Wedded to History?

[Gale]

Dragon Magazine #354 introduces a feat called Wedded to History. It can only be taken at 1st level and gives the player the ability to choose from one of several accompanying "ancient backgrounds" which all have their own minor effects.

This feat is often brought up whenever people talk about becoming immortal or ageless in D&D. Except I noticed neither the feat nor the backgrounds themselves indicate that they prevent characters from aging. They only seem to imply the character is capable of living for extraordinarily long periods of time for unspecified reasons.

It seems like the intentions of the feat was in fact to give the character immortality. But the fact that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere always irked me. It's certainly an interesting feat, but the lack of clarity always ruined it for me; and thus I've never used it.

I always wondered what other people's thought on this were though. Am I being too nitpicky with this? I know the immortality is heavily implied, but I'd much rather it be stated outright.

[dascarletm]

I always wondered what other people's thought on this were though. Am I being too nitpicky with this? I know the immortality is heavily implied, but I'd much rather it be stated outright.

In my opinion, yes. I know many (especially on this forum) like to see things being explicitly worded out to avoid confusion, but I'm not of that mindset personally. It is probably the chaotic aspect of my alignment showing through, I tend to see these as more... guidelines.

[erok0809]

I suppose that technically the feat doesn't say it provides the Timeless property, but it's more implied by the fact that the whole thing comes up in the "Ancient PCs" section, which is all about characters who are super old, where you need some sort of magic or ability that keeps you alive past your normal expiration date. The backgrounds are even called "ancient backgrounds." I can see what you mean though, since the feat itself doesn't ever actually say you're immortal. Any DM that's going to use this feat, or let you use it, should know what it's really about though.

[BowStreetRunner]

My feeling is that the current wording places the responsibility for working out the specifics in the hands of the Player and DM, leaving open options such as the character surviving due to being in stasis, experiencing time travel, being returned from the grave, etc. Sure, they could have the Endless quality, but that is not mandatory.

I like the flexibility.

[Ruethgar]

Wedded to History does not necessarily make you timeless, but many of the background do make them highly logical targets for the Endless quality from the same article. Of course you could leave them as narratively ancient but not mechanically any different, making it just fluff in a manner of speaking.

[ExLibrisMortis]

For what it's worth, it bugs me, too. Not that it wouldn't otherwise not be in 'ask your DM'-territory, but it could reduce the discussion to "This ability, y/n?".

[Grim Reader]

Most cultures have a legendary hero who will return from the mists of the past when their people are in danger. The UK has Arthur, Germany has Karl, Denmark has Holger Danske, the US has Steve and Buck Rogers. This specific motif is called "The King in the Mountain"

That is what Wedded to History is for. None of the sleeping heroes of folklore are immortal, they are just out of their time, and WtH is a gateway feat that lets you take feats simulating that.

Its not a one-feat gateway to immortality.

[The Glyphstone]

Most cultures have a legendary hero who will return from the mists of the past when their people are in danger. The UK has Arthur, Germany has Karl, Denmark has Holger Danske, the US has Steve and Buck Rogers. This specific motif is called "The King in the Mountain"

That is what Wedded to History is for. None of the sleeping heroes of folklore are immortal, they are just out of their time, and WtH is a gateway feat that lets you take feats simulating that.

Its not a one-feat gateway to immortality.

Why shouldn't it be, though? Being ageless is hardly worth multiple feats. It's not even worth a single feat on its own, since it'll have no in-game effect except in very, very rare campaigns.

[weckar]

Funny. I always understood this feat the other way around: Taking it only made sense if you already WERE immortal in some way...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Funny. I always understood this feat the other way around: Taking it only made sense if you already WERE immortal in some way...
The article that introduces Wedded to History also introduces various backstory elements to explain your immortality (referenced by the feat). Arguably, there's no reason you couldn't be immortal in your backstory already, with or without the feat, and the feat is just an official confirmation plus minor related ability. However, the feat does say 'pick one of the backstories above', suggesting that you otherwise don't get to pick one. That, and immortality is not a requirement to take the feat.

[Bronk]

The article that introduces Wedded to History also introduces various backstory elements to explain your immortality (referenced by the feat). Arguably, there's no reason you couldn't be immortal in your backstory already, with or without the feat, and the feat is just an official confirmation plus minor related ability. However, the feat does say 'pick one of the backstories above', suggesting that you otherwise don't get to pick one. That, and immortality is not a requirement to take the feat.

I agree... Plus, the feat calls you out as being born in the distant past, yet doesn't change your age statistics.

[Grim Reader]

Why shouldn't it be, though? Being ageless is hardly worth multiple feats. It's not even worth a single feat on its own, since it'll have no in-game effect except in very, very rare campaigns.

Mechanically, its not gamebreaking. Storywise, though, the quest for immortality is an old tale, perhaps the oldest one. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to medieval alchemists search for the philosophers stone. It is a life quest, and normally seen as a capstone reward.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Mechanically, its not gamebreaking. Storywise, though, the quest for immortality is an old tale, perhaps the oldest one. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to medieval alchemists search for the philosophers stone. It is a life quest, and normally seen as a capstone reward.Or you can just start with it through being warforged, elan, necropolitan, neraph, or any other undead, construct, or outsider.

[weckar]

I always considered undeath a rather ironic form of immortality. The only way to never die is to not be alive...

[Necroticplague]

The same magazine has the Kissed by the Ages spell for relatively easy immortality. Only costs 30530 GP (26530 for the spell, 4k for the focus).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The same magazine has the Kissed by the Ages spell for relatively easy immortality. Only costs 30530 GP (26530 for the spell, 4k for the focus).There are lots of easy ways for immortality, some of which are safer than others. The cheapest and easiest is almost assuredly double-PAOing yourself into a younger body. Vulnerable to antimagic effects, unless you're using a device, from Ravenloft: Legacy of the Blood. Then it's basically foolproof. There's also using true mindswitch and other body-swapping shenanigans, taking the ghost template and possessing living bodies, crafting a contingencied reincarnation and killing yourself, casting clone when you're younger and using a thought bottle to restore your XP back to what it was after you commit seppuku, shapechanging into an ooze with the split ability and hiveminding all of your bodies together before dunking a few bodies in quintessence for awhile, and quite a few others.

[Bronk]

I think the best way to change your race is through the usage of 'Wish' from Savage Species. Using a double PAO requires a lenient DM who is willing to overlook the part of the spell that specifies the duration keys off your 'original state', and you'd miss out on a lot of your new race's special abilities.

[Ashtagon]

Why shouldn't it be, though? Being ageless is hardly worth multiple feats. It's not even worth a single feat on its own, since it'll have no in-game effect except in very, very rare campaigns.

You've obviously never seen anyone try to cheese that feat :smalltongue: