[Poll] Do you use Aging rules?

[Firechanter]

Hello Playgrounders,

I'd like to know how many of you use the PHB Age Categories (ability modifiers for aging) in actual play.

I didn't find an actual poll option -- maybe I'm just blind, and I should wait 15 years and see if my then enhanced perception enables me to make the Spot check. For the time being, please respond with a one-word answer in bold type, such as
Yes
No
Modified

and feel free to further comment on your reply or add other insight.

Personally, I have completely axed the aging rules, for the reason that they don't serve any useful purpose. They are not realistic, thus do not enhance the simulation aspect (see above about your senses getting better as you get older); and they are detrimental to game balance because they are essentially a nice gift for Casters while making older Mundanes practically unplayable.
Thus, in short, my answer is

No

Your turn. ^^

[Curmudgeon]

I use those rules just as they are, but without shenanigans. If someone wants to begin play with a Venerable character, the scene-setting for a new game will eat up a couple of years past the minimum age for that category. If they drop dead of old age when the campaign's just getting started, that's it; they're done.

[hymer]

We use them mostly in theory. That is they see use every now and again, but by far most statted characters (and particularly PCs) tend to be too young to deal with them. We do have one modification in several of my campaigns: Elves don't age beyond adulthood, and to keep this from translating into a free, untyped +3 to mental stats, they have neither benefits nor hindrances associated with age.

[Brookshw]

No

I can't recall any campaigns where the scope of in game time enough passed for them to come up.

[NightbringerGGZ]

I've seen a couple of players use them. Usually to play an older caster, which is a bit annoying.

[Firechanter]

Absolutely never use them. I get that the increased mental stats is supposed to reflect their greater experience. But you know what else represents experience? XP. Older NPCs have levelled up, that's all.

Totally agree with this.


I am, however, quite happy to impose the penalties side of the ageing rules, for anyone who absolutely must play an elderly character.

Why do you want to punish your players for that?

[Muggins]

No.

Aging rules are one of those corner-case rulesets: I'm glad that they're there, but they almost never get used. While they do see some occasional use in Char OP, particularly when Dragonwrought kobolds come into play, most games ultimately don't reach the point where age is made to be an issue. Unless the plot calls otherwise, most characters tend to just live forever.

[hicegetraenk]

Yes.

Though we don't make much use of them. My players will go for the young, good looking hero type adventurer 90% of the time. But we have had cases of players wanting to create old witches, wise elders and so on.
Oh and there was that encounter with my all time favourite, the ghost dragon with its aging breath weapon. It made the dwarf and the half orc age about 30 years. While the dwarf took it quite easily, the half orc suddenly was almost dying of age.

There is a limitation to the use of the aging rules that I have implemented in our games. If you are creating a new character later on in the game, you don't get to use these modifiers if you would bypass the negative aspects of them. For example, a high level druid would ignore the penalties but still gain high int, wis and cha values. I see this as a sort of 'cheating' and bending the rules 'cause you take advantage of a time consuming leveling process that simply did not happen and you did not need to play through.

[NichG]

Modified

I'll consider them when I manage to figure out how to make a campaign feel natural while going on for 30+ in-game years. So far I think my record is something like 5 in-game years, and that was in a setting with no teleportation, lots of emphasis on crafting/research/development, and multi-month-long interstellar trips being common by the end. It was enough that one of the characters, who had initially been a sort of child-genius-type, actually grew up over the course of the campaign.

I think I would really need to specifically design and build a campaign from the ground up in order to make things like aging actually relevant outside of char-op tricks. Maybe something like a dynastic campaign run along-side a Europa Universalis style simulation, where because of various factors times of conflict tend to be a decade or so apart for any particular nation.

[sideswipe]

if someone wants to play an old man, with all the benefits and drawbacks that is their choice.

i once played a middle aged character as all of my stats were odd. so no negative modifiers in body but +1 modifier to all mind stats

[VariSami]

YES

In theory, they apply. I apply them to NPCs. But the players have not brought the issue up yet because they have not felt an urge to play an older character and their characters have not lived that long; either because the campaign has ended or because the characters have died or both.

And as for Ashtagon... You are free to enforce whatever rules you feel are appropriate but I would also question only including the penalties for aging. Like you said, not one is required to play an elderly character but if a player *wants* to play one, you *are* punishing them for their roleplaying choice by associating nothing but penalties with the character's age. In effect, you are actively discouraging elderly characters by using the current set of rules and thus discriminating against those who might be so inclined.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No

Balance Reason: Totally screws over non-casters while is a boon to casters.

Fluff Reasons: I love it when players have a fluff reason their character is older and not some 18 year old "veteran". Without aging penalties you can play the gruff old veteran fighter and not suck more than you already will.

If players wanted some sort of penalty I would tell them to pick a flaw and not gain a feat for it. This way the character can describe how the old age has effected their character.

Also I play perception abilities based off Con, the better health your body is in the better you are at hearing and seeing... Just because you are wise doesn't mean you should be able to hear or see better...

[lytokk]

YES

But I have never nor have any of my players started play with an older character. The only time they've come into play was in a certain game of mine that involved a bit of overland travel which actually ended up advancing my human an age category. At that point, my character got ready to drop out of the adventuring group, which was comprised mostly of elves. Fear of getting weaker as time went on.

[HammeredWharf]

However, I don't allow players to cheese them by getting all the benefits and none of the penalties. Most of the time, +3 to all mental stats isn't worth -6 to Con and Dex even if you're a caster.

[The Insanity]

If a player absolutely must play an elderly character, my default position is that the character has ageing penalties. I'm prepared to listen to good arguments as to why the character should not though. The druid/monk's timeless body feature would qualify, although you'd need to be quite high level for that.

No player is ever required to play an elderly character.
But you also take away the minor benefit it gives. So you basically punish a player for his fluff concept. Not something I'd agree with.

Myself I rarely see age categories used. Mostly on my NPCs. So
YES

[NichG]

But you also take away the minor benefit it gives. So you basically punish a player for his fluff concept. Not something I'd agree with.


Not all character concepts are appropriate for every game though. If you're playing a more realistically themed game, then the 90 year old having better endurance and strength than the young soldiers he's fighting along-side doesn't actually make sense. Saying 'penalties apply' is basically saying that being old means something mechanical in that game and is not just fluff. So if that bothered a player who wanted to play an older character, it would make sense for them to hold back that concept for a game in which it did fit better.

Thats not to say that playing an elderly adventurer without penalties is always inappropriate, just that deciding that it is is a reasonable stance to take for a particular game. Its a little meaningless without a context that causes characters to become old though (either magical aging effects or long time-spans in the campaign). With the right context, an elderly character is sort of like a character under the effects of Bestow Curse - its a negative condition which ideally one is motivated to find some way to remove, e.g. seeking effects that make you younger.

Of course one could also go to a more detailed model and allow a character to start in a later age category (penalties only) but gain an initial XP bonus. So a venerable character might have penalties to all physical stats but be a level or two ahead of the rest of the party. Its then up to the players and DM to figure out if the tradeoff is worth it or fair in making decisions about what to play.

The main problem with mucking around with the age stuff is that the context for it is very bad in later editions of D&D. 2ed had various things that would age you or reverse your aging, and so even with short campaigns it could matter (cast Haste, age a year...), but that has become unpopular for later editions and so the age stuff is sort of vestigial.

[Curmudgeon]

No

Balance Reason: Totally screws over non-casters while is a boon to casters.
I made a Fighter/Paladin (Holy Warrior) character who was built to start at Middle Age. It was both a detriment (for the usual reasons) and somewhat of a boon, for Intimidate used to demoralize enemies on the battlefield. Paladin class features are also based off Charisma. The Holy Warrior Paladin ACF meant this was a non-caster, so the Wisdom gain wasn't a big deal. With the character over the MDB of their armor, the Dexterity reduction was less significant than the other physical ability hits.

Basically, the age just seemed a better fit for a well-experienced warrior. Yes, the net result was a slight reduction in overall capabilities. So what?

[nedz]

Maybe, but NO

It's never really come up.

I did once have a player create a middle aged Dwarf Cleric, but he didn't want to apply the modifiers so I agreed to ignore them.

If I'm creating an NPC then I may apply them, typically I just choose numbers as appropriate for the character — I use Elite Array for all NPCs so they are easy to tweak. This can be equivalent to applying the modifiers, but without actually doing so.

[The Insanity]

Saying 'penalties apply' is basically saying that being old means something mechanical in that game and is not just fluff.
Uhm, yeah. I'm not saying don't apply penalties. But don't also remove the minor benefit that comes with them.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I made a Fighter/Paladin (Holy Warrior) character who was built to start at Middle Age. It was both a detriment (for the usual reasons) and somewhat of a boon, for Intimidate used to demoralize enemies on the battlefield. Paladin class features are also based off Charisma. The Holy Warrior Paladin ACF meant this was a non-caster, so the Wisdom gain wasn't a big deal. With the character over the MDB of their armor, the Dexterity reduction was less significant than the other physical ability hits.

Basically, the age just seemed a better fit for a well-experienced warrior. Yes, the net result was a slight reduction in overall capabilities. So what?

I also like to play non-casters. However, as noted many times, playing a non-castet is already in optimizing yourself. Why add in a rule that specifically hurts non-casters more and helps casters? By the book, there is no point in this because you are already making weak classes weaker.

You could play that same character and roleplay his age without needing to gimp yourself even more. And just because it doesn't hurt that specific build all that much doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt on the broad spectrum.

If the rule actually penalized all classes for getting older (like my suggestion for using flaws) then I could see it working. But adding in yet another rule that favors casters over non-casters AND limits players to only playing younger character (except for casters and niche PC ideas) is a bad rule.

You effectively punish players for playing a specific type of character. Players (not the PCs within the game) are afraid to have older characters. Or are all adventurers in fantasy minimum age for their race?


Edit: maybe instead of automatically getting smarter, wiser, or more charismatic as you age and automatically weaker in all ways... Perhaps you take the flaw to penalize range attack rolls. Your melee capabilities are still top notch cause that is your speciality but your aim isn't what it used to be.

This would allow the character to craft a story on how older age has hindered them.

[Gemini476]

Sure, why not? Beyond the inherent min-maxing that boosting mental stats can give you, I suppose.
But that just encourages the archetype of the elderly magician, which I'm perfectly fine with. The physically infirm but mentally wise elder.
Because those penalties are pretty harsh beyond Middle Age. -1 to physicals for +1 to mentals is a fair trade, usually, but -6 for +3? You actually need to invest in your physical stats if you want to optimize that.
I mean, Dex and Con are some of the most important stats out there. Nobody likes taking so extensive penalties to those unless they can cheese it somehow, and going Dragonwrought locks you into a specific race and 1st-level feat.

And for Middle-Age, that's mostly just useful for rounding out odd ability scores. I don't have any issues whatsoever with people rounding out odd ability scores.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Sure, why not? Beyond the inherent min-maxing that boosting mental stats can give you, I suppose.
But that just encourages the archetype of the elderly magician, which I'm perfectly fine with. The physically infirm but mentally wise elder.
Because those penalties are pretty harsh beyond Middle Age. -1 to physicals for +1 to mentals is a fair trade, usually, but -6 for +3? You actually need to invest in your physical stats if you want to optimize that.
I mean, Dex and Con are some of the most important stats out there. Nobody likes taking so extensive penalties to those unless they can cheese it somehow, and going Dragonwrought locks you into a specific race and 1st-level feat.

And for Middle-Age, that's mostly just useful for rounding out odd ability scores. I don't have any issues whatsoever with people rounding out odd ability scores.

The Druid and Wizard laugh at physical scores... Wildshape and Polymorph spells.

While you may promote that archetype you also essentially get rid of the old veteran fighter, old martial arts master, or old warlord barbarian that can stick destroy the youngins.

Do note that monks who have already aged and took penalties keep them. So unless you start as a level 17 monk... You won't see to many old man monks.

Of course one could argue if you are playing a 17th level monk you should be punished haha :p

[NichG]

Uhm, yeah. I'm not saying don't apply penalties. But don't also remove the minor benefit that comes with them.

Well the benefits introduce other problems as people have mentioned (e.g. being too good for casters). Anyhow, its essentially all about creating the particular landscape you want for character options and motivations in your game - which factors in theme, encouraging players to play specific things and not others, etc.

I guess the take-home message is 'whatever you do will have an effect - know what it is before you do it and make sure its what you want, no more no less'.

[The Insanity]

If I didn't like old people something (for whatever reason) I would simply not allow it in my games, not be passive-aggressive about it. But that's just me.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The next oneshot I'm going to run will have each PC be one year from their maximum age with no penalties or benefits based on age.

One last horah before their bodies give out on them.

[Zanos]

The Druid and Wizard laugh at physical scores... Wildshape and Polymorph spells.

While you may promote that archetype you also essentially get rid of the old veteran fighter, old martial arts master, or old warlord barbarian that can stick destroy the youngins.

Do note that monks who have already aged and took penalties keep them. So unless you start as a level 17 monk... You won't see to many old man monks.

Of course one could argue if you are playing a 17th level monk you should be punished haha :p

Only if you don't die before reaching those levels. With -6 con and dex you ac hp, and saves(except will) will all be garbage, and if you try to carry anythin you'll just fall over.

[Gemini476]

The Druid and Wizard laugh at physical scores... Wildshape and Polymorph spells.

While you may promote that archetype you also essentially get rid of the old veteran fighter, old martial arts master, or old warlord barbarian that can stick destroy the youngins.

Do note that monks who have already aged and took penalties keep them. So unless you start as a level 17 monk... You won't see to many old man monks.

Of course one could argue if you are playing a 17th level monk you should be punished haha :p
Middle-age is from 35 to 52 for humans, and that's just -1 to physicals and +1 to mental. Old is 53-69 and is -3/+2.
A Fighter 1 with Str 18 and a Fighter 3 with Str 15 have the same chance of hitting something. The Fighter 2 is probably able to do more damage thanks to his additional feats as well, since his age only gives a -2 to damage. Or -3 if two-handing weapons.

For monks, having the Ancient Guru On The Mountain simply requires you to have him reach 17th level before he decides to retire to sit on the tip of a mountain 24/7 and spout mystical koans when not meditating. Or he just takes the -3 to-hit and -3 to damage, which still makes him as accurate as monks four levels lower and as damaging as... well, that's more complicated. Unarmed damage is effectively +1.5 at first level, +1 at 4th, +1 at 8th, +1.5 at 12th, +2 at 16th, and +2 at 20th.
So for a 16th level Venerable Monk he'd hit as hard as a 11th level monk, I guess. A bit harder.

The old badasses are still badasses on account of simply having more experience than anyone else, which can be seen in the form of feats and class features. They might not stand up to young people that are as skilled as they are, but that's just to be expected.

[Vedhin]

Modified

First, If you'd like to play an older character, you can choose to drop aging modifiers completely.
Second, certain mayfly races (Thri-Keen come to mind) live a longer.
Third, Magic of Incarnum races aging rules are used for everyone, to keep the field even (never liked how only those races, and possible Oriental Adventures races, got better aging benefits).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Only if you don't die before reaching those levels. With -6 con and dex you ac hp, and saves(except will) will all be garbage, and if you try to carry anythin you'll just fall over.

You reached those levels when you were younger and then enjoy a long long life.

Once someone gets 7-9th level spells they are pretty much king of the world or at least scary enough nothing in the material plane really wants to mess with you... And quite a few things not on the material plane will/wants to mess with you.

[HammeredWharf]

For a full caster class, those RAW "minor benefits" are actually really massively big, and the ageing penalties not all that significant for them either

I disagree. Let's take a look at the common stat distributions of primary casters from Core:

Wizard:
Int > Con / Dex
Depends on you level and if Polymorph is available. Generally, HP isn't that important, but it starts to matter when you don't have any. Polymorph doesn't boost your HP. Dex is important because Polymorph lasts 1 min / level, but becomes less important if you're able to Persist it. However, keep in mind that most wizards aren't uber-metamagiced TO Incantatrixes and do not have access to Persistent Polymorph. Many wizards also need Dex to hit things with their touch spells.

Druid:
Wis > Con
Druids don't need Dexterity after lvl 6, but they're often front line combatants, which is why losing Con hurts them a lot. Just like Polymorph, wild shaping doesn't raise your HP.

Cleric:
Wis > Str / Con > Dex
Clerics generally don't Polymorph, so having decent physical stats is quite important to them. In fact, in the case of a normal human cleric I'd recommend a starting Wis of 16. Usually, you'll cast buffs and won't need great DCs. Even as a caster cleric, you want to win initiative.

So, they could take the first aging category to squeeze a point or two extra. That shouldn't be much of a problem. Anything more and they start sacrificing more than they gain.


full casters seldom need to go into direct combat, let alone direct combat unbuffed.

Sure, but you're fine if you're buffed and not in direct combat. The times when you're not fine are more important and you'll need physical stats for those occasions.

[OldTrees1]

I allow aging penalties(and bonuses) but restrict those ages to the following cases:

Middle Aged: Anyone
Old: Only for non casters (and only voluntarily)
Venerable: Only if they have Str and Dex scores and take the -6 penalty to each

Middle Aged is merely a +1/-1 stat adjustment which I have found useful to give players more customization (helps Martial characters with racial penalties to mental stats)

Old is more prone to abuse with +2 to mental stats and -3 to physical stats. It is usually too expensive for martial characters and too cheap for casters.

Venerable has a big enough penalty to physical stats that I can and will make it relevant to any caster that wants to take it. (Nice for Str 2, Dex 2 Necromancer characters)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I disagree. Let's take a look at the common stat distributions of primary casters from Core:

Wizard:
Int > Con / Dex
Depends on you level and if Polymorph is available. Generally, HP isn't that important, but it starts to matter when you don't have any. Polymorph doesn't boost your HP. Dex is important because Polymorph lasts 1 min / level, but becomes less important if you're able to Persist it. However, keep in mind that most wizards aren't uber-metamagiced TO Incantatrixes and do not have access to Persistent Polymorph. Many wizards also need Dex to hit things with their touch spells.

Druid:
Wis > Con
Druids don't need Dexterity after lvl 6, but they're often front line combatants, which is why losing Con hurts them a lot. Just like Polymorph, wild shaping doesn't raise your HP.

Cleric:
Wis > Str / Con > Dex
Clerics generally don't Polymorph, so having decent physical stats is quite important to them. In fact, in the case of a normal human cleric I'd recommend a starting Wis of 16. Usually, you'll cast buffs and won't need great DCs. Even as a caster cleric, you want to win initiative.

So, they could take the first aging category to squeeze a point or two extra. That shouldn't be much of a problem. Anything more and they start sacrificing more than they gain.



Sure, but you're fine if you're buffed and not in direct combat. The times when you're not fine are more important and you'll need physical stats for those occasions.


As a person who plays druids quite a bit I would like to remind you that druids are not always front line combatants... Actually the most popular Wildshape I've seen is Legendary Eagle (or insert other bird) + natural spell + enervation (replace with other spell as you like) as a 4th level spell + big ol' animal companion to be the front liner.

That isn't even the most optimized option...

[HammeredWharf]

As a person who plays druids quite a bit I would like to remind you that druids are not always front line combatants... Actually the most popular Wildshape I've seen is Legendary Eagle (or insert other bird) + natural spell + enervation (replace with other spell as you like) as a 4th level spell + big ol' animal companion to be the front liner.

That isn't even the most optimized option...

Which is why I wrote "often" instead of "always". Druids also have a wide variety of no save spells, which why high Wis is of less importance to them than, say, high Int is for beguilers.

Edit: Actually, Enervation isn't even of the druid spell list. If you somehow got access to it, having 24 Wisdom instead of 21 would be absolutely useless at lvl 7, because it wouldn't affect your Enervation slots in any way. You'd have to sacrifice a whole lot (of either attribute points or dignity) to get your Wisdom to 26 and get another 4th level slot.

[Urpriest]

Yes, for NPCs.

I would theoretically use them for PCs too, but by my reading of the RAW you can't start a game older than the starting age for your class, so it would only come up for games that cover a long enough span of time, and so far I haven't ran such a game.

[Gemini476]

As a person who plays druids quite a bit I would like to remind you that druids are not always front line combatants... Actually the most popular Wildshape I've seen is Legendary Eagle (or insert other bird) + natural spell + enervation (replace with other spell as you like) as a 4th level spell + big ol' animal companion to be the front liner.

That isn't even the most optimized option...

...Enervation is a 4th level Wizard spell. And Legendary isn't a template, and the animal's hit dice can't exceed your own anyway. Animals have pretty bad AC as well, but that can be solved with spells.

EDIT:

Yes, for NPCs.

I would theoretically use them for PCs too, but by my reading of the RAW you can't start a game older than the starting age for your class, so it would only come up for games that cover a long enough span of time, and so far I haven't ran such a game.
Isn't it the exact opposite? You can't start a game younger than the starting age.

You can choose or randomly generate your character’s age. If you
choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character’s
race and class (see Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages). Your
character’s minimum starting age is the adulthood age of his or her
race plus the number of dice indicated in the entry corresponding to
the character’s race and class on Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages.
For example, an elf ranger must be at least 116 years old (adulthood
age 110 plus 6, because the entry for an elf ranger is +6d6).
Alternatively, refer to Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages and roll
dice to determine how old your character is. An elf ranger’s randomly
generated starting age, for example, is 110+6d6 years.

[...]

The maximum ages are for player characters. Most people in the
world at large die from pestilence, accidents, infections, or violence
before getting to venerable age.

[137beth]

No.
I haven't done a campaign in which the PCs reach an age where it matters. By the time they do, they are usually a high enough level that they can figure out how to halt aging.

For NPCs, I don't build them with particular ability score point-buy/arrays in mind, I just assign them whatever ability scores I think are appropriate. That makes the aging bonuses/penalties irrelevant, since I can just give them higher physical/lower mental scores.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

...Enervation is a 4th level Wizard spell. And Legendary isn't a template, and the animal's hit dice can't exceed your own anyway. Animals have pretty bad AC as well, but that can be solved with spells.

Legendary Eagle is a specific type of bird animal. No templates or anything like that.

You can gain enervation as a druid feat. Actually you gain multiple spells to your spell list but enervation is the tasty one.

Feat: Nightbringer Initiate, fantastic when you are making a sneaky druid.

Flying Defensive Wildshape? How did I forget about the dire bat... But legendary eagle is pretty much the way to go once you hit 12th level. Dire bat is at... At level 8 I think. Level 5 does give you the Desmodu Hunting Bat though.

Hunting bat had a natural AC of 20... Not to bad with 60ft fly speed.

[Urpriest]

Legendary Eagle is a specific type of bird animal. No templates or anything like that.

It's also from 3.0, which means absent explicit stuff it's not an allowable companion.




EDIT:

Isn't it the exact opposite? You can't start a game younger than the starting age.

You're prohibited from starting a game younger than the starting age...but while you can indeed choose your age, that isn't a blank check to choose whichever age you want. Otherwise, you could choose something over your maximum age, after all! The way I see it, the only way the setup makes sense is if you have to choose within the same age category as the starting ages. But I admit that it's more of a design inference than an actual RAW interpretation.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's also from 3.0, which means absent explicit stuff it's not an allowable companion.

I believe the RAW is that 3.0 material is allowed unless it was specifically updated, then you must use the updated 3.5 material. I forget the page and stuff but it is somewhere in the DMG I think (been a while).

[Anxe]

Yes.

I use them all the time for NPCs. They've only come up twice in my memory for PCs. Once was an actual PC who went from adult to venerable over the course of four different campaigns within one campaign world (still going!).
The other is the timeless body druid gimmick. The player's previous character wasn't very effective in combat so I was okay with giving him a little boost on his replacement. It also gave a way to explain where this level 17 druid had been for the last 50 years (retired to a life as a panda bear).

[Curmudgeon]

I believe the RAW is that 3.0 material is allowed unless it was specifically updated, then you must use the updated 3.5 material.
The update requirement is correct, but the rest is not quite right. Here's the rule, from page 4 of Dungeon Master's Guide:
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments. Exactly what "minor adjustments" are necessary are up to each individual DM to decide. They're free to make the minor adjustment that they don't have time to review old content (and it's thus disallowed in their game), for instance. There's no guarantee of 3.0 material being allowed.

[OldTrees1]

The update requirement is correct, but the rest is not quite right. Here's the rule, from page 4 of Dungeon Master's Guide: Exactly what "minor adjustments" are necessary are up to each individual DM to decide. They're free to make the minor adjustment that they don't have time to review old content (and it's thus disallowed in their game), for instance. There's no guarantee of 3.0 material being allowed.

The same is true of anything outside of core.
Even core is not guaranteed.

I think I am agreeing with you(assuming you were reacting to the "must").

[Gemini476]

It's also from 3.0, which means absent explicit stuff it's not an allowable companion.



You're prohibited from starting a game younger than the starting age...but while you can indeed choose your age, that isn't a blank check to choose whichever age you want. Otherwise, you could choose something over your maximum age, after all! The way I see it, the only way the setup makes sense is if you have to choose within the same age category as the starting ages. But I admit that it's more of a design inference than an actual RAW interpretation.

If you choose an age greater than your maximum age, you are presumably dead. Who said that Traveller was the only game that let you die during character creation?:smallamused:
Then again, you don't actually know what your maximum age is. Personally I would just adjucate that they are currently at their maximum age and will die within a year, but yeah. Or reroll until it's above their age, since that's pretty much what the "you die, reroll your character" option would lead to.

I mean, maximum age is explicitly for PCs.

The maximum ages are for player characters. Most people in the
world at large die from pestilence, accidents, infections, or violence
before getting to venerable age.

And since I find it unlikely that you will play a character for even the 36 years that it would take for a half-orc Wizard with maximum random starting age (26) and minimum maximum age (62) to die...

[Zanos]

You reached those levels when you were younger and then enjoy a long long life.

Once someone gets 7-9th level spells they are pretty much king of the world or at least scary enough nothing in the material plane really wants to mess with you... And quite a few things not on the material plane will/wants to mess with you.
Only applicable if you start at those levels. If you care that much about Int you're probably a Grey Elf, and I'd be hard pressed to find a DM that would let you age for several centuries while the rest of the party dies.

If you do start at those levels, you become very vulnerable to dispelling so expect your DM to abuse the hell out of that. If you're optimizing hard enough magic breaks the game so hard at a certain point that your stats really don't matter, so the whole point of abusing aging is moot.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Only applicable if you start at those levels. If you care that much about Int you're probably a Grey Elf, and I'd be hard pressed to find a DM that would let you age for several centuries while the rest of the party dies.

If you do start at those levels, you become very vulnerable to dispelling so expect your DM to abuse the hell out of that. If you're optimizing hard enough magic breaks the game so hard at a certain point that your stats really don't matter, so the whole point of abusing aging is moot.

You don't have to optimize all that hard to make it where nothing short of DM fiat takes your character down... If you are a full tier 1 caster.

[Urpriest]

I believe the RAW is that 3.0 material is allowed unless it was specifically updated, then you must use the updated 3.5 material. I forget the page and stuff but it is somewhere in the DMG I think (been a while).

...for some reason, I thought you were talking about a Legendary Eagle companion, rather than a Wild Shape. Nevermind.

[Firechanter]

Thanks for participating, everyone!

I couldn't help but notice that several respondents have answered No when in fact they meant Yes. It's not a problem, I figured it out -- it goes to show that a lot of people just never really have bothered with the aging system. To clarify, if you say "The rules are there, they just don't come up because PCs aren't played to those ages", that's actually a Yes.
If the rules weren't there, maybe more players would be inclined to play a middle-aged badass à la John McClane instead of 18-year old whippersnappers.

So according to my tally, the results are
70% Yes - Age rules are a thing
15% No - Age rules are ignored (or player may choose to ignore them)
15% Modified (some more lenient, some more strict)

[Psyren]

No. From what I've seen only caster players even read them.


The update requirement is correct, but the rest is not quite right. Here's the rule, from page 4 of Dungeon Master's Guide: Exactly what "minor adjustments" are necessary are up to each individual DM to decide. They're free to make the minor adjustment that they don't have time to review old content (and it's thus disallowed in their game), for instance. There's no guarantee of 3.0 material being allowed.

Nice, I may have to bookmark this one for later :smallbiggrin:

[Alex12]

No
Not really, anyway. It's only come up twice in our group, and one of those was someone wanting to play a Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold, which was nixed for obvious reasons. The other one was someone playing a thousand-year-old Elan. Since Elans don't have a maximum age, we just sort of assumed that aging was optional for Elans, but if they don't take the penalties, they don't get the bonuses.

[Coidzor]

Yes.


Although so far the only time anyone has actually used them has been a Middle-Aged Swordsage & a few NPCs that weren't completely statted up & didn't see combat.

[atemu1234]

YES

I do use them, but I don't use the Random Starting Age rules. This is mostly because I don't want to deal with tracking it down for all the races in Monster Manual or in other sourcebooks, I just assume that they start either like a human, an elf, or a dwarf and work from there. Characters never explicitly age, since most adventures I do happen within a 2-3 year period in-game, so unless they want to roll up a venerable player, they're useless to me.

[Forrestfire]

Yes and No

I let the player decide if they want to use them. If someone wants to play a venerable wizard for +3 to mental stats, that's fine. On the flipside, if someone wants to play Cohen the Barbarian, or a gruff middle-aged fighter, or a retired old soldier that got dragged back into adventuring, that's also fine, and I'm ok with them playing that without penalties or bonuses.

You're playing a badass anyway. There's no reason to penalize a player for having a concept they'd like to play that's a bit older age than the rest. Their stats not being raised or lowered with age can be handwaved by "well they did, and the point buy/rolls are coincidentally exactly what the abilities are after modifiers," or them just being that good.

[ArqArturo]

Yes and no.

Yes I would let players use older characters if they wanted to, but nine times out of ten they will chhose to be young, fit and healthy as opposed to old and seasoned. It's also a bit difficult to explain why your 50 year-old adventurer is level 1 (though Pathfinder's iconic wizard is well-developed).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yes and no.

Yes I would let players use older characters if they wanted to, but nine times out of ten they will chhose to be young, fit and healthy as opposed to old and seasoned. It's also a bit difficult to explain why your 50 year-old adventurer is level 1 (though Pathfinder's iconic wizard is well-developed).

Grandad was a farmer his whole life before X Event happen. He put down his pitch fork and picked up his X Weapon/X Item and went to X Action since it was his calling/no one else could do it.

5 seconds...

It really isn't that hard but I've found that people who play D&D tend to have a very limited imagination for the most part. Unless it fits within their specific type of Fantasy.

It is quite weird.

Note: this isn't an insult, just something I've noticed over the many years of gaming. It reminded me of how developers making 3.P perseave non-casters versus casters. If you do anything special or unrealistic then it has to be magic (for the most part).

[137beth]

Thanks for participating, everyone!

I couldn't help but notice that several respondents have answered No when in fact they meant Yes. It's not a problem, I figured it out -- it goes to show that a lot of people just never really have bothered with the aging system. To clarify, if you say "The rules are there, they just don't come up because PCs aren't played to those ages", that's actually a Yes.
If the rules weren't there, maybe more players would be inclined to play a middle-aged badass à la John McClane instead of 18-year old whippersnappers.

So according to my tally, the results are
70% Yes - Age rules are a thing
15% No - Age rules are ignored (or player may choose to ignore them)
15% Modified (some more lenient, some more strict)

While I did say "no, it hasn't come up for PCs", I meant to say that if it did come up, I probably wouldn't use it. I don't use it for NPCs, when it does come up.
I did say it hasn't come up for PCs, but that isn't the reason I haven't used the aging rules:smalltongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While I did say "no, it hasn't come up for PCs", I meant to say that if it did come up, I probably wouldn't use it. I don't use it for NPCs, when it does come up.
I did say it hasn't come up for PCs, but that isn't the reason I haven't used the aging rules:smalltongue:

Same here, though I'm always flexible with my players.

But most people don't see it as aging penalties but afaing benefits.

[ArqArturo]

Grandad was a farmer his whole life before X Event happen. He put down his pitch fork and picked up his X Weapon/X Item and went to X Action since it was his calling/no one else could do it.

5 seconds...

It really isn't that hard but I've found that people who play D&D tend to have a very limited imagination for the most part. Unless it fits within their specific type of Fantasy.

It is quite weird.

Note: this isn't an insult, just something I've noticed over the many years of gaming. It reminded me of how developers making 3.P perseave non-casters versus casters. If you do anything special or unrealistic then it has to be magic (for the most part).

... Ouch :smallconfused:.

I have seen a similar issue with my gaming group: Everyone was either the son of a legendary warrior, the member of a savage tribe, the apprentice of a powerful wizard; the running gag on me is that I make 'Über hillbillies" because 9/10 I'll go with the 'peasant hero' or 'unwilling champion', and this was more clear in a Song of Ice and Fire game we ran, where everyone was a Stark, Baratheon, Stokeworth, and I was a 'Bastard from a long line of bastards'.

[VoxRationis]

Grandad was a farmer his whole life before X Event happen. He put down his pitch fork and picked up his X Weapon/X Item and went to X Action since it was his calling/no one else could do it.

Properly speaking, Grandad would be a Commoner 1/C 1 rather than just a 1st-level C in that case (where C is an adventuring class). You can't get that far in life without taking a level in something.

If you do anything special or unrealistic then it has to be magic (for the most part).
Well, yes, that is kind of the point of magic. You say that like it's some sort of indefensible position, but "magic" may be defined as "that which is inconsistent with physics and the laws of nature," so therefore anything that is unrealistic or physically impossible should be magical, pretty much by definition. Now, the Player's Handbook does list Extraordinary abilities as potentially being beyond the laws of physics, but it doesn't exactly give a good list of examples in that regard. Alternatively, you could define magic as "the use of mysterious or supernatural forces," but that's really vague and hard to pin down, and I therefore would move to bar it from being a working technical definition. In some works of speculative fiction, "magic" is simply technology not understood by those who call it magic, and would therefore be entirely in keeping with the laws of physics (just not as understood by the group who refer to it as magic), but that's not the default for D&D and doesn't fit a lot of default settings.

[Coidzor]

Obviously he had a single RHD of Humanoid and then traded it for his 1st class level once he went from being unstatted to statted. :smallamused:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Properly speaking, Grandad would be a Commoner 1/C 1 rather than just a 1st-level C in that case (where C is an adventuring class). You can't get that far in life without taking a level in something.

Well, yes, that is kind of the point of magic. You say that like it's some sort of indefensible position, but "magic" may be defined as "that which is inconsistent with physics and the laws of nature," so therefore anything that is unrealistic or physically impossible should be magical, pretty much by definition. Now, the Player's Handbook does list Extraordinary abilities as potentially being beyond the laws of physics, but it doesn't exactly give a good list of examples in that regard. Alternatively, you could define magic as "the use of mysterious or supernatural forces," but that's really vague and hard to pin down, and I therefore would move to bar it from being a working technical definition. In some works of speculative fiction, "magic" is simply technology not understood by those who call it magic, and would therefore be entirely in keeping with the laws of physics (just not as understood by the group who refer to it as magic), but that's not the default for D&D and doesn't fit a lot of default settings.

Or he could be a level 10 fighter, levels aren't a real thing within the world. They are just a game mechanic to help players.

Yes I know all about Ex, the problem is that the devs and fans of PF and D&D tend to limit what Ex can do to the extreme while magic is allowed to do anything.

There are a ton of magic system in stories and games that have limitations and yet D&D/PF works as if spells don't have limits. Every limit they have gets broken eventually.

When you try to explain Ex abilities you will blow peoples mind and they start calling it anime or magic. Why shouldn't a small fantasy character (Halfling) be able to grab a colossal dragon and throw it? Why does it have to be magic when that same Halfling moves really really fast to run through a wall without harming himself or the wall? Why can't Ex be fantasy?

I'm not saying everyone is this way but I've seen it way to often. It is possibly the biggest failing of D&D and Pathfinder. The systems help push the stereotype that non-casters can't be fantasy unless they have a magical source.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I've never used them, but I might in the future.

I would NEVER allow them for PC creation, it's just a tool to buff casters even more at that point. I suppose if it was a high level game and the PC had Timeless Body, I'd be ok with giving them the age benefits as part of their class feature. But I'd rather just re-write Timeless Body to instantly give you benefits (only) of the oldest age category regardless of current age, so it's not completely useless in pretty much every game.

EDIT: Actually, running an adventure path right now and already one of the NPCs had the age modifiers factored into his pre-built stat block that I didn't see the need to change, so I have in fact used them. Once.

[VoxRationis]

Lots of mechanical concepts aren't in-character, but they apply nonetheless, and certain rules define how they work. Assuming the Grandad in question couldn't get a Racial Hit Die due to humans not being in the Monster Manual (we'll assume the character is human for the moment), they had to take a level in something. Now, it's possible that the character in question was preparing for the possibility of having to take up the sword since he was young, and thus he's a fighter or whatever with ranks in Profession and Craft, but that wasn't the scenario posited, so that level probably went to commoner or expert.
Furthermore, the reason magic gets carte blanche and nonmagical talents do not is because of the aforementioned definitional qualities. Magic requires the story to specifically apply restrictions from the author's mind because it is already that which breaks the established rules of what we know. A wizard flying without wings or shooting lightning bolts from his hands is clearly breaking those rules, but they are by definition a person whose modus operandi is magic, so we can easily let them get away with it. The reason a halfling throwing a dragon is ridiculous is because we're all reasonably familiar with throwing. It's a real-world activity subject to real-world restrictions, and those restrictions say that a creature the size of a child is not going to be able to throw something larger than a baleen whale: we know this both intuitively and formally via the laws of physics. Thus, it is natural to attempt to place realistic restrictions on real-world activities, but not on something which is explicitly, by its very nature, the intentional defiance of natural laws from the ground up. Now, you naturally need to put on restrictions of some kind to magic, or else the game becomes like an argument between two children about their toys having assorted ever-escalating immunities and attacks, but those restrictions aren't as intuitively well-defined as those which we would place on things that all come from the natural world. Now, you may argue that the restrictions on magic in D&D are not strict enough, and I won't contest such a claim (although I do note a strange tendency observable on this forum that complains about the excessive power of wizards yet also tends to selectively ignore or call for the abolition of things which can potentially rein that in), but in my mind, the way to rectify that is to rein in wizards, not completely throw out the natural laws of things. They keep the setting and story grounded, and prevent it from turning into the aforementioned argument between children.
And fantasy characters are not defined by whether or not they can do supernatural things; they are defined by being characters from fictional settings incorporating supernatural phenomena. Fafhrd is a fantasy character, but in none of the stories I have read has he done anything not possible by a sufficiently trained real-world figure. His partner-in-crime only does magical things when he's explicitly using his limited training in wizardry. Gimli's only fantastic element is that he's a dwarf, and that doesn't really show up as a factor in anything but his social interactions. Boromir, in the same party, doesn't even have that to show he's a fantasy character, but he is one nonetheless. One can name hundreds of fantasy characters from A Song of Ice and Fire who haven't an ounce of magic to them and whose exploits are strictly within the laws of nature.

In short, the reason why the physically impossible is usually characterized under (Su) instead of (Ex) is because the breaking of the laws of nature is magic and it therefore is most straightforward to classify it as such.

Edit: Oh, and no, I haven't used them, because none of my campaigns have really called for their use. I would if it came up, though.