying that but no matter how many times you say it does not make it true.

...?

Really?

You do not see how instituting a houserule that imposes penalties on melee while providing bonuses to casters is a bad thing?

You are creating a situation where two players who invest equal amounts of gold into what would otherwise be equal resources are now receiving unequal rewards, favoring the player who was already ahead at the expense of the player who needs all the help he can get.

How you see that as a positive change is beyond me.


Wrong. It hurts all. You are assume that the mage's primary stat is linked to there spell casting ability,

Yes. A caster's primary stat is linked to their spellcasting ability. That is why it is their primary stat.


A mage needs Con and Dex, many of the best spells are ranged attack which means this hurts them equally.

For the moment, we'll skip over all the awesome spells that bypass your opponent's defenses.

Ranged touch attacks are much much easier to hit with than attacks against AC (y'know, the kind that melee use). Also, as the levels go on, the monsters who don't specialize in avoiding ranged touch attacks become laughably bad at avoiding them compared to the bonuses a wizard can muster.

A 12th-level wizard needs to roll a "1" to miss a CR22 Great Wyrm Black Dragon with a ray.

Anything a wizard was going to throw a ray at, he's going to hit. If he's not going to hit it, he uses another spells, because he's a wizard and he has other options.

Oh, and there's all sorts of awesome spells that bypass your opponent's defenses. Yeah, we weren't really going to skip over those.

And there's the polymorph line. Good ol' polymorph. What's that, Mr. Wizard? You traded out your terrible physical stats for awesome physical stats while keeping your mental stats and the free aging bonus to your mental stats? Wow! Go team caster!


You keep reverting to the worst possible method to counter the effects of aging as a stepping stone to your argument. Its like saying a limb fell on your roof so you need a new house rather then repairing your roof. You fail to prove a point. Seriously Pay someone to make you younger and stop crying about it.

For all your accusations, you never actually refute that point...

Whether the fighter pours money into getting bigger bonuses just to negate the penalties or he invests resources to get a caster to undo them is irrelevant. The method doesn't matter. This is still a rule that makes melee invest wealth or resources for no purpose. Meanwhile, the caster would never want to go younger. He only gets better and better, just by aging, and now, you've given him a way to artificially age faster at no extra effort or cost.

Heck, but if you want to talk methods, you even advocate the fighter killing himself so he can be brought back younger. When the solution to a problem is, "First, die!" you are solving the wrong problem. Maybe you should be asking why your players are committing suicide in your game.


And this falls back on an earlier point. The Expert and Mage characters usually have to pay to bring their fighter type back to life. It does not normally come out of his wealth as fighter's normally spend every copper on their gear, which as you pointed out they dont need to.

If the fighters in your games are regularly dying, adding more penalties is clearly the solution.


Plus everyone is ignoring that this it is part of the game. The writers did not put it into the books simply to be ignored. As stated above - there are many undesirable effects in D&D.

No, aging is part of the game. Artificially linking level to age is something you claim to have found on a pamphlet at a convention.

Those are two very different things.



-snipped example of how aging hurts mage AC/HP-


Even by mid-level, wizards don't care about AC or HP. They have so many options to negate these things that calling this a penalty is silly. And unlike fighters, who pay to negate the disadvantages imposed on their primary stats, the wizard is freely gaining bonuses to his primary stat which only make him better able to ignore the "penalties" to stats that he doesn't care about.


True but D&D is more then a straight up battle. In a supprize round an abusing party can swarm the mage. If the mage lose initiative the full attacks will take him out of the fight before he can get the his short term defenses up.

The caster who walks around without defenses gets what's coming to him. Invoking a poor player as an example of how this "weakens" casters is a poor argument, because a poor player is going to play a "weaker" caster anyway.


Because characters and classes have weaknesses. Why would a mage buy a Str belt? Because they cant carry all of their crap. Characters are not perfect the are simply better then the bulk of NPCs. Having weaknesses and being able to exploit them in your enemies on the battle field makes playing the game more fun.

Self-imposed weaknesses are interesting. Temporary or conditional weakness are interesting. Arbitrary penalties that only further divide both the monetary and mechanical divide between melee and casters are not.

Also, your casters still carry their own stuff? Tenser's Floating Disk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/floatingDisk.htm). Level 1. Your options only improve from there.


I think too many player get hung up on the "I am the absolute best the world had to offer" when they just need to do their best to help the party. Yes striking a little bit better and harder does help the party but your true strength is team work. The fighter is not only a beat stick. He should be the tank that lets the moves in the threatens space so the expert types get their flanking bonuses / sneak attacks. He should be the shield that protects the mage type so they can rain fire on the enemies. All of this while making the enemy less attractive with each swing of his sword.

If the fighter can stand out there at take as much as he dishes out then he is doing far more then simply +3 to hit and damage as an epic character.

Howdy, Fighter! You are already worse in every way than a moderately-built cleric or wizard. It's okay, though. Your role is to stand there and be hit a bunch. To help you do that, let's lower your armor class and take away hit points. Oh, and just in case you actually wanted to contribute, let's make you hit less often, and even when you do hit, you'll do less damage. That will certainly help the party out!


Except that players can fall out of the standard WBL and thus be insufficient for their challenges.

Right. So, clearly, the solution is to apply penalties which make the weaker classes spend more money to gain fewer bonuses.

--

Dude, I get that you don't like "epic kids" in your game, but you can avoid that just by talking to your players and running a game where time passes between quests. That at least would be straightforward and honest. Instead, you have imposed a clumsy houserule that has the following drawbacks:

- It adds extra bookkeeping (which D&D does not need more of) to "provide balance to DMs that find tracking in game time too tedious." I question how any DM who finds saying "a month passes" to be too tedious would find more paperwork to be somehow less tedious.

- It artificially equates "age" with "skill."

- It usurps the DM's ability to control how fast the party ages, because now age is linked to level.

- It penalizes players who pick long-lived races (especially if the "long-lived" part was important to them).

- It removes character concepts such as the young prodigy or the grizzled old veteran.

- Age becomes erratic.

And above all...

- It imposes penalties on those character classes who can least afford them, while providing bonuses to those character classes who least need them.



Listen to all the people telling you the exact same thing.

[Venusaur]

Fighters can spend money to buy a sword that makes them hit better but a mage can only get spell focus in one school. It never gets better. Fighters are strong of fortitude but week of will but your not complaining that a mage has an unfair amount of will. Its a class weakness no different then anything else.

Do you think mages can't spend money to make themselves better? Metamagic rods significantly increase damage, a belt of battle gives more actions, rings of wizardry, pearls of power, various ioun stones and robe of the archmagi, as well as thing form other books where a fighter is blowing his WBL solving problems caused by the DM making his already terrible class worse, and making the strongest classes stronger. I guess major suck is one of his class weaknesses. :smallbiggrin:

[Omegas]

The fact is there are hundreds of ways to build any character type. There are even more ways to equip them. If your building a fighter to be nothing more then a beat stick then you have a narrow view of his capabilities. The same is true of wizards. We can debate builds and gear back and forth and yes there are some combos that can receive a minor nurf effect (regardless of class) the point is your blowing it out of proportion.

-1 between levels 10ish to 20ish. Holy crap that might as well make every fighter worthless. Some how, for a fighter, I dont classify this as a major suck feature. :smallwink:

-1 or possibly -2 to hit and damage in epic levels *gasp :smallconfused:

All gods must cry when they look at the wrinkles on their chiseled faces. :smallsigh: Not surprising "aging" is reversible in D&D. You can take all the effect of one age category off at a time, or become a youngster again with reincarnate. There is no need to by overpriced magical crap to counter the effects though your likely to pick up some as loot.

Of course I knew there was a reason gods looked so good. Could you imagine taking Aphrodite out on a date after 4000 years? *gag*

Are mages better then fighters? Not at first but they develop to be better later on. A young mage does not travel alone for good reason.

A bulk of campaigns are played between levels 5 to 20. Once you go epic it is more likely to get outlandish quick. Not to say I have not played some good epic campaigns, but in general the number of DMs experienced in running an epic campaign is so much smaller then a normal hero campaign.

Fighters are not feeble or useless. Though I have seen many players play as narrow minded damage race tools. A balanced intelligently geared fighter can take on a mage. Preparation and good tactics make a significant difference verses any opponent. Yes the mage has the one on one advantage at higher levels, but much like the young mage PC does not travel alone, and old fighter should not shirk his teammates.

D&D was not intended to have Teenage Epic hero. Demigods perhaps but not mortals. The majority of higher level adventures (experienced heros) should be in their middle age. This is why the age chart is on page 109, and this variant came from the writers. They knew what they where doing.

I don't believe it is fair but there is a lot about the game that is not. This does not mean I am going to stop playing fighter types. It does not mean when I fall out of a rage that I am going to take my temp Hp from my max Hp instead of my current HP. It does not mean I am going to toss on a Nymph Clock and immediately demand my bonus spells.

If an easily revered -6 to your near-god character is enough for you to ban playing them, then that is your prerogative. It's in the game, and that is what is going to happen when your character when it reaches venerable ages anyway.

Plus several of you have to agree that reaching max level as a young adult is cracked. There they are barely 20 and at max level. For some odd reason the last few years of picking up skills at a pronominal rate comes to an abrupt stop. Between 15 to 20 you gained access to all the powers of the world yet by your 21 birthday you learned nothing. (repeat for the rest of their life) This makes no more since then a elf and human parting up only to watch the human die of old age while the young elf barely broke a sweet.


Dude, I get that you don't like "epic kids" in your game, but you can avoid that just by talking to your players and running a game where time passes between quests. That at least would be straightforward and honest. Instead, you have imposed a clumsy houserule that has the following drawbacks: now your only applying the drawbacks to the short lived races. Your Fighter Dwarf remains unaffected while your paladin human takes the shaft. That seems a little less fair to me. Chronological time lines only work while in mission, quests, or time sensitive campaigns. You still end up with dead humans, half-orcs, and halflings. Very old Gnomes, and minorly effected Dwarves and elfs


Listen to all the people telling you the exact same thing? I did. A hand full liked it out right and made one post. A few did not get the concept and linked minor effects that where easily reversed to major handicaps. Perhaps by assumption. But most importantly I listened to the wizards writer that handed me the piece of paper that had this variant on it. I would not call anything that came from the people who published the books a house rule, even if it did not make it into a book.

A vast majority of the rules where never published because the in game effect did not merit the book space. I read a whole chapter that detained the mechanics of how magic interacted and effected the physical world. It was a good read, and provided a little insight as to why somethings work one way while others do not, but it made very list difference to game play thus it never made it into the books. Still the writers abide by those magical rules, in case they ever had to publish it. That way there would not be contradictory information in support books. If the writer had his way this would have made it into the books and there would not be a debate.

[Taelas]

But most importantly I listened to the wizards writer that handed me the piece of paper that had this variant on it. I would not call anything that came from the people who published the books a house rule, even if it did not make it into a book.

I'm sorry, but that is exactly what it is.

A "Wizards writer" who tells you this would "totally have been in the book" if "only there was enough space" is not a credible source of rules.

If it was not made official, then it is not RAW, regardless of whom the source is. There is plenty of official material on the wizards.com site that never made it into the books.

[Havvy]

Of course I knew there was a reason gods looked so good. Could you imagine taking Aphrodite out on a date after 4000 years? *gag*

Actually, by DnD rules, it would be better...since you know...+6 charisma.


They knew what they where doing.

Make a thread where that is the only line.

"The WotC writers knew what they were doing."

See what happens. Actually, I think I'll hold onto that line and do it when I'm bored.

[Dumbledore lives]

I'm fairly certain wish does not actually have the ability reverse aging. At least reading through the srd description. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) You can claim that it can do that, but it is just as much a houserule as the aging one you propose. Losing a level and changing your race merely to avoid penalties which you shoulnd't have in the first place is not good game design.

[Flickerdart]

This variant makes zero sense.

Imagine, if you will, Alice the Elven Wizard (145 years old) and Bob the Half-Orc Barbarian (16.5 years old) go on adventures together. These are their starting ages, so they're level 1. Then they kill a bunch of dwarves (both orcs and elves hate dwarves, after all) and get enough experience to gain a level. Bob goes back to his village and kicks the town guard into shape while Alice goes back to her academy to do exams. After 1.5 years, on Bob's 18th birthday, he's gained his level, and wants to go adventure with Alice again. Alice, however, is still studying, and will study for another 5.5 years. What happens next?

a) Bob sits around and waits for Alice to gain her level before they pick up again. He'll start feeling his age once the party gets to level 3, when he hits Middle Age, and by level 8 he'll have dropped dead of old age. Long-lived races now have a preposterous advantage, since in a mixed adventuring party they are the only ones to reach high levels.

b) Bob blows Alice off and goes adventuring with his half-orc buddies. By the time Alice has gained her second level, Bob is well on his way to level six. By the time Alice has levelled up to level 4, Bob is level 15. Then he and his high-level adventuring buddies decide that elves are jerks, and conquer the elven kingdom. Short-lived races now have a preposterous advantage, since in any environment with multiple races they will gain levels much faster.

So all this rule does is force the entire party to be the same race. A rule that takes away most of the options in the book is a stupid rule.

[Ashtagon]

I'm fairly certain wish does not actually have the ability reverse aging. At least reading through the srd description. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) You can claim that it can do that, but it is just as much a houserule as the aging one you propose. Losing a level and changing your race merely to avoid penalties which you shoulnd't have in the first place is not good game design.

In 1e, wish spells caused the caster to age. This was a definite limit on indiscriminate use of wish spells.

[Taelas]

This variant makes zero sense.

Imagine, if you will, Alice the Elven Wizard (145 years old) and Bob the Half-Orc Barbarian (16.5 years old) go on adventures together. These are their starting ages, so they're level 1. Then they kill a bunch of dwarves (both orcs and elves hate dwarves, after all) and get enough experience to gain a level. Bob goes back to his village and kicks the town guard into shape while Alice goes back to her academy to do exams. After 1.5 years, on Bob's 18th birthday, he's gained his level, and wants to go adventure with Alice again. Alice, however, is still studying, and will study for another 5.5 years. What happens next?

a) Bob sits around and waits for Alice to gain her level before they pick up again. He'll start feeling his age once the party gets to level 3, when he hits Middle Age, and by level 8 he'll have dropped dead of old age. Long-lived races now have a preposterous advantage, since in a mixed adventuring party they are the only ones to reach high levels.

b) Bob blows Alice off and goes adventuring with his half-orc buddies. By the time Alice has gained her second level, Bob is well on his way to level six. By the time Alice has levelled up to level 4, Bob is level 15. Then he and his high-level adventuring buddies decide that elves are jerks, and conquer the elven kingdom. Short-lived races now have a preposterous advantage, since in any environment with multiple races they will gain levels much faster.

So all this rule does is force the entire party to be the same race. A rule that takes away most of the options in the book is a stupid rule.

No, no, the variant dodges this by hand-waving levels as aging by making adventuring "hard" on characters. So by levelling from 1 to 2, an elf "ages" 7 years, while the half-orc "ages" 1.5 years. Regardless of how much actual time passes.

No, it doesn't make any sense.

[Golden Ladybug]

The fact is there are hundreds of ways to build any character type. There are even more ways to equip them. If your building a fighter to be nothing more then a beat stick then you have a narrow view of his capabilities. The same is true of wizards. We can debate builds and gear back and forth and yes there are some combos that can receive a minor nurf effect (regardless of class) the point is your blowing it out of proportion.

Well, yes, that first point is true. It is also rather irrelevant. A Wizard or a Fighter can both be built in a myriad of ways, but there isn't ever going to an effective Wizard build that tanks his Intelligence Score, because regardless of the build they use, they're going to use Spells in some fashion. Be it Rays, Orbs, Walls, Utility, Blasts, Debuffs, Buffs or whatever else they want to do, Spells are going to be a major part of their job description.

A Fighter, depending on what choices they make for Feats or Prestige Classes, will probably focus on either Strength or Dexterity. Because those are the options available to them. There are very few ways for a Fighter to use his Charisma score to effectively contribute to the game. Regardless of what build or gear the Fighter is using, Physical Stats are going to be important, and Mental Stats will rarely, if ever, be equivalently useful to them. A Wizard, on the other hand, has little use for his physical stats, but gaining free bonuses to his Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma is fantastic!


-1 between levels 10ish to 20ish. Holy crap that might as well make every fighter worthless. Some how, for a fighter, I dont classify this as a major suck feature. :smallwink:

-1 or possibly -2 to hit and damage in epic levels *gasp :smallconfused:

It doesn't matter how minor or major these penalties and bonuses are; what you are proposing is to make the most powerful classes in the game better, at the expense of making the weakest classes even weaker!

It has already been brought up that there is a wealth disparity between Martial Classes and Casters. This is because a Wizard or a Cleric (or any Caster, for that matter) can function perfectly fine with absolutely nothing. They can be walking around naked, and their ability to manipulate the fabric of reality will be unchanged. They'll still be able to teleport, summon powerful monsters, create matter out of nothing and destroy enemies with a wave of their hand. They use their wealth to make themselves better at doing this. Or, they can piss it away on millions upon millions of bottles of wine, and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

A Fighter, on the other hand, cannot function without significant investiture of wealth. The +1 Sword that you seem to be claiming is wealth they are selfishly spending on themselves, when the Wizard or the Cleric is spending wealth to benefit the whole party? They actually require such a weapon to function. They flat out don't work otherwise. Similarly, if they wish to not get hit in the face by a monster, they need to buy good armor. They want to have a reasonable chance of hitting things and doing damage, they need a Strength Boosting Item (Or a Dexterity Boosting Item, if that is the case). Their ability to fight (which, funnily enough, is pretty much the only thing a Fighter can do, given that none of their class features are helpful in any other area) is restricted by their access to equipment.

The point you are making is that Wizards, who need jack squat, should get free stuff, gain increased benefit from whatever they deign to buy and take penalties to such important things as Carrying Capacity to make up for it? Except, of course, the Wizard doesn't need to carry things; he can create a new reality purely for the purpose of holding his furniture. Or, he can take a few days off and create a Portable Hole, and never worry about carrying capacity ever again.

And in return for this, the Fighters, who need to fight tooth and nail just to stay relevant, should be punished for their arrogance at not choosing to be a magic user and tear reality asunder with their mind, by penalising the things that they need to accomplish their role as a Fighter. They should be forced to spend their wealth on negating these penalties, rather than actually making themselves better at what they're trying to do. Or, if they don't want to do that, they should commit suicide and beg their Wizard friend to use his boundless magical might to revive them and then cross their fingers, and hope they don't get saddled with a new form that completely shuts down their build choices and abilities prior to this point (Oh, you were playing a Grappler? Shame that you're now Small and have -4 to Strength from your Racial Modifier).

It is completely irrelevant whether what you're saying is accurate; maybe the cost of a Reincarnation isn't that much at level 20, but the people who are already penalised by the system should NOT be made to pay for one, just to be able to stay relevant.


Are mages better then fighters? Not at first but they develop to be better later on. A young mage does not travel alone for good reason.

I disagree, and I'm sure many others would too. A 1st Level Wizard is going to outshine any given 1st Level Fighter 99/100. Wanna defeat that group of Kobolds over there? Well, the Fighter can probably swing away with their Sword, missing about half the time and getting cut to bits with spears, crossbow bolts and traps, or the Wizard could cast Sleep. Or Color Spray. Or Power Word: Pain. Or Charm Person. Or Silent Image. Or...

The Power Disparity between those who can use Magic and those that Can't is huge. It starts that way, and only gets bigger.

Anything that makes this precarious balancing act even more unbalanced is not something that makes the game any better.


Fighters are not feeble or useless. Though I have seen many players play as narrow minded damage race tools. A balanced intelligently geared fighter can take on a mage. Preparation and good tactics make a significant difference verses any opponent. Yes the mage has the one on one advantage at higher levels, but much like the young mage PC does not travel alone, and old fighter should not shirk his teammates.

And an Intelligently played Mage can take on the entire world and win.

Fighters are not inherently worthless, but in comparison to a Wizard or a Cleric, they are found to be lacking. Being able to swing a sword real good is simply not comparable to levitating one hundred swords and flinging them at your enemy with the same accuracy and power as the guy who can swing his sword really good.

Regardless of their build choices or role in the Party, you should not unduly penalise a character. To be a good fighter, you need to be able to fight well. You are proposing that they become worse at that, sink wealth into rectifying those penalties rather than accomplishing their original goal (being a good fighter) and make the character who is already leagues ahead of them even better.

I will reiterate; it doesn't matter how minor or major the penalty that is being imposed here is. It is still something the does nothing but benefit the classes that don't need any more benefits, and penalises the classes that need all the help they can get.


D&D was not intended to have Teenage Epic hero. Demigods perhaps but not mortals. The majority of higher level adventures (experienced heros) should be in their middle age. This is why the age chart is on page 109, and this variant came from the writers.

Maybe not in your game its not, but that doesn't mean that's universal. At my table, I'll let my players be a teenager who has reached epics. There is no mechanical or unbalancing reason they can't be! They can be a young Fighter who quested and gained great power, or they can be an Old Man who has worked his way up the ranks, using guile and skill to get where he is today. As long as everyone is having fun, then things are progressing as they should.


They knew what they where doing.

...


I don't believe it is fair but there is a lot about the game that is not. This does not mean I am going to stop playing fighter types. It does not mean when I fall out of a rage that I am going to take my temp Hp from my max Hp instead of my current HP. It does not mean I am going to toss on a Nymph Clock and immediately demand my bonus spells.

If an easily revered -6 to your near-god character is enough for you to ban playing them, then that is your prerogative. It's in the game, and that is what is going to happen when your character when it reaches venerable ages anyway.

There is a difference between enforcing a poorly designed variant rule and dealing with the problems inherent in the system. If you want to play a Melee character, and someone else wants to play a Mage, the Mage is going to be capable of being much more powerful than you are ever going to be. That's just how it is, and that doesn't mean everyone should stop playing Fighters because Wizards are better. They are, but you might want to play a Fighter.

That doesn't mean you should make the gap between them any wider.


Plus several of you have to agree that reaching max level as a young adult is cracked. There they are barely 20 and at max level. For some odd reason the last few years of picking up skills at a pronominal rate comes to an abrupt stop. Between 15 to 20 you gained access to all the powers of the world yet by your 21 birthday you learned nothing. (repeat for the rest of their life) This makes no more since then a elf and human parting up only to watch the human die of old age while the young elf barely broke a sweet.

Not at all.

If you've spent your life studying spell tomes in a dusty library somewhere, and you've slowly progressed in arcane might, then yeah, it might take 30 years to get from level 1 to level 10. But, if you went out into the world and faced down Dragons, solved devious puzzles and dodged traps every day. Instead of sitting in bed, cozy and warm, you slept fitfully on the hard group and you were woken up at 3 AM because a pack of Wolves started gnawing on your leg. You slogged your way up a mountain and battled the Lich in his tomb, and you were forced to beat off Zombies with a stick because you ran out of Spell Slots. Every damn day, you did something else like that. You didn't have the luxury of time to slowly grow into your power. You grabbed it, and pulled it towards you, because you didn't have a choice. You didn't have time to waste on years of study before you can sling your first Fireball, because there is a Troll smashing its way through the wooden barricade right now.

Yeah, you might only be 20 years old and you have 9th level spells, but you worked for them, damnit! Now, the quest is over, and you can spend the rest of your life sitting in a tower reading the newspapers of every single country town in the entire world, and every other world for all you cared. If you wanted, you could take up crafting, or research Epic Magics, or whatever else. So what if you can't learn anything more about casting spells? You've already learnt it all!


I did. A hand full liked it out right and made one post. A few did not get the concept and linked minor effects that where easily reversed to major handicaps. Perhaps by assumption. But most importantly I listened to the wizards writer that handed me the piece of paper that had this variant on it. I would not call anything that came from the people who published the books a house rule, even if it did not make it into a book.

A vast majority of the rules where never published because the in game effect did not merit the book space. I read a whole chapter that detained the mechanics of how magic interacted and effected the physical world. It was a good read, and provided a little insight as to why somethings work one way while others do not, but it made very list difference to game play thus it never made it into the books. Still the writers abide by those magical rules, in case they ever had to publish it. That way there would not be contradictory information in support books. If the writer had his way this would have made it into the books and there would not be a debate.

Firstly, the point that has been made time and time again in this discussion is it doesn't matter whether or not this is a minor or major penalty; it is something that makes the classes that need all the help they can get worse, and makes the classes that already have everything they need better at no cost.

Think of it like this; you wake up one morning, and decide that you're going to use the $50 you have in your wallet to make the world a better place. So you go for a walk, and you see some kids at the playground.

One of them is wearing tattered clothes that look like they've been stitched together countless times, and would've been old fashioned before he was born. He hasn't got any shoes, and he is covered in dirt. He is playing with a ragged stuffed toy.

The other kid is wearing the trendiest clothes and some nifty sport shoes. He's playing soccer with his many, many friends while chatting on his brand new phone, and playing some sort of game on his ipod.

You decide to go and rip the stuffed toy in half and then give it back to this poor, destitute boy. And then you go and give the $50 to the other kid.

Sure, this kid could go and get a job to buy himself a new stuffed toy, they can't cost much, after all. But that's not the point. You shouldn't have bloody ripped the toy in half to start with!

Secondly, not everyone plays Dungeons and Dragons in the same way that WotC play it. Not everyone plays it like Gary Gygax played it. Not everyone plays like I play, or like you play. By enforcing rules that work for them onto everyone, all you are doing is making the experience less fun for the majority of people, especially when the only reason you're enforcing it is that someone who was involved with making and publishing the game likes playing like this, despite the fact that they deemed it unimportant enough to not print it in any sourcebook.

Finally, and this is the biggest reason that I object to this rule, it makes the game less fun for a significant number of people. You have made the game a less enjoyable experience, for no reason. It doesn't matter that it makes the game even more unbalanced, or that it creates all sorts of logical problems, or that it removes part of the verisimilitude of the game (you wanted to play a race that lives for a long time? Well, that's a shame, because everyone's aging now coincides).

What matters is that everyone at the table has fun, and by enforcing this rule, you've done nothing but make it less fun. Maybe I want to play someone in their 20s who has mastered the arcane arts? Maybe I want to play an old woman who had never considered adventuring until circumstances forced her into it? But no, under your system, I'm not allowed to do either of those things. It restricts creativity, enforces a certain style of play and makes the disparity between classes even more noticeable. And to what benefit? An unrealistic way of representing time in games.

I think I'll pass :smallannoyed:

[Epsilon Rose]

It really is not all that different.

Fighter vs Mage lvl 10
With an even con score the fighter loses a small % of HP but simply swaps armor out so he is not losing any AC. He does 1 pt of damage less per swing but he gets a second attack.
...
An intelligent fighter would have found some way to put at least one point in Con so that they did not feel the effects of HP loss a second time. Again they can simply swaps out their armor with a higher Ac lower max dex model losing anything to their AC score. Much like his con score a wise would invest in their primary fighting stat but this time they would be ensured at least a -1 to damage and 4 attacks.


I'd just like to point out that fighters can't normally swap their armor for a higher ac base model, since they generally start with the highest AC model available to their concept (e.g. a fighter whose using full plate can't swap it for a higher AC lower dex variant; if they could they would have started with it). The same goes for buffing items. Most fighter builds (really, most builds for any class) are going to plan to get their key stat(s) as high as possible, that means that the fighter's build is already going to need that +6 to str/dex, even before aging penalties. Unfortunately, bonuses of the same type from different sources don't stack and there's a cap to how high a bonus you can get from any one item, which mean at some point they will not able to counter the effects of aging and no amount of "items that a fighter would not normally buy, but they would use to counter the effects of age if they had the item in hand," will help; partly because if they were useful the fighter would have already bought them and partly because their bonuses probably won't stack. This wouldn't help even if they were getting wigits of reincarnate/wish or The Philosopher's Stone, because, at that point, you're either effectively waiving this system for the fighters (giving mages free bonuses) or charging the fighter a tax that the mages are exempt from (in the form of level loss, race changing and/or lost item slots) and either way you're going shatter verisimilitude.

It's slightly off topic, but I feel impelled to ask, why do you keep posting things like this and then ignoring every bit of criticism they get?

[Flickerdart]

No, no, the variant dodges this by hand-waving levels as aging by making adventuring "hard" on characters. So by levelling from 1 to 2, an elf "ages" 7 years, while the half-orc "ages" 1.5 years. Regardless of how much actual time passes.

No, it doesn't make any sense.
Wait, so you mean it's even stupider than I first thought?

Maybe it's legit WotC after all.

[Omegas]

Most fighter builds (really, most builds for any class) are going to plan to get their key stat(s) as high as possible, that means that the fighter's build is already going to need that +6 to str/dex, even before aging penalties.

It's slightly off topic, but I feel impelled to ask, why do you keep posting things like this and then ignoring every bit of criticism they get?

A disagree with a singular primary stat but yes players should build toward their character strengths (And I dont just mean STR). Caster dont need a high casting attribute. A wizard with a Low Int is fine. Your going to get buff items that will allow full access to your higher level spells and the bonus spells are a nice perk but hardly an advantage. Its better to contribute to different attributes so that your character is more versicle in a general campaign instead of a straight forward Glass Cannon. (I am not saying a foolish or random build, but a good Caster can adjust there attributes, feats, and skills to make a half way decent yet Simi-focued Expert type and still be an effective Caster)

My problem, "with what several of you are trying to advocate," is when that lovely -6 kicks in. And lets be clear, for those not paying attention, this amount to only a -3 mod near the end of their career. Players will not see this effect until they are well into the 35th level. Far past the majority of the per-built campaigns and where it is an inexpensive fix, if they desire to fix it at all (regardless of class). And the best part is that if the character started out with odd stats they wont even notice the lesser effects of age until level 20.

Plus I find the concept of dedicating all my resources to one primary stat as dumbfounded. More then a number of times I have seen where the fighter types were subsequently occupied, leavening several foes rushing the mage at once. Some days the dice favors the foes and despite the defense of a mage they need to be able to take a few hits (equivalent to their current foe's abilities to deal damage) Glass cannons are usually just that "Glass".

The basic rules of combat are usually.

1) Healer must dies first
2) Glass cannons have to go.
3) Mop up the ground ponders
4) Any non-arcane archer is a joke so save them for last
5) Then find the hiding expert type that got a clue and bugged out before they died.
(and I am sure many of you can expand on this) The point is that healers and caster have a big red target on their face.

There too every organized encounter should be fighting with tactic oriented to survive the encounter. Much like the players the foes should be looking for anything that levels the playing field when they are at a disadvantage, and anything that gives them the advantage when the playing field is level.

An old venetian once asked me, you have been out of water for more then a day fleeing a superior, well-supplied force that has never before taken prisoners and a sand store is closing in on your position. You might make it to a water supply in a day or two but your men are exhausted and parched. Do you continue on knowing more then half of your men will get loss or die from exposure or do you attempt to hide in the storm risking death. I chose option C. Turn and face my enemy in the storm. The chaos of the storm would provide the leveling effect needed to make an attack less then suicidal and promising the men the supplies of our enemies would bolster their moral far greater then the hope of maybe eluding our enemy and maybe finding a water source.
Another point is several of you comparing the best caster "Wizard" vs the "Fighter" which is basically a stepping stone class. Most people multi-class Fighter as it is a crappy warrior type that spits out feats. Once you have the chose feats you want there is little reason to continue. I sure there is a few players that take it all the way up but the odds are in favor of the multi-classes fighter over the pure elitist.

To be honest it sounds like many of you are saying" A 1st level fighter with 16 Str is not worth the breath in his lungs, as he will never amount to the fighter that started at 18 Str. And if you do not have 18 Str at first level then it is the same as taking a -1 and thus not worth playing a fighter, because they can not afford any handicaps."

A handicap is only a handicap if it poses a significant, unresolvable effect.

To recap
level 1 to 10 nothing at all happens to any class.
Level 11 to 20 Odd stats are unaffected. Only Even Physical stats result in -1 mod.
Level 21 to 35. Finally in Epic levels a character take -1 mod to any Odd stat and an overall -2 mod to any Even starting stat that has not since been buffed.
After level 36. There wealth is so high that it represents such a finite amount of their overall wealth that it is like complaining about the cost of mead. (for any class)

My favorite fighter ever was a mix of Con, Int, and Cha. Simply put as a human I took Able Learner and doubled as the groups talker. I never put a stat point in STR but I did buy tomes and belts. At level 23 his Dex was only one less then his STR and his INT was about the same, Con being his highest stat in which case he only lost 1 HP per level due to old age.

Another thing I want to hammer out is this Prodigy misconception. Heroes by definition are prodigies even under this variant. An adult Hero is fighting and competing with the same skill as seasoned middle-aged veterans. Middle age Heroes are surpassing their pears and fighting at the same skill level as old masters who have dedicated a lifetime to their craft. By the time they reach old age they are besting the legends who no other could defeat. By the time they do reach venerable ages, even if they choose to remain old their skills rivals all, giving they the ability to compete with Gods.

Not "Hay Hextor I am 124 year old elf (17 year human equivalent, 858 in dog years) named Bob, who started adventuring 14 years ago, from the lower east slums of a backward, unimportant kingdom. I think you may be a bad guy so I am sorry but my friends and I are going to stab you in the face and sit on your throne. After that I dont think there is anything else to do as there is no more room in my head for exp"

As for those Elitist 1 primary stat players, my friend (Jake Tomson wrote this)Two characters
Hay pure Alpha Elite Wizard hows it going?
Not bad, Apha Elite Fighter, I had my nose in a book all day and a book worm bit it so I accidentally blew up half the library. And you?
<fighter>Drills again. I am so board of moving rocks and doing endless push ups. Plus it is really hard to wipe my bottom with all these muscles. The girls like my look a lot, but when I pulls a muscle flexing - it can take a whole day to workout the knot.
<Wiz>So did you want to do anything? We could go to the merchant quarter and look at the shiny axes. I know you like that.
<fighter>Na. Mine is already the best so they will not have any better, beside if I open my mouth down there I spend 3 times as much. Plus I fell inferior when the bard does the I got your nose trick on me. I still cant figure out how he does that. So I hired a rouge to do all my shopping, because she is better at it and has an honest face.
<Wiz>You know for the first time every I think you may have a point. I think you may have actually done something smart.
*Toothy grin
<fighter>Lets just go to the tavern and wait for the next panicked fool to run in with a problem or our friend will figure out the next plot twist and we will be able to crack some skulls again.
It's sad that is the only thing we are good at.
<fighter>True but you are better at then me
<Wiz>Not all ways true. If we worked together instead of "each to their own" then we would do more as a team. The Cleric and Druid would be more willing if you did not charge in and attack whatever was the closest target.
<fighter>I cant help it. I see thing that need to die and I just smash it. That barbarian we faced 2 weeks ago hit harder then me And it bugs the crap out of me.
<Wiz>I probably would have been easier if you killed the bard that was healing him first.
<fighter>Hold that though, here comes a fine looking maiden.
*Flex *hero Pose
<Sexy Bar Wench> My what big mussels you have.
*toothy Grin
<fighter>Daaa Whatch U Tink of mE Friend????
<Sexy Bar Wench> Ewww. Is that guy alive? Wait no he's a mage. Sorry boys the last time I dated a mage I had rabbits pooping out of place you dont want to know about. And Big Guy you went from a hunk of pectorals to a drooling simpleton. Dont come near me again.
<Wiz>So should I turn her into a frog or should we get drunk before we wake up in jail again?
<fighter>Man I hate having a charisma of 8.
<Wiz>Dont feel bad I have to cast an illusion just to keep clerics from trying to turn me undead.
Man it sucks being an Alpha Elite!!!!!

[Flickerdart]

If your basic rules of combat include a dedicated in-combat healer, your basic rules of combat aren't very good.

[Omegas]

If your basic rules of combat include a dedicated in-combat healer, your basic rules of combat aren't very good.Normally agreed but it is more along the lines of the potential to revers a bad situation. The Quick Sand Effect (not a game effect) can turn things from bad to worse fast and a heal of any kind can change their tactic from combat to throwing a party a life line.

Quick Sand Effect = one thing goes wrong which leads to another bad thing and the more you struggle the faster you sink.

[Flickerdart]

a) That's not actually how quicksand works;
b) That doesn't require a dedicated role, and is often a bad idea anyway - if you're losing, an action used to heal (for less damage than is being dealt, otherwise you wouldn't be losing) is an action wasted. And then you die.

[Omegas]

a) That's not actually how quicksand works;
b) That doesn't require a dedicated role, and is often a bad idea anyway - if you're losing, an action used to heal (for less damage than is being dealt, otherwise you wouldn't be losing) is an action wasted. And then you die.
You did not get the quick sand bit.

I wont argue that healing is a last ditch effort to pull a hail Mary when things go bad but I have seen players drastically change tactics and pull it off. Another factor is that a healer is also a mage and thus nearly as dangerous. If I had to choose to kill either a sorcerer and a cleric I would pic the cleric first.

[TuggyNE]

If I had to choose to kill either a sorcerer and a cleric I would pic the cleric first.

While this is generally a good idea, it is not primarily because the cleric can heal. Rather, it is more because the cleric has a vast collection of absurdly good buff spells, many of them personal-only, and ways to make them stick.




Edit: No, I have no idea why I bothered to post in this thread... my self-control must have collapsed *sigh*

[PersonMan]

As for those Elitist 1 primary stat players, my friend (Jake Tomson wrote this)Two characters
Hay pure Alpha Elite Wizard hows it going?
Not bad, Apha Elite Fighter, I had my nose in a book all day and a book worm bit it so I accidentally blew up half the library. And you?
<fighter>Drills again. I am so board of moving rocks and doing endless push ups. Plus it is really hard to wipe my bottom with all these muscles. The girls like my look a lot, but when I pulls a muscle flexing - it can take a whole day to workout the knot.
<Wiz>So did you want to do anything? We could go to the merchant quarter and look at the shiny axes. I know you like that.
<fighter>Na. Mine is already the best so they will not have any better, beside if I open my mouth down there I spend 3 times as much. Plus I fell inferior when the bard does the I got your nose trick on me. I still cant figure out how he does that. So I hired a rouge to do all my shopping, because she is better at it and has an honest face.
<Wiz>You know for the first time every I think you may have a point. I think you may have actually done something smart.
*Toothy grin
<fighter>Lets just go to the tavern and wait for the next panicked fool to run in with a problem or our friend will figure out the next plot twist and we will be able to crack some skulls again.
It's sad that is the only thing we are good at.
<fighter>True but you are better at then me
<Wiz>Not all ways true. If we worked together instead of "each to their own" then we would do more as a team. The Cleric and Druid would be more willing if you did not charge in and attack whatever was the closest target.
<fighter>I cant help it. I see thing that need to die and I just smash it. That barbarian we faced 2 weeks ago hit harder then me And it bugs the crap out of me.
<Wiz>I probably would have been easier if you killed the bard that was healing him first.
<fighter>Hold that though, here comes a fine looking maiden.
*Flex *hero Pose
<Sexy Bar Wench> My what big mussels you have.
*toothy Grin
<fighter>Daaa Whatch U Tink of mE Friend????
<Sexy Bar Wench> Ewww. Is that guy alive? Wait no he's a mage. Sorry boys the last time I dated a mage I had rabbits pooping out of place you dont want to know about. And Big Guy you went from a hunk of pectorals to a drooling simpleton. Dont come near me again.
<Wiz>So should I turn her into a frog or should we get drunk before we wake up in jail again?
<fighter>Man I hate having a charisma of 8.
<Wiz>Dont feel bad I have to cast an illusion just to keep clerics from trying to turn me undead.
Man it sucks being an Alpha Elite!!!!!

This doesn't really make sense - why does having an 18 in a primary stat mean you have all low scores in others? I assume the wizard is Necropolitan, due to the 'turn me undead' (which would actually mean the clerics are trying to turn him into one, which makes no sense) comment.

Also, why is the wizard saying that all he's good at is fighting? This is one of the problems the fighter has, the wizard can generally just pick up a ton of utility and out-of-combat spells with levels and additional research.

The point that many people are making isn't "if you don't start with an 18 you suck", it's more of "if you start with an 18 and pay for the 18, but it gets reduced to 17 while the guy who's already better than you gets a 19, that isn't fair". Even if you pay next to nothing to make up for the disadvantage, you're still forced to pay just to stay the same, instead of getting better for free.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm not seeing how going around killing things (adventuring) would make a stupid, uncharismatic person (Int 8 Cha 8) into someone with average intelligence and charisma (Int 11 Cha 11) while the constant excercise would cause their muscles, no, their entire body, to get worse. Taking off all of his magic items, a melee type who started with Str 18 is now only Str 12 - if he puts all level up bonuses into Strength, he's still 17. Of course, he'll have magic items and Tomes, but why would constant work make his muscles degrade, even slightly?

[Knaight]

Yes, it is more realistic, but that does not mean it is desirable. You are introducing a rule which does nothing but hurt melee characters (no matter how little), while at the same time benefitting casters (again, no matter how little). This is extremely counterproductive, as casters are already the top of the pile.
People aging different amounts over the same period of time is not, and will never be, realistic within this context. I don't think time dilation due to relative speeds is even on the table, so this idea doesn't even have the best option for utter contrivance to keep it afloat.

[Golden Ladybug]

A disagree with a singular primary stat but yes players should build toward their character strengths (And I dont just mean STR). Caster dont need a high casting attribute. A wizard with a Low Int is fine. Your going to get buff items that will allow full access to your higher level spells and the bonus spells are a nice perk but hardly an advantage. Its better to contribute to different attributes so that your character is more versatile in a general campaign instead of a straight forward Glass Cannon. (I am not saying a foolish or random build, but a good Caster can adjust there attributes, feats, and skills to make a half way decent yet Semi-focused Expert type and still be an effective Caster)

...I...what?

You and I have obviously got incredibly different views on how a game should be played; what you are suggesting is that characters should make themselves worse at what they are good at to make themselves slightly less horrible at what they are horrible at. Your stance seems to be that the proper way to play a character is to make choices that purposefully detract from their strengths so that they can do random other things horribly.

If I'm a Wizard, I want the highest intelligence score I can get. Because Wizards use Intelligence for everything that matters, and without it, they're exactly as useful as a Commoner with a good will save.

You are telling me that having a good score into my primary stat is for chumps, I should instead focus on buffing my Strength Score. Because it makes my character more interesting, or they can survive in melee better. Or something.

Being versatile is great (its the reason casters are so good), but being "versatile" by making yourself horrible at everything, including what you would normally be good at, is so far from great that I can't even begin to see why you would suggest it.


My problem, "with what several of you are trying to advocate," is when that lovely -6 kicks in. And lets be clear, for those not paying attention, this amount to only a -3 mod near the end of their career. Players will not see this effect until they are well into the 35th level. Far past the majority of the per-built campaigns and where it is an inexpensive fix, if they desire to fix it at all (regardless of class). And the best part is that if the character started out with odd stats they wont even notice the lesser effects of age until level 20.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't take effect until the late game, it does matter that you're forcing it to happen at all. This rule forcefully penalises the classes that already have trouble keeping up, and makes the classes that are already the best, better. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 is already an unbalanced system; making it even more unbalanced is bad! Two wrongs make an even bigger wrong!


Plus I find the concept of dedicating all my resources to one primary stat as dumbfounded. More then a number of times I have seen where the fighter types were subsequently occupied, leavening several foes rushing the mage at once. Some days the dice favors the foes and despite the defense of a mage they need to be able to take a few hits (equivalent to their current foe's abilities to deal damage) Glass cannons are usually just that "Glass".

The basic rules of combat are usually.

1) Healer must dies first
2) Glass cannons have to go.
3) Mop up the ground ponders
4) Any non-arcane archer is a joke so save them for last
5) Then find the hiding expert type that got a clue and bugged out before they died.
(and I am sure many of you can expand on this) The point is that healers and caster have a big red target on their face.

There too every organized encounter should be fighting with tactic oriented to survive the encounter. Much like the players the foes should be looking for anything that levels the playing field when they are at a disadvantage, and anything that gives them the advantage when the playing field is level.

And? That's how combat works, but your response to this is illogical.

The Fighter is very, very rarely going to be a relevant factor on the battlefield, unless things have gone the right way and they get to use their particular trick (For example, a Tripper fighting a four legged monster that is twice as big as them isn't going to be doing much good). Saying that the Fighter being occupied putting the Wizard in danger is...wrong.

You seem to be subscribing to a paradigm that isn't true in D&D 3.5. The Wizard doesn't need a Fighter around to protect them, like they did in older editions. They don't need anyone to protect them, because more often than not, they're the ones defending everyone else. Clerics aren't in-combat healers, because doing so is a waste. Clerics are one of the most powerful combat classes in the game. Sneaky Characters aren't necessarily cowards.

And implying that Arcane Archers are in any way good, and that any other type of archer is inferior to them? That hurts me, deep in my soul.


An old venetian once asked me, you have been out of water for more then a day fleeing a superior, well-supplied force that has never before taken prisoners and a sand store is closing in on your position. You might make it to a water supply in a day or two but your men are exhausted and parched. Do you continue on knowing more then half of your men will get loss or die from exposure or do you attempt to hide in the storm risking death. I chose option C. Turn and face my enemy in the storm. The chaos of the storm would provide the leveling effect needed to make an attack less then suicidal and promising the men the supplies of our enemies would bolster their moral far greater then the hope of maybe eluding our enemy and maybe finding a water source.

...but that's a horrible idea. Being in a Sandstorm without proper cover is a death sentence on its own; the whirling sand will rip the flesh from your bones. Your troops are tired, out numbered and against a superior enemy, and the storm is going to make it just as hard for you as it will for them. You have gained no advantage, and in fact made it more difficult for yourself.


Another point is several of you comparing the best caster "Wizard" vs the "Fighter" which is basically a stepping stone class. Most people multi-class Fighter as it is a crappy warrior type that spits out feats. Once you have the chose feats you want there is little reason to continue. I sure there is a few players that take it all the way up but the odds are in favor of the multi-classes fighter over the pure elitist.

To be honest it sounds like many of you are saying" A 1st level fighter with 16 Str is not worth the breath in his lungs, as he will never amount to the fighter that started at 18 Str. And if you do not have 18 Str at first level then it is the same as taking a -1 and thus not worth playing a fighter, because they can not afford any handicaps."

Well, compared to a fighter with an 18 in strength, you are behind, and its going to give that other fighter a leg up on you at every point. He can hits things more often, hit things harder, and trip, bull rush or grapple things better. Assuming you are focusing on strength and not dexterity, you are a worse fighter. Does it make you unplayable? No, but it makes things harder than they would have been.

And yes, we have been focusing on the Fighter, haven't we? Probably because it is the distinct comparison between who suffers and who benefits. Let me list all the classes who suffer from this rule; Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Rogue, (Non-Sublime Chord) Bard, Ninja, Scout, Swashbuckler, Samurai, Psychic Warrior, Knight, Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Incarnate, Totemist, Soulborn, Factotum, Hexblade, Duskblade, Spellthief...

So, pretty much every class that isn't a full caster gets shafted by this rule :smallmad:


A handicap is only a handicap if it poses a significant, unresolvable effect.

No, that's wrong. Imagine I'm a professional sprinter. I have a knee injury; it'll heal, and I can still run, but I'm in pain when I do and it slows me down. THIS IS STILL A HANDICAP!


My favorite fighter ever was a mix of Con, Int, and Cha. Simply put as a human I took Able Learner and doubled as the groups talker. I never put a stat point in STR but I did buy tomes and belts. At level 23 his Dex was only one less then his STR and his INT was about the same, Con being his highest stat in which case he only lost 1 HP per level due to old age.

That's great, and I'm glad you had fun. But consider this; if you had been a Feat Rogue or Swashbuckler instead of Fighter, with the same array, you would have been significantly better at performing those roles. Because the fighter is mechanically unsuitable for being a party face. You haven't got any good interaction skills on your skill list, you get so few skills at a time that you can't reliably keep things maxed, and even with Able Learner, you are not actually able to get max ranks in any of your social skills.

If you had fun, I'm glad, but that doesn't mean that you should intentionally gimp yourself. A Fighter does not normally act as the party face because they are not able to perform that role properly.


Another thing I want to hammer out is this Prodigy misconception. Heroes by definition are prodigies even under this variant. An adult Hero is fighting and competing with the same skill as seasoned middle-aged veterans. Middle age Heroes are surpassing their pears and fighting at the same skill level as old masters who have dedicated a lifetime to their craft. By the time they reach old age they are besting the legends who no other could defeat. By the time they do reach venerable ages, even if they choose to remain old their skills rivals all, giving they the ability to compete with Gods.

Yeah, no. Heroes are not prodigies by default. Standing up against a bully in the playground can make you a hero, in some ways, just like standing between an unknowable ancient evil and your home town can be a heroic act. Being incredibly clever or skilled with the sword does not make you a hero, even though it might lead you to it. It might do the opposite, or nothing at all.

Heroism is very different from mechanical competence.

Anyway, its true that an Epic Level Fighter might be more accurate than a 10th level Fighter, but they are noticeably worse when compared to an equivalently levelled character who has used their resources in the exact same way, but is not subject to this variant rule.

No matter by how little, it penalises you for using your physical stats. It makes playing a particular race to have a long lifespan, or age categories that are huge, completely meaningless. It takes things away from characters that don't use magic, and makes the characters that do, better. This shouldn't be the default state of the game.


As for those Elitist 1 primary stat players, my friend (Jake Tomson wrote this)Two characters
Hay pure Alpha Elite Wizard hows it going?
Not bad, Apha Elite Fighter, I had my nose in a book all day and a book worm bit it so I accidentally blew up half the library. And you?
<fighter>Drills again. I am so board of moving rocks and doing endless push ups. Plus it is really hard to wipe my bottom with all these muscles. The girls like my look a lot, but when I pulls a muscle flexing - it can take a whole day to workout the knot.
<Wiz>So did you want to do anything? We could go to the merchant quarter and look at the shiny axes. I know you like that.
<fighter>Na. Mine is already the best so they will not have any better, beside if I open my mouth down there I spend 3 times as much. Plus I fell inferior when the bard does the I got your nose trick on me. I still cant figure out how he does that. So I hired a rouge to do all my shopping, because she is better at it and has an honest face.
<Wiz>You know for the first time every I think you may have a point. I think you may have actually done something smart.
*Toothy grin
<fighter>Lets just go to the tavern and wait for the next panicked fool to run in with a problem or our friend will figure out the next plot twist and we will be able to crack some skulls again.
It's sad that is the only thing we are good at.
<fighter>True but you are better at then me
<Wiz>Not all ways true. If we worked together instead of "each to their own" then we would do more as a team. The Cleric and Druid would be more willing if you did not charge in and attack whatever was the closest target.
<fighter>I cant help it. I see thing that need to die and I just smash it. That barbarian we faced 2 weeks ago hit harder then me And it bugs the crap out of me.
<Wiz>I probably would have been easier if you killed the bard that was healing him first.
<fighter>Hold that though, here comes a fine looking maiden.
*Flex *hero Pose
<Sexy Bar Wench> My what big mussels you have.
*toothy Grin
<fighter>Daaa Whatch U Tink of mE Friend????
<Sexy Bar Wench> Ewww. Is that guy alive? Wait no he's a mage. Sorry boys the last time I dated a mage I had rabbits pooping out of place you dont want to know about. And Big Guy you went from a hunk of pectorals to a drooling simpleton. Dont come near me again.
<Wiz>So should I turn her into a frog or should we get drunk before we wake up in jail again?
<fighter>Man I hate having a charisma of 8.
<Wiz>Dont feel bad I have to cast an illusion just to keep clerics from trying to turn me undead.
Man it sucks being an Alpha Elite!!!!!

I'd like you to read up on the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26203097/The_Stormwind_Fallacy_(repost)&post_num=1) rather than just turning the opposing argument into a Strawman. A low charisma score doesn't mean you're repulsive, nor does a low intelligence score make you a gibbering idiot (not unless you want them to).

[Omegas]

It doesn't matter that it doesn't take effect until the late game, it does matter that you're forcing it to happen at all. This rule forcefully penalises the classes that already have trouble keeping up, and makes the classes that are already the best, better. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 is already an unbalanced system; making it even more unbalanced is bad! Two wrongs make an even bigger wrong! Fine lets have a balance system. That means regardless of class
everyone does the same damage.
everyone has the same AC.
everyone advances seamlessly the same.
All the enemies affect the PCs the same.
and there is nothing for the player to relate to.

I dont know if you have looked out your window lately but balance is the myth.

Reality says an arrow kills, usually in the first shot.
In combat if it takes more then 3 swings to down your enemy your usually dead.
Any significantly wound reduces your ability to fight.
Full plate was used on horseback (usually for entertainment).
The heavies armor used by the extremely wealthy footmen was 1/4 plate, even then scale mail was just better in every way at a fraction of the cost.
Arrow penetrate leather armors and chain mail doesn't even slow the arrow down.
Cross bow bolts penetrate all armors a majority of the time.
A successful hit to flesh = death or dismemberment
The number one targeted body part on any field of battle was the head.
2 handed great weapons ignored light armors.
Maces and pick ignore all other armors.
Size matters. Man vs elephant the elephant wins. Man with an axe vs a bear only pisses it off.
All battles can be won with attrition

This is reality and it is not fair. In a field battle archers would take out 10% of a force before they ever engaged the enemies, and it did not matter weather it was the seasoned veterans or the farmer conscript. So in reality a 4 man squad does not have a chance.

I like to refer to the concept; that although a 6 year old does not know what they are doing, they can still manage to kill someone with a loaded gun. Be it another child or our military elite, humans are frail.
D&D is a fantastic game that tries to split the hair between balance and heroism. You cant be a hero if an arrow kills you before you engage the enemy. Thus Archers suck in D&D. A barbarian can do the tea pot dance naked on the battle field with 10 arrows stuck in him and not shed a single tear.

There to - this is a team sport. Regardless of how balanced they make D&D, A player is a Scruff Nerf Herder if they hog all the lime light. At the end of the day it does not mater who has the highest DPS. A player is extremely shallow if they think their DPS defines their character's worth. What matters is weather or not everyone had fun.

If there is a foe a warrior type can not compete with then the mage(s) should buff him. If the rogue can not get their sneak attack the fighter should give them the flanking bonus. ETC and so forth. There will always be an imbalance so the only thing that matters is weather or not the group functions like a team.

back on subject

A nothing penalty up to epic levels is still a nothing penalty. No different then starting with a slightly smaller roll that did not effect your character anyway at first level. Warrior types are not pathetic. I have rarely seen one who could not pull his own weight even when playing a straight damage race.

There too I dont like the D&D aging effects. I never said that. I am all for age by level but I think the effects are cheese and narrow sighted. That's why I went through the trouble of explaining how I would do it differently. But regardless of how it is done there should be effects due to age, and unless your playing a Marvel Superhero or DimiGod, then your age should reflect your level of skill for a normal hero. You know its harder for me to think of GOOD RPG that DO NOT have an age effect. (Immortal Vampire and Werewolf games aside)