[PF] Eternal Youth vs immortality

[Tetsubo 57]

The Alchemist has the following Grand Discovery available at 20rth level.

Eternal Youth: The alchemist has discovered a cure for aging, and from this point forward he takes no penalty to his physical ability scores from advanced age. If the alchemist is already taking such penalties, they are removed at this time.

The Wizard has the following Arcane Discovery available at 20th level.

Immortality (Ex): You discover a cure for aging, and from this point forward you take no penalty to your physical ability scores from advanced age. If you are already taking such penalties, they are removed at this time. You must be at least a 20th-level wizard to select this discovery.

I could see these being adjudicated one of two ways.

1) They grant true immortality and the character lives forever unless killed.

2) They keep the character eternally youthful but the character dies at the maximum age for their species.

How do most people rule this?

[Alent]

My understanding is that both are just the Druid's Timeless body with a new name and poor paraphrasing.

You still die when your time is up, but you don't take the negative half of the aging rules. EG: being a Venerable human wizard would give you +3 int/wis/cha without penalty, because you're immune to the -3 str/dex/con.

[Gazzien]

Immortality + Eternal Youth, here. (Immortality from old age, at least. Not true never-be-killed immortality)

[grarrrg]

EG: being a Venerable human wizard would give you +3 int/wis/cha without penalty, because you're immune to the -3 str/dex/con.

FYI: The aging penalties (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/description) grow faster than the bonuses.
Middle is -1/+1 total
Old is -3/+2 total
Venerable is -6/+3 total

[Drachasor]

If they had meant for it to be like Timeless body then it would have the same line. Plenty of other classes and PrCs copy that phrasing. Seems intentional that you don't die from old age to me. And remember, there are wizards in PF that lived for far, far, far long than they should and might still be around -- and they didn't become undead.

[Psyren]

I think Norren's interpretation is the right one.

In Golarion, if you become that powerful of an alchemist you can just learn how to brew Sun Orchid Elixir anyway, which will keep you from dying.

[mucat]

Sean K. Reynolds answered that question (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mmot?Questions-on-Eternal-Youth-and-Immortality) on Paizo's boards. (The sarcasm is his, not mine...)



I don't think you fully understand the meaning of the words "immortal" and "eternal." :)


He went on to clarify further; the Pathfinder designers didn't accidentally leave out the "still die when your time is up" clause. Barring accident or violence, Eternal Youth and Immortality both allow a person to live forever.

[MonochromeTiger]

My understanding is that both are just the Druid's Timeless body with a new name and poor paraphrasing.

You still die when your time is up, but you don't take the negative half of the aging rules. EG: being a Venerable human wizard would give you +3 int/wis/cha without penalty, because you're immune to the -3 str/dex/con.

odd, I was always under the impression that immortality and eternal youth were accurate to their name, they are meant to end the negative effects of the aging process including death by old age. meanwhile timeless body is less an attempt at eternal life and more an attempt to keep the druid's body in its prime for as long as they can carry out their goals (besides which they don't even need the full effect when they can just set themselves up to be reincarnated if they die of old age).


Immortality + Eternal Youth, here. (Immortality from old age, at least. Not true never-be-killed immortality)

"true never-be-killed immortality" isn't all that true since even in mythology immortal creatures and characters can be killed, it's difficult but it happens.

[shylocke]

It almost seems like its just a cosmetic difference.
Youth= you look young and never age
Immortal=never age but probably look old slowly.

[NichG]

I never really got the tendency of D&D's designers to avoid actual sources of longevity/eternal life in the game. I mean, it would be one thing if there were major artifacts that did it and questing for those major artifacts was intended to be a huge plot point, but it seems like a weird thing to pick as the sticking point (especially since there are a number of ways to cheat it anyhow that are just kind of gimmicky, and because its something that rarely if ever comes up within a campaign). I could see it as a holdover from 2ed where 'years of your life' were a material component for many spells, but even 2ed had things that could help you get around it.

So in that light, it doesn't surprise me that Pathfinder basically said 'okay, enough of this, here, have eternal youth'.

[Alent]

I always forget those penalties compound since I never get to use them. :smallredface:


Sean K. Reynolds answered that question (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mmot?Questions-on-Eternal-Youth-and-Immortality) on Paizo's boards. (The sarcasm is his, not mine...)

He went on to clarify further; the Pathfinder designers didn't accidentally leave out the "still die when your time is up" clause. Barring accident or violence, Eternal Youth and Immortality both allow a person to live forever.

Then it should have said as much in the ability description. Ability descriptions are for stating the obvious in game rules language to prevent misunderstanding, not cause them by assuming it's implied by the English language. :smallannoyed:

This leads to exasperated rules lawyers coming up with soundbytes like "By RAW, if he wanted Immortality (Ex) to grant immortality, it would say it grants immortality!"

In a manner of speaking, we're lucky that a developer explained RAI on this one.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, even if you die, just get your druid friend to reincarnate you. Pathfinder Reincarnate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/reincarnate) actually does let people come back who have died of old age come back, though I always liked the druid suicide cult idea.

[Gemini476]

I always forget those penalties compound since I never get to use them. :smallredface:



Then it should have said as much in the ability description. Ability descriptions are for stating the obvious in game rules language to prevent misunderstanding, not cause them by assuming it's implied by the English language. :smallannoyed:

This leads to exasperated rules lawyers coming up with soundbytes like "By RAW, if he wanted Immortality (Ex) to grant immortality, it would say it grants immortality!"

In a manner of speaking, we're lucky that a developer explained RAI on this one.

Isn't the definition of "immortal" "not mortal"? Clearly 20th level Wizards are just immune to death.

And that's why you make sure to write in all the benefits, folks.

[Da'Shain]

Then it should have said as much in the ability description. Ability descriptions are for stating the obvious in game rules language to prevent misunderstanding, not cause them by assuming it's implied by the English language. :smallannoyed:

This leads to exasperated rules lawyers coming up with soundbytes like "By RAW, if he wanted Immortality (Ex) to grant immortality, it would say it grants immortality!"

In a manner of speaking, we're lucky that a developer explained RAI on this one.Honestly, while I can see it being slightly confusing, the presumption when abilities specifically say that "[you] have discovered a cure for aging" should be that you've discovered a cure for the most prominent symptom of aging: dying from old age.

I mean, if the ability said "you have discovered a cure for poison", people arguing that you still took ability damage after taking the cure for that poison would have no leg to stand on. Seems like the same principle to me.


Isn't the definition of "immortal" "not mortal"? Clearly 20th level Wizards are just immune to death.

And that's why you make sure to write in all the benefits, folks.Considering that in pretty much every campaign setting "immortal" creatures are still routinely killed through violence, it should again be fairly obvious that "immortal" means "does not die unless killed". I won't say there's no possibility for confusion, but taking even a moment to think about it makes the RAI self-evident.

[Drachasor]

Then it should have said as much in the ability description. Ability descriptions are for stating the obvious in game rules language to prevent misunderstanding, not cause them by assuming it's implied by the English language. :smallannoyed:

This leads to exasperated rules lawyers coming up with soundbytes like "By RAW, if he wanted Immortality (Ex) to grant immortality, it would say it grants immortality!"

In a manner of speaking, we're lucky that a developer explained RAI on this one.

The RAW could be clearer, I agree, but I do think it definitely implies you don't die of old age. It should just come out and say that though, because that's kind of a significant point (especially when penalty is a well-defined term and death from old age is NOT a penalty).

But what do you expect? it's Pathfinder! If RAW doesn't say what they want, half the time they just insist that it does -- and it certainly doesn't need a proper errata or their crappy FAQratta. Forum comments are good enough.

[shylocke]

The ideal one is when it says it gives you invulnerability. Because then you can rule aging as a kind a of DMG.