Do Ancients Paladins Get Free Immortality?

[Thrathgnar]

A player and I were discussing the wording of Undying Sentinel. I don't believe it would be balanced to straight up give someone immortality and have though of it as "you don't age but you still die" while he treats it as free immortality. What's this feat actually mean?

[CNagy]

A player and I were discussing the wording of Undying Sentinel. I don't believe it would be balanced to straight up give someone immortality and have though of it as "you don't age but you still die" while he treats it as free immortality. What's this feat actually mean?

...as written, it might just grant age-related immortality. Limited lifespan death is a considerable drawback of old age, and the other abilities that I can think of which protect you from age-related drawbacks specifically call out that you still die at the end of your natural lifespan. That said, it doesn't say you don't age--just that you don't suffer any of the drawbacks of old age.

[Thrathgnar]

Thats what my friend was saying. I've just always thought that immortality was intentionally difficult to obtain in dnd and usually requires a lot of preparation, so I don't understand a feat that would just grant it for free

[CNagy]

Thats what my friend was saying. I've just always thought that immortality was intentionally difficult to obtain in dnd and usually requires a lot of preparation, so I don't understand a feat that would just grant it for free

I don't think it was intentional. I think it was supposed to be just like all of the other "super spry grandpa" abilities. Being able to die of old age would seem to be supported by the fact that you can't be magically aged--and why would magical aging matter if getting older didn't have any penalties? I read that as protection from being aged to death, redundant if one cannot actually die from old age. So, I'm guessing immortality wasn't intended but it is granted according to what is on the page.

[Thrathgnar]

I don't think it was intentional. I think it was supposed to be just like all of the other "super spry grandpa" abilities. Being able to die of old age would seem to be supported by the fact that you can't be magically aged--and why would magical aging matter if getting older didn't have any penalties? I read that as protection from being aged to death, redundant if one cannot actually die from old age. So, I'm guessing immortality wasn't intended but it is granted according to what is on the page.

That makes a lot of sense

[ThermalSlapShot]

A player and I were discussing the wording of Undying Sentinel. I don't believe it would be balanced to straight up give someone immortality and have though of it as "you don't age but you still die" while he treats it as free immortality. What's this feat actually mean?

Well it isn't exactly "free".

The ancient Paladin has spent a lifetime serving the greater good and has devoted themselves to cherishing the light that is in all things, including themselves.

One of the drawbacks of old age is that you die, however the ancient paladin does not since they don't get the drawbacks of old age. As of right now I think the only drawback of old age is death as you don't get a penalty to ability scores for old age (that I know of).

And this is perfect for this sort of paladin. This is a paladin that will use that gift and continue to protect the light that is within everything. And if this paladin ever goes against their Oath? Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36WEn-9zs1U ... Well except for the annoying screaming....

edited

Immortality was intentional based on the name "Paladin of Ancients" and how the ability is worded. However they can still die of other causes of death as the drop to 1hp is a 1/rest issue.

[SharkForce]

a wizard can just clone you and give you back your youth. i don't really see a major problem if it does.

[D.U.P.A.]

The point is that you do not become infirm, feeble like old men, but you retain all your physical and mental fitness throughout your entire life. Like many animals, like turtles, continue to grow through their entire life and they are not hampered by any old age diseases nor they are notably weaker than their younger counterparts. So it quite makes sense being tied to nature. Not sure if Druid works also this way or he really lives 10 times longer.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The point is that you do not become infirm, feeble like old men, but you retain all your physical and mental fitness throughout your entire life. Like many animals, like turtles, continue to grow through their entire life and they are not hampered by any old age diseases nor they are notably weaker than their younger counterparts. So it quite makes sense being tied to nature. Not sure if Druid works also this way or he really lives 10 times longer.


The only negative side effect of old age, that I know of, is death. So no long aged person would be more susceptible to disease, weakness, reduced mental conditions, or anything else outside of death at old age than they were at young age.

So the only explanation for that ability is in fact immortality with regards to age. A dragon can still kill you but your limitation on age is gone.

[Warwick]

Does it actually matter? It doesn't actually make you any more powerful, and unless you're playing a very long game, it's mostly flavor text one way or the other.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Does it actually matter? It doesn't actually make you any more powerful, and unless you're playing a very long game, it's mostly flavor text one way or the other.

I don't think it does. If anything it adds flavor to a character.

Background Bond: I'm 700 years old, I get to call dwarves and elves "youngins", they tend to roll their eyes at me.... But we have been allies for generations.

[burninatortrog]

The only negative side effect of old age, that I know of, is death.

What planet do you live on? :amused:

[Zevox]

Thats what my friend was saying. I've just always thought that immortality was intentionally difficult to obtain in dnd and usually requires a lot of preparation, so I don't understand a feat that would just grant it for free
Well, it's not a feat, it's a class feature. Which takes fifteen levels to obtain. I'd say that for most people in a typical D&D world, getting to level fifteen is kind of difficult.

Personally, I think you could interpret it either way here. The ability is ambiguous and up to DM interpretation. Besides, as others have mentioned, it's really a flavor thing anyway, since it's not like any campaign is going to last to the point where its characters start dying of old age. Unless they're being magically aged, anyway, in which case that ability explicitly does protect from it.

[ThermalSlapShot]

What planet do you live on? :amused:

D&D isn't set on our planet :smallsigh:

D&D is set in a fiction world in whcih the rules for aging don't have any negative effect on a character other than when they automatically die.

Fantasy, uh... Finds a way.

[D.U.P.A.]

It is still realistic when viewing aging. An old character cannot swing their weapon as fast as younger ones. Also older are uglier, with wrinkles, rugged skin, falling hair, not the same. I know that some races get less disadvantages than others when old, but you get a point. But I agree though that is mostly fluff, it could hardly be practical with other non druidic classes.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It is still realistic when viewing aging. An old character cannot swing their weapon as fast as younger ones. Also older are uglier, with wrinkles, rugged skin, falling hair, not the same. I know that some races get less disadvantages than others when old, but you get a point. But I agree though that is mostly fluff, it could hardly be practical with other non druidic classes.

But not in D&D 5e.

None of that is affected by age in 5e from what I can see in the PHB. Most of that is just character fluff (err.. ribbons as WotC calls them).

Edited

Realistic in our world can be completely unrealistic in a fantasy setting. Since there are no rules for aging it is unrealistic to assume that these fantasy characters, within this game, have any negative effects since we aren't told there are any.

This way you can have your wise old grand master who can still wipe the floor with the youngins who are "in their prime" and not get punished for it.

[burninatortrog]

D&D is set in a fiction world in whcih the rules for aging don't have any negative effect on a character other than when they automatically die.


D&D can be set in a fiction world in whcih the rules for aging don't have any negative effect on a character other than when they automatically die.

FTFY. In some settings, old age has drawbacks.

[ThermalSlapShot]

FTFY. In some settings, old age has drawbacks.

Please show me the rules for old age in the PHB cause I've looked and they aren't there but I may have missed something. No matter the setting, as of right now, there is no rules for old age outside of instant death. So unless a setting or another book comes along and puts them there... There is no other drawback to old age other than instant death.

Therefore the only thing the Paladin feature can protect one from is the instant death at old age.

Now a DM can add in any rules they want, but the feature wasn't made with all those rules in mind. The feature was made with the rules in the PHB in mind.

Edited:

The Chapter 2 of the PHB has age to explain why your ability scores are the way they are when you generate them. No penalties yet for old age.

Chapter 4 also mentions age but no penalties.

Funny enough I haven't seen any ruling on instant death at an old age either... There may not be any drawbacks or penalties outside of specific class features that are given to old age.

So far the only class that can die of old age is the monk as it is a specific rule and not a general rule... I'll check chapter 2 again to see if I missed anything.

Below is the entry for Age, in the PHB. Unless something is different in the DMG... You can have a 10,000 year old human with no penalties or death unless they happen to be a monk (specific rule of death by old age).

Age
The age entry notes the age when a member of the race
is considered an adult, as well as the race’s expected
lifespan. This information can help you decide how old
your character is at the start of the game. You can choose
any age for your character, which could provide an
explanation for some of your ability scores. For example,
if you play a young or very old character, your age could
explain a particularly low Strength or Constitution score,
while advanced age could account for a high Intelligence
or Wisdom.

I bolded for wording emphasis.

Is it silly? Sure to some. But there are no draw backs to being old in the PHB. There is an expected life span but nothing really happens once you go past that life span...

[Zevox]

Please show me the rules for old age in the PHB cause I've looked and they aren't there but I may have missed something. No matter the setting, as of right now, there is no rules for old age outside of instant death. So unless a setting or another book comes along and puts them there... There is no other drawback to old age other than instant death.
[...]
Funny enough I haven't seen any ruling on instant death at an old age either...
The absence of rules for something does not mean that absolutely nothing happens because of that thing, it only means that it's up the DM what exactly does (if anything, of course). And any DM with any sense would certainly have older characters be physically weaker than they were when they were younger, barring ones with specific reasons not to be, since that's just the normal way living things work. Similarly, there don't need to be rules for things dying of old age for it to be understood that that happens. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there not being a specific rule about that means that it doesn't.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The absence of rules for something does not mean that absolutely nothing happens because of that thing, it only means that it's up the DM what exactly does (if anything, of course). And any DM with any sense would certainly have older characters be physically weaker than they were when they were younger, barring ones with specific reasons not to be, since that's just the normal way living things work. Similarly, there don't need to be rules for things dying of old age for it to be understood that that happens. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there not being a specific rule about that means that it doesn't.

In a rules heavy game where there is even class features that references things... Yeah, one would expect them to put a rule down so that people will be able to say "hey the normal rule is this and my class gets to change it...". It literally would have taken one sentence to say "When you reach your maximum age for your race, you die", but they didn't do that.

Plus the Paladin feature also says that it ignores all the bad things that come along with old age... Which there is none of. So the feature, while awesome, actually loses some awesome because it references rules that don't exist.

[Zevox]

In a rules heavy game
In case you missed it, 5th edition cut down on that and consciously leaves a lot more up to the DM. You seem to be thinking of it as it were 3rd edition, but they deliberately avoided making it that rules-heavy. The effects of old age are easy to figure out and unlikely to crop up in any typical game (since older characters are typically non-combat NPCs who won't even have stats anyway), so they didn't bother writing any. It's as simple as that.

[darkscizor]

It's all in the fine print.


Become an Ancients Paladin, and get an immortal life, free!*


*Subject to reviction of Immortality as a falling paladin, open to residents of the following settings: Blackmoor, Dragonlance, the Forgotren Realms, and Greyhawk at or over the legal age of adulthood in your area. Immortality extends to preventing organ damage and natural causes if death, such as heart attacks, as a result of aging. Immortality does not grant you immunity to poisons, or to unnatural causes of death such as Swords, Fireball spells, or "Giant Freaking Laserbeams". Ask your local cleric or medical practitioner if Immortality is right for you. If you suddenly become short of breath, feel an unnatural romantic attraction to oozes of any kind, or break out in hives when casting a spell of a spell level of 3rd or lower, then see your local cleric or medical practitioner immediately. Aincients, Inc. is not responsible for the lives of those who fail to read this message.

[Zevox]

open to Lawful Good residents of the following settings:
Actually, Paladins can be any alignment now - although good luck being an evil aligned one without breaking your oath. The Oath of Ancients even seems better suited to neutral or chaotic good characters than to lawful good ones, at least to me.

[darkscizor]

Actually, Paladins can be any alignment now - although good luck being an evil aligned one without breaking your oath. The Oath of Ancients even seems better suited to neutral or chaotic good characters than to lawful good ones, at least to me.

Got it; I'll change that now.

[Elbeyon]

In case you missed it, 5th edition cut down on that and consciously leaves a lot more up to the DM. You seem to be thinking of it as it were 3rd edition, but they deliberately avoided making it that rules-heavy. The effects of old age are easy to figure out and unlikely to crop up in any typical game (since older characters are typically non-combat NPCs who won't even have stats anyway), so they didn't bother writing any. It's as simple as that.Any system that has over a thousand pages is rules heavy. 5e is certainly rules heavy and one of the heavier games at that.

[Wartex1]

Paladins are immune to diseases though.

I wouldn't call 5e rules heavy. It has an emphasis on rules, but the rules are pretty concise and easy to learn. It's nowhere near as hefty as 3.x.

[coredump]

The rules don't address aging issues for the same reason they don't address taxes, or the guild and apprentice systems. Its not because they don't exist, but because they are not the focus of a game based on heroic adventures. It would be silly to assume that the only things that exist or happen in the world are those things explicitly described in the rules.


That said, my reading of the ability was that the Paladin would still die of old age, but would be in good health up until that day.

[Anlashok]

The only mechanical drawback to old age in DND 5e is dying/not being a valid target for resurrection when you die. So, yeah. I'd say it's pretty clear an Ancients' paladin doesn't die of old age, especially when every other similar ability specifically calls out that you still die of old age.

It just seems a bit silly to argue that the ability does nothing at all without houserules. Especially considering that even at its most permissive reading the ability still is likely to never have an impact on anything anyways!

It's a ribbon, let people have fun with their ribbons.

[D.U.P.A.]

If there are no rules how characters excrete does not mean they take no dump at all in their life. And many othe examples.

[GiantOctopodes]

If there are no rules how characters excrete does not mean they take no dump at all in their life. And many othe examples.

Right, but at the same time, if you have an ability that says "you do not suffer any of the drawbacks of starvation", where the only negative effects listed in the game is exhaustion, it would be a difficult argument to say 'well, they certainly would not feel hunger or suffer muscle loss, but they would still suffer exhaustion'. There certainly may be additional negative effects associated with aging in your game. If there are, the Ancients Paladin ignores them. However, regardless of the presence or absence of additional negative effects associated with aging in your campaign, there is one negative effect associated with aging listed in the rules text, is that you cannot be raised using resurrection magic. Since you do not suffer any of the drawbacks of old age, you do not suffer that listed, game mechanic drawback, nor any other effects that may or may not be present.

This is further supported by the remarkably similar Timeless Body, which chooses instead to say "you suffer none of the frailty of old age", and says "you can still die of old age". So that one works as you describe, and the text matches it- it does not say you do not suffer the drawbacks, just "none of the frailty" of it, which basically fluffs into preventing DMs with aging penalties applying them to the monk with Timeless Body. Were it intended for Anciencts Paladin to be the same, it could have and should have been worded the same. It was not.

[Slipperychicken]

Back in the day, 3.5 had ability score modifiers for aging, but they rarely saw the light of day. I think WotC figured that they shouldn't bother wasting space on a rule that no-one uses.

Edit: For those who are curious, it divided age categories into "young" (no modification), "middle age" (age 35 for a human -1 str/dex/con, +1 str/dex/con), "old" (age 53, scores -2/+2), and "venerable" (age 70, scores -3/+3). The modifiers were cumulative, so a 70-year-old human would have -6 to strength, dex, and constitution (can't reduce them below one though), but +6 to intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.


I could hardly believe that many ancients paladins could take advantage of their lifespan. An adventurer's life expectancy is measured in dungeon crawls, not years. Besides, living forever means you pretty much can't retire unless you build up a lot of savings. And that's assuming you have some reliable way of growing your savings, which isn't exactly a given in D&D's pre-gunpowder-Europe-but-also-Faustian-magical-girls-and-wuxia-Asian-martial-arts setting.

[Sigreid]

Back in the day, 3.5 had ability score modifiers for aging, but they rarely saw the light of day. I think WotC figured that they shouldn't bother wasting space on a rule that no-one uses.

Edit: For those who are curious, it divided age categories into "young" (no modification), "middle age" (age 35 for a human -1 str/dex/con, +1 str/dex/con), "old" (age 53, scores -2/+2), and "venerable" (age 70, scores -3/+3). The modifiers were cumulative, so a 70-year-old human would have -6 to strength, dex, and constitution (can't reduce them below one though), but +6 to intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.


I could hardly believe that many ancients paladins could take advantage of their lifespan. An adventurer's life expectancy is measured in dungeon crawls, not years. Besides, living forever means you pretty much can't retire unless you build up a lot of savings. And that's assuming you have some reliable way of growing your savings, which isn't exactly a given in D&D's pre-gunpowder-Europe-but-also-Faustian-magical-girls-and-wuxia-Asian-martial-arts setting.

I don't think you get to retire anyway. The purpose of agelessness would be to keep fighting the good fight rather than loosing a powerful champion of the light to something as petty as father time.

[EvanescentHero]

For those who are curious, it divided age categories into "young" (no modification), "middle age" (age 35 for a human -1 str/dex/con, +1 str/dex/con), "old" (age 53, scores -2/+2), and "venerable" (age 70, scores -3/+3). The modifiers were cumulative, so a 70-year-old human would have -6 to strength, dex, and constitution (can't reduce them below one though), but +6 to intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.

I may be misremembering, but I thought it was -1/+1, -2/+1, and -3/+1, for a grand total of -6/+3. You also failed to mention the best part of this, which is something alluded to by Order of the Stick: a person's eyes and hearing improved as they got older (since Spot and Listen were based on Wisdom), meaning that on death's door you could see better than any other point in your life. What a weird situation.

[Slipperychicken]

I may be misremembering, but I thought it was -1/+1, -2/+1, and -3/+1, for a grand total of -6/+3. You also failed to mention the best part of this, which is something alluded to by Order of the Stick: a person's eyes and hearing improved as they got older (since Spot and Listen were based on Wisdom), meaning that on death's door you could see better than any other point in your life. What a weird situation.

You're right about the progression.

Personally, I feel the main benefit of age should be experience and levels. An older fighter might have worse ability scores than the youngsters, but he'd also be a few levels higher.

[EvanescentHero]

You're right about the progression.

Personally, I feel the main benefit of age should be experience and levels. An older fighter might have worse ability scores than the youngsters, but he'd also be a few levels higher.

And a higher-level fighter will know more tricks and techniques than a lower-level one. It'd be interesting. The problem is, I feel like most campaigns take place over a series of months, not years, which makes for unusually fast levelling. Meaning a twenty-year-old adventurer could start at level one and get their ass kicked by a forty-year-old tenth level fighter, but before the first character even turned twenty-one s/he could be equally matched to the older fighter. Basically, this is all pretty weird.

[coredump]

Hmmmm. Timeless body does seem like a stark contrast. Makes mean lean towards OoA Paly doesn't die.
In either case, it is unlikely to matter in a gameplay sense.

[Slipperychicken]

most campaigns take place over a series of months, not years, which makes for unusually fast levelling.

Bear in mind that PCs lead incredibly lethal and fast-paced lives. They see more action in a day than most people witness in their entire lives, much less participate in. Frankly, I would be surprised to see someone thrive in that kind of environment (6-8 life threatening fights per day) for multiple months, fending off direct confrontations with dozens if not hundreds of deadly foes plus myriad other hazards, and not emerge as one of the greatest fighters in the land. It seems like a trial-by-fire of sorts.

[EvanescentHero]

Bear in mind that PCs lead incredibly lethal and fast-paced lives. They see more action in a day than most people witness in their entire lives, much less participate in. Frankly, I would be surprised to see someone thrive in that kind of environment (6-8 life threatening fights per day) for multiple months, fending off direct confrontations with dozens if not hundreds of deadly foes plus myriad other hazards, and not emerge as one of the greatest fighters in the land. It seems like a trial-by-fire of sorts.

You're not wrong. It's just funny when you consider that in theory, characters probably spent a number of years gaining their first level, and can be expected to get as powerful as anyone can get within a year or less. Adventurers live in a different world from everyone else.

[Sigreid]

You're not wrong. It's just funny when you consider that in theory, characters probably spent a number of years gaining their first level, and can be expected to get as powerful as anyone can get within a year or less. Adventurers live in a different world from everyone else.

Yep, they live in a world of constantly testing themselves where they get epic or get dead experiencing more in that year than a seasoned warrior experiences in 20.

[PoeticDwarf]

A player and I were discussing the wording of Undying Sentinel. I don't believe it would be balanced to straight up give someone immortality and have though of it as "you don't age but you still die" while he treats it as free immortality. What's this feat actually mean?

The only that gives you the feature 'don't die because you're a seventy years old half-orc adventurer'.

But wait, immortal. That would mean you can't die at all...
This is DnD 5e, not 3.5

[Sigreid]

The only that gives you the feature 'don't die because you're a seventy years old half-orc adventurer'.

But wait, immortal. That would mean you can't die at all...
This is DnD 5e, not 3.5

In modern biology they refer to creatures that don't deteriorate from age as biologically immortal. I think that is what we are talking about.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only negative side effect of old age, that I know of, is death. If you've ever met someone in their 80's, you'll notice variety of old age based reductions physical and mental function.

Heck, I'm in my 50's and have a few of both.

[Slipperychicken]

Adventurers live in a different world from everyone else.

Pretty much. PCs live in a world of constant danger, the intensity of which alone would drive a normal person mad with stress, and which has an absurdly high casualty rate. A soldier might see that kind of action at some point, but for a much shorter period (and most likely emerge with Veteran stats or possibly a stress disorder, if he survived). Normal people, on the other hand, get to live through a day-to-day monotony where managing their weekly income matters far more than their 4 hit points and AC 10, which are almost never tested and rarely an issue in even in a 'dangerous' part of town.

[Vogonjeltz]

After comparing the wording to the similar Monk class ability, yeah I'd say it's intended that you don't die of old age.


Back in the day, 3.5 had ability score modifiers for aging, but they rarely saw the light of day. I think WotC figured that they shouldn't bother wasting space on a rule that no-one uses.

Edit: For those who are curious, it divided age categories into "young" (no modification), "middle age" (age 35 for a human -1 str/dex/con, +1 str/dex/con), "old" (age 53, scores -2/+2), and "venerable" (age 70, scores -3/+3). The modifiers were cumulative, so a 70-year-old human would have -6 to strength, dex, and constitution (can't reduce them below one though), but +6 to intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.


I could hardly believe that many ancients paladins could take advantage of their lifespan. An adventurer's life expectancy is measured in dungeon crawls, not years. Besides, living forever means you pretty much can't retire unless you build up a lot of savings. And that's assuming you have some reliable way of growing your savings, which isn't exactly a given in D&D's pre-gunpowder-Europe-but-also-Faustian-magical-girls-and-wuxia-Asian-martial-arts setting.

Agreed regarding life expetency of adventurers being...low.

I never got the whole: Gets more intelligent, wise, and charismatic, as one ages from 3rd edition. If anything Charisma should drop with age, and Intellect/Wisdom should probably nosedive thanks to senility.

[Sigreid]

I never got the whole: Gets more intelligent, wise, and charismatic, as one ages from 3rd edition. If anything Charisma should drop with age, and Intellect/Wisdom should probably nosedive thanks to senility.

Well, at various points in D&D history Intelligence was learning, Wisdom was common sense and understanding and Charisma was your sense of self. All three do tend to go up with age. At least until you start deteriorating to the point where you start loosing your marbles. :biggrin:

[goto124]

Adventurers are crazy by default anyway.

[Hawkstar]

Any system that has over a thousand pages is rules heavy.

Since when are FATE and Savage Worlds rules-heavy?

And yes, it grants you temporal immortality. It's Oath of Ancients, and, in becoming so awesome as to gain that ability, you gain the ability to become Ancient yourself (As in, outliving civilizations). You are the Horned Knight, the immortal protector and defender of nature and life.

That said - you can still be killed.