Ageing penalties idea.

[Tempest Fennac]

I was just thinking about how the aeging penaties in D&D are unrealistic in the sense that they assume that everyone gets better mentally while deterriorating physically (regadless of class, and how healthy the character's lifestyle is), so I thought I'd try and create what I'd consider to be a better system.

At Old and Venerable ages, 2 penalties from the following list are picked by the player: -2 to any 1 stat, -2 skill points from 2 inclass skills or -3 to any 1 save. Each penalty can only be picked once (eg: a Barbarian couldn't pick -2 Cha repeatedly). Access to feats and PrCs won't be lost due to skill or stat loss (if anyone thinks they sould, tell me and I'll change it). The character must have at least 2 skill points or a +3 to a save before they can take a penalty in it. Ageing won't carry any sort of bonuses for the characters.

I decided to cut out middle age due to feeling as though 34 for a human was way too early for physical stat loss (especially since adventurers get a lot of exercise as well as access to healing magic a lot of the time), and this method would allow older characters to keep adventuring for longer without being hobbled by the physical stat loss.

[kentma57]

With this setup who would actual play an older character; in this situation my 20th level 116 year old elf is better than my 20th level 400 year old elf...

[Tempest Fennac]

How is this system worse then the normal WotC system regarding older characters? personally, I'd never consider using a character who was older then "adult" under the normal system due to the loss of physical stats.

[ZeroNumerous]

How is this system worse then the normal WotC system regarding older characters? personally, I'd never consider using a character who was older then "adult" under the normal system due to the loss of physical stats.

I would. Specifically a Kobold. A dragonwrought Kobold :smallbiggrin:

Or a Killoren. Or an Elan. Or an [Insert Race That Never Dies].

Casters like starting at Middle Age, because it gives them a +1 to their primary casting stat for -1 to physical stats that mean jack. Heck, a venerable caster is entirely reasonable given you can just reinforce your physical stats through magic.

Plus, no druid cares about any of his physical stats beyond Constitution. :smallbiggrin:

[Magnor Criol]

I like the idea of playing older characters simply because it creates a flaw to work around. Not exactly the "fun because it's a challenge" sort of thing, but something similar; it's fun because you have to compensate.

I think what you're hinting at, Tempest milord - the idea that some people don't really get much weaker as they age, and some people don't get smarter - is covered by the stats that are already in place. A Barbarian would, indeed, be in better health and physical shape than an average commoner as they both ascend the age ladder - but that's reflected by the fact that a barb would have a high Con score, and so even after penalties it's still higher than the commoner.

[Tempest Fennac]

If I'm honest, I personally wouldn't see the possible +1 to a spellcasting stat to be worth it considering how the physical stats can be useful regarding saves, HPs and carrying things. Also, don't Clerics need Str due to often being used in a frontline roll? (I guess it would pargle depend on whether your rolling or using Point Buy regarding how damaging losing 1 point to each physical stat would be). Also, by the time you've reached old age, you'll haveexperienced at least a -1 (if not 2) to your physical stat modifier which I'd say is a significant loss for someone who relies on those stats.

[Exeson]

I actually like the way the ageing system works. Sure there are flaws, rather large flaws but there has not been significant outcry so it seems to work.

Your ideas are good, but I would prefer to stick to the tried and tested method.

[Jibar]

The big problem I see with this is who would take the actual stat loss?
You could play an ancient human fighter whose only weakness was he couldn't use his Knowledge or Jump skill as well as he used to, has a little trouble with poisons or charm effects and yet is perfectly capable of lifting halflings and throwing them a couple miles.
It doesn't strike me that base save/skill loss is on the same level as base skills loss, considering how many spells and poisons affect them, and not saves/skills.

[endoperez]

I'd suggest making a feat, instead. Here's one, based on the Monk's Timeless Body. I removed the immunity to magical aging and added few skill bonuses.


Lasting Vigor [General]

The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring


Prerequisite
Middle Aged, character level 5th

Benefit
You no longer takes penalties to your ability scores for aging. Any such penalties that you have already taken, however, remain in place. Bonuses still accrue, and you still die of old age when your time is up.
In addition, you get a +2 competence bonus on two skills of your choice.

Normal
Characters lose physical stats every time they advance in age category.

[Tempest Fennac]

That isn't a bad feat idea, endoperez (to be honest, I'd still retire a character at middle age due to considering the stat losses to outweigh anty possible gains due to how I use point buys while having even numbers for stats). Ironically, I thought saving throw penalties would be the worst option using my system (a friend who has a lot more experience then I do told me they were roughly balanced). Regarding the lack of complaints about the normal system, how many players really bother with the penalties excluding some spellcasters? I'm assuming that very few campaigns carry on long enough for old age to set in.

Someone suggested rolling a die to determine which penalties would be applied to create more realism due to ageing penalties not being picked in real life. In this case, 1/2= saving throw penalty, 3/4= stat loss and 5/6= skill loss. In the event of skill loss, I thought the player could just pick 2 skills to take penalties to due to how awkward using dice rolls would be (if the other penalties came up more ten once, I thought the player could re-roll).

[endoperez]

I haven't had a chance to actually do it, but I've been wanting to play a Middle-aged skill-based character, possibly a Rogue. Lots of social skills, Weapon Finesse, etc. If I have suitable uneven stats for Dex and/or Int and perhaps Con, I won't lose that much and will gain an extra skill point/level, or four at the first.

It's far from optimal, but it suits the character: an aging aristocrat (all social skills, knowledge skills) who used to do some small-scale adventuring and/or has strange hobbies (UMD, lockpicking, acrobatic skills and/or disabling traps). His weapon of choice, once he gets Weapon Finesse, would be a Masterwork (and later magical) Light Mace made to look like a walking stick (Bluff to treat it as a concealed weapon).

[Tempest Fennac]

Does anyone think using a d6 to randomly decide which penalties the characters take would work better then the players picking the flaws themselves?

[Fiery Diamond]

Hailing Lord Tempest!

I completely agree - I think the current aging rules, quite frankly, stink. I, as a DM, would never allow a player to start a character at an older age in order to get use from the aging rules. "My wizard is old so he's smarter." Um. Hurrah for metagaming!:smallfurious: If you want to play an older character for roleplaying reasons, that's acceptable - but people who would do this would probably be ticked about the current aging rules, like you are. I certainly think the rules are ridiculous, for the same reasons you do. Also, middle age is way too early to lose stats - you might not be able to build them as easily, but if you constantly adventure or work out you aren't going to lose them (my dad is proof of that - he's only recently started having trouble and he's in his mid-50s).

I like your system better, but I think that the stats affected should be randomly picked.

-Fiery Diamond

[Severedevil]

It makes sense your dad would be slowing up about now... he's going into the Old age category, and thereby taking an additional -2 penalty to physical stats. This is a notable weakening in physical capacity. The -1 penalty for becoming middle-aged is not a dramatic shift, and not all that noticeable. I doubt that your dad was as physically capable at 40 as he was at 25, however. The physical penalties for age are fairly realistic. The mental bonuses are more dubious.

There's a reason Olympic athletes aren't middle-aged. They can't afford the penalty if they want to compete at such a strict level.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks, Fiery Diamond (in regards to RPing, I tend to see it as not making much sense for level 1 characters to start off older then "adult" due to how I'd assume most people would start adventuring as soon as they completed their training). I'll draw up the dice rolls system propely now:

Roll 2 d6 at both Old and Venerable ages.

1-2: Saving throw penalty.

1-2: -3 to all Fortitude saves.
3-4: -3 to all Reflex saves.
5-6: -3 to all Will saves.

3-4: stat penalty.
1: -2 Str.
2: -2 Dex.
3: -2 Con.
4: -2 Int.
5: -2 Wis.
6: -2 Cha.

5-6: -2 skill points from 2 class skills.

The DM and the player should probably each chose a skills if a 5 or 6 comes up. (using dice rolls would be really complicated considering how different classes have suich different numbers of skills).

Losing stat points or skill points doesn't cut of access to feats and PrCs the character already has, but skill synergy bonuses are lost if enough skll points are lost. Each save penalty can only be applied once, 1 stat can't be penalised more then once/age catagory, and skills can't be decreased to less then 0 points (unless it's a trained only skill, in which case it can't be reduced to less then 1). Re-roll if a stat/save penalty you've already got comes up again.

[Luean]

I don't think that the official system is unrealistic.

On the one hand you say:


I decided to cut out middle age due to feeling as though 34 for a human was way too early for physical stat loss (especially since adventurers get a lot of exercise as well as access to healing magic a lot of the time)


on the other hand you say that raising mental stats is "unrealistic".
Don't you think that some "older" people know how things work in life or how to communicate with people?

Especially the adventurers you mentioned in your first post travel around the world, see new things, meet lots of different creatures and know how to deal with certain situations, but they gain NOTHING for doing this for years?
They don't get a cha bonus, because they have met hundrets of creatures and know how to deal with 'em or know how to deal with certain situations in life (and gain wisdom) or see so many things and are smarter than the average farmer?

[Tempest Fennac]

I suppose that's 1 way of looking at it (I've personally found that older people either don't improve as they get older, or they get worse, hence the mental stat gain being unrealistic). Also, wouldn't gaining levels count as getting better at dealing with things?

[kentma57]

I suppose that's 1 way of looking at it (I've personally found that older people either don't improve as they get older, or they get worse, hence the mental stat gain being unrealistic). Also, wouldn't gaining levels count as getting better at dealing with things?

I disagree my grandfather lived to 97 was a heavy reader and knows more than any 16 year-old.(16 years being the begining of the PC ages, for humans)

[Tempest Fennac]

My system also takes the fact that people age differently into account rather then just assuming that everyone ages in the same way.

[Luean]

I do like your idea, but IMHO there should be the possibility of a mental stat increasement.

[Noble Savant]

Perhaps a few rolls would be in order for this type of thing. You may roll to keep your physical stats as they are (With a higher DC for the Venerable Category), and roll for your mental stats to see if they change. Losing points could represent senility and other afflictions of the sort.

Of course, there should be some system in place to prevent you from losing or gaining too much. Perhaps limiting someone to a gain or loss in only two of the three corresponding stats.

[Tempest Fennac]

That could work, Noble Savant. I wanted to include save penalties and skill loss due to how characters may get worse at those as they get older.

[magic_unlocked]

I like the current age system, though, i was thinking of introducing a variant that lets a player reduce a penelty by up to 1 point at each age catagory or increase a mental gain by up to one point.

They reason why some people start to lose their mental functions is because of senility (spelling?). Okay, lets look at people today. We are Ordinaries, commoners. We do not adventure, we do not put our skills to the dest on a daily basis. We commoners gain passive XP, about 500 XP per year. Using that as a basis, by the time we are 65, we have achieved 13th level. Assuming that all levels are that of a commoner/ordinary, that's a CR of 6.5. Now factor in the age penelties. -3 to all physical stats, and +2 to all mental stats. Factor in that commoners are built with the non-elite array and you can see why someone at age 65 can be beaten by a 20 year old.

Then again, I may just be applying logic to High Fantasy. Logic + High Fantasy = E R R O R

That's my 2 CP.

[Noble Savant]

That could work, Noble Savant. I wanted to include save penalties and skill loss due to how characters may get worse at those as they get older.

Skills and saves would go down with the main stats. But that does give me an idea. You could use penalties in skills and saves to penalise people who didn't lose much from aging. You could also give out bonuses in them for the opposite case, because of the characters long use of those skills.

This would require more work for the DM though, rather than giving him a straight and simple system to work with.

[magic_unlocked]

Perhaps that was the original idea behind the original system? Sheer simplicity?

[Tempest Fennac]

If I'm honest, I was going for simplicity as well (also don't forget that stat reductions wouldn't have as much as an effect on skills or saves as the penalties I came up with for those would do).

[magic_unlocked]

True. Though, I don't see why adventurers would have a penelty in skills. We, as normal humans, would have that penelty, or maybe a retired adventurer, but not a currently adventuring adventurer. This is due to the face that they are always practising their skills and that their skills determine wheather they live or die.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point (I was thinking about how a lot of people get worse at some things as they get older and how what you get worse at may not have any real logic to it).

[magic_unlocked]

That is a good point (I was thinking about how a lot of people get worse at some things as they get older and how what you get worse at may not have any real logic to it).

Well then, there ya go. The logic behind why we commoners get penelties to skills. We don't use them. Look at people that still use what they learned from way back when. They are just as good. If they have trouble, it's usually limited to physical activities. If they have mental probs, it's usually due to a mental illness.