The affects of Aging, Expanded [PEACH]

[imp_fireball]

The following assumes humans and creatures that age in patterns practically identical to humans (for most people who are lazy with fluff, this will probably end up being the case for all humanoids as existing age related rules ).

Currently, the SRD rules are such:
1. At young adulthood, No ability score penalties

2. At middle age, -1 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.

3. At old age, -2 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.

4. At venerable age, -3 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.

I'll supplement this with:
1. Prior to young adulthood, a character is young - they have -3 Str, -1 Int, Wis, and Cha and their size lowers one category (lowers their speed, natural weapon damage, reach and height). In odd cases, a character is still medium at young, but has 'slight build' and then loses it for one size category smaller at the next younger category.

2. Prior to young, a character is a small child - they have a further -3 to Str, -3 Con, -3 Dex, -1 Int, Wis and Cha. Their height is about half again, but still considered small size, assuming they were medium size at adulthood (if this makes them tiny, then they hover at about the minimum height requirement for small size). They can only speak their race's automatic languages and do not receive bonus languages equal to their Int modifier.

3. Prior to a small child, a character is an infant - they have a further -6 to Str, -3 Dex, -2 Int Wis and Cha (all minimum 1) and +4 Con. They do not receive bonus hp equal to their Con modifier and only 1 hit point per HD. Their speed lowers to 5ft - they cannot run and can only move on full actions devoted entirely to movement. Their size lowers one additional category. They cannot speak (unless they invest in 'speak language' which costs 4 sp, rather then 2).

[Temotei]

infant...+4 Con.

Wait, what? Infants are better at concentrating than adults? And...they can run longer?

Also, it's effects of aging.

[Ashtagon]

A human at -2 size categories is about 17 inches, er, long. That's pretty much a newborn. I'd regard stating out newborn babies as meaningless. Even -1 size category would cover anyone down to about 2' tall, which includes pretty much any human able to actually walk (and then some).

Your "infants" are about 9 inches for a human

[Eloi]

Yeah, the extra Con does not make sense. Infants are more vulnerable to disease to adults, and have not built much of any fortitude for strenuous activity.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Am I the only one who assumes the obvious that the +4 con was a typo.

I agree with Ashtagon that you under estimate the height of children and just how short a small sized creature is. Small sized ends at 4ft. Looking at a few growth charts most children pass the 4ft mark by 9 years old.

[sciencepanda]

Hmm, just a minor idea that I had was for children and younger not to get the minus to Cha. Kids are by nature small and cute, which would make people more willing to listen to them.

[Holocron Coder]

Also, total strength penalties going down in age are -12, which, with an average of 10.5, means... I have no idea, but negative is not allowed May want to put a "minimum 1" or something next to each of the de-aging penalties.

[Anithexx]

Hmm, just a minor idea that I had was for children and younger not to get the minus to Cha. Kids are by nature small and cute, which would make people more willing to listen to them.

While I agree child can be considered "small and cute" Cha is also about strength of personality something that is developing as they grow. Also while an adult may stop to play with a child how many adults will stop and seriously converse with a child instead of placating them?

[Riffington]

Children should certainly have a penalty to charisma - it is very hard for them to be taken seriously. They may have a more-than-compensatory "racial" bonus to Diplomacy, however: they are given allowances that nobody else gets.


As long as we are changing the aging tables, get rid of all age-based bonuses to mental stats. It's all downhill; some attributes just go downhill faster than others...

[BLiZme.2]

Anithexx you seem to vastly underestimate the ability of children to lie and knave plus who else but a king or child could throw a tantrum and get there way?

[Temotei]

Anithexx you seem to vastly underestimate the ability of children to lie and knave plus who else but a king or child could throw a tantrum and get there way?

Adults are better at lying, no contest. As you get older, you learn to figure out people better and learn how to lie by working their thoughts to your advantage.

[Milskidasith]

Mechanically and fluff wise, this doesn't seem to serve any point. Mechanically, nobody would ever pick any of these, because they're straight penalties (also, most infants besides superhumans are born completely paralyzed due to 0 strength), and fluff wise, I don't think anybody stats out children because A: nobody wants to fight them and B: if you do want to kill children for some reason, you can assume that basically any PC, even a wizard, can kill them with one stab.

[Anithexx]

Anithexx you seem to vastly underestimate the ability of children to lie and knave plus who else but a king or child could throw a tantrum and get there way?

While a child may get away with lying more often than an adult their lies are are rather obvious and are over looked rather than actually successful. As to tantrums you obviously haven't seen any due to the "Somebody else's problem field" rather than them not happening. I believe you are mixing softer penalties for a successful attempt. While a child may throw things around and only get talked to, a adult throwing things around often have authorities involved after. Both are failed attempts at ... diplomacy??? it's just one has a cultural buffer due to age.

[Ashtagon]

Adults are better at lying, no contest. As you get older, you learn to figure out people better and learn how to lie by working their thoughts to your advantage.

Definitely this.

A child's lie is as often as not "no I didn't eat the last raisin cookie in the tin behind and to the left of the cereal box". They are really obvious when they lie, except maybe to other children.

Oh yeah... equal penalties to Wisdom, with compensatory bonuses on Spot/Listen/Search skills. Kids aren't exactly hotshots at Sense Motive.

[imp_fireball]

Wait, what? Infants are better at concentrating than adults? And...they can run longer?

Also, it's effects of aging.

Oh yah, infants can't run and may only move when devoting a full action to movement. I'll correct that.

Also, infants generally have greater immune systems then adults because at that age they would otherwise be highly vulnerable (I believe it's the age where the strongest immunities are built, so the environment one is born into is sort of the environment they are attuned to).

plus who else but a king or child could throw a tantrum and get there way?

Children get their way by throwing tantrums because they don't care about self respect. People don't respect them, but culture dictates that they must not hurt the child for throwing a tantrum. Eventually, the adult gets tired and gives the child what they want. It isn't charisma. It's simply pure emotion.

their lies are are rather obvious and are over looked rather than actually successful.

True. The rules say that the bluff DC becomes a lot easier when the person wants to believe the liar.

[Milskidasith]

Oh yah, infants can't run and may only move when devoting a full action to movement. I'll correct that.

Also, infants generally have greater immune systems then adults because at that age they would otherwise be highly vulnerable (I believe it's the age where the strongest immunities are built, so the environment one is born into is sort of the environment they are attuned to).



Children get their way by throwing tantrums because they don't care about self respect. People don't respect them, but culture dictates that they must not hurt the child for throwing a tantrum. Eventually, the adult gets tired and gives the child what they want. It isn't charisma. It's simply pure emotion.

I still don't understand the basic point of this. Nobody would ever want to play any of these characters and nobody would ever want to kill children/need stats to kill children (1HD, even a wizard can stab them to death).

[imp_fireball]

I still don't understand the basic point of this. Nobody would ever want to play any of these characters and nobody would ever want to kill children/need stats to kill children (1HD, even a wizard can stab them to death).

It's fun, let's put it that way.

Also, say you wish to shape shift into an infant for roleplaying purposes? If you are a villain, you could do it to pull the heart strings of any one of the PCs. Also, there's always the comedical evil genius baby.

nobody wants to fight them

Why do they give stats for level 1 commoners? I'll admit it's for the sake of completion.

Also, horror campaign - zombie babies.

however: they are given allowances that nobody else gets.

Again, the adult wants to believe that the child will use the allowance to better themselves in the future. If they were negotiating for a higher salary with an employer, they wouldn't stand a chance.

[Milskidasith]

It's fun, let's put it that way.

Also, say you wish to shape shift into an infant for roleplaying purposes? If you are a villain, you could do it to pull the heart strings of any one of the PCs. Also, there's always the comedical evil genius baby.

The problem with shapeshifting into a baby for roleplaying purposes is that nobody cares about the stats of a baby, because killing one would be pretty immoral and, as I said, they can basically be one shotted (even a level 20 baby would be easily killed in melee by a level one martial character).

The problem with the evil genius baby you're suggesting is A: it would have to be absurdly smart to be an evil genius with it's cumulative penalties to all mental stats and B: It could be killed by a level 5 wizard's fireball at level 20 on only moderately above average rolls, so with your stats you've actually precluded that concept actually working.

Again, I don't see the point; statting out creatures only seems to say "kill these things!" and they're, quite realistically, worthless to play as, so you could easily DM fiat them if you wished and be just as fine.

EDIT: As for stats for level 1 commoners... they don't.

As for the horror campaign of zombie babies: They're even slower than normal and you could kill them with any attack no matter how weak because of the minimum of one point of damage dealt. Even for a low powered commoner only campaign, a zombie baby would be remarkably easy to kill.

[imp_fireball]

The problem with shapeshifting into a baby for roleplaying purposes is that nobody cares about the stats of a baby, because killing one would be pretty immoral and, as I said, they can basically be one shotted (even a level 20 baby would be easily killed in melee by a level one martial character).

The problem with the evil genius baby you're suggesting is A: it would have to be absurdly smart to be an evil genius with it's cumulative penalties to all mental stats and B: It could be killed by a level 5 wizard's fireball at level 20 on only moderately above average rolls, so with your stats you've actually precluded that concept actually working.

Again, I don't see the point; statting out creatures only seems to say "kill these things!" and they're, quite realistically, worthless to play as, so you could easily DM fiat them if you wished and be just as fine.

EDIT: As for stats for level 1 commoners... they don't.

Well, there's always the odd 'rug rats' campaign where a GM could incorporate 'micro hp' (10 micro hps equals 1 hp) which could be utilized when say, two horse flies are battling one another (fine creatures with natural weapons normally deal 1 base lethal damage).

Your "infants" are about 9 inches for a human

I consider small as being 'knee-high minimum' whereas tiny means you can hold them in your arms. Diminitive means you can wrap most of your hand completely around it or encase it in the palm of your hand. Fine means you can encompass it between two fingers. This is all of course assuming that you are an adult human of size medium (5 - 6ft. tall with relatively typical sized hands; I'm 6ft. tall with relatively typical sized hands ).

[Ashtagon]

Also, infants generally have greater immune systems then adults because at that age they would otherwise be highly vulnerable (I believe it's the age where the strongest immunities are built, so the environment one is born into is sort of the environment they are attuned to).

This is blatantly untrue. There are huge numbers of statistics that show that the immune system is not fully developed until around the end of puberty. This is why historically children tended to die at a higher rate during periods of endemic plague. It's also why certain vaccinations are only given around puberty, and not during infancy; much younger and even those weakened bacteria would pose a serious health risk.

The one thing children do have going for them health-wise, is that they haven't yet had a chance to get deeply entrenched into the unhealthy lifestyles endemic to modern western culture. But obesity is a modern disease which doesn't really happen in the quasi-medieval societies we tend to play in.

[imp_fireball]

This is blatantly untrue. There are huge numbers of statistics that show that the immune system is not fully developed until around the end of puberty. This is why historically children tended to die at a higher rate during periods of endemic plague. It's also why certain vaccinations are only given around puberty, and not during infancy; much younger and even those weakened bacteria would pose a serious health risk.

Any disease that an infant survives, the child is practically immune to later on in life.

EDIT: Also note that an infant has +1 Con compared to an adult, so it's not really that bad. An infant may be more vulnerable to disease because once they get the disease, they're pretty much done for (an adult just has more stamina (read: hp and ability score except for Con)).

It's all downhill; some attributes just go downhill faster than others...

Eh... I prefer to cover that with things like 'old people diseases' which could be flaws (perhaps additional flaw options at GM discretion - say if you want to be a venerable fighter, ie.?). Also maybe a penalty to listen checks, but only to discern details of a sound (rather then amplitude; Ie. a conversation). This is because older people hear at lower frequencies than young adults.

[Milskidasith]

Any disease that an infant survives, the child is practically immune to later on in life.

Untrue! Plenty of diseases can be gotten multiple times; take the common cold! Plus, any virus of the herpes family (including Chicken Pox) never goes away and can have outbreaks far later; if an adult gets shingles, it's because the chicken pox he had broke out.

[imp_fireball]

take the common cold!

That's pretty much the most contagious disease in existence. Don't count for nuthin.

if an adult gets shingles, it's because the chicken pox he had broke out.

In DnD, that's the case of the secondary effects of the disease not showing up until decades after it was caught. Maybe the disease is particularly persistent? The child kept succeeding on his fortitude save, but then the disease keeps attacking (every month or year or so, sometimes higher and lower DC) until eventually the adult fails his fortitude save.

Looking at a few growth charts most children pass the 4ft mark by 9 years old.

In the middle ages, most adults were around 5ft. tall. Children were likely smaller. There is an exception for medium sized 'young' however (so yes, there's an advantage to not being a ripe adult). Note that small child is basically toddler up until about 6 year old or so.

May want to put a "minimum 1" or something next to each of the de-aging penalties.

I put it next to infant. It's usually assumed for everything else.

[Milskidasith]

That's pretty much the most contagious disease in existence. Don't count for nuthin.

Yes, it does. You can't say "This doesn't happen" and say "Oh, but when this happens, it doesn't count?"

But if you insist, some more examples:

Any disease that cannot be removed, ever; HIV, Herpes, etc.
Staff infections
Strep Throat
Eczema
Gingivitis
Etc, etc. Yes, they're all diseases that are really common. That's the point. You don't get immune to all diseases after catching them once.

In DnD, that's the case of the secondary effects of the disease not showing up until decades after it was caught. Maybe the disease is particularly persistent? The child kept succeeding on his fortitude save, but then the disease keeps attacking (every month or year or so, sometimes higher and lower DC) until eventually the adult fails his fortitude save.

I wasn't talking in D&D terms, and neither were you, so don't transfer it to D&D terms to prove your point. Children get sick, and then they can still get infected with the same disease. Yes, you can be immunized to some diseases, but not all.

[imp_fireball]

Any disease that cannot be removed, ever; HIV, Herpes, etc.

Once you catch the disease (failed the fort save) it has to be cured (can't save again). Those diseases are incurable, so of course they can't be removed.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Also, total strength penalties going down in age are -12, which, with an average of 10.5, means... I have no idea, but negative is not allowed May want to put a "minimum 1" or something next to each of the de-aging penalties.

Minimum 1 is a rules standard.

[Ashtagon]

Any disease that an infant survives, the child is practically immune to later on in life.

EDIT: Also note that an infant has +1 Con compared to an adult, so it's not really that bad. An infant may be more vulnerable to disease because once they get the disease, they're pretty much done for (an adult just has more stamina (read: hp and ability score except for Con)).

This is also true of adults who get that specific disease (the common cold is actually a million or so different diseases with similar symptoms). The key difference is that the average adult is far likelier to actually survive the disease in the first place and enjoy that relative immunity afterwards.

Saying adults are more likely to survive because they have more hp ignores one important point: diseases in D&D pay no attention at all to hp - they only attack ability scores (or occasionally cause status effects). I don't think there is a single WotC-written disease that directly causes hp damage.

Also: cot death happens to infants only. And in pre-industrial times, infant mortality was so common that in some cultures they didn't even bother naming babies till they reached a year old. That's not symptomatic of a high Con score.

[Obrysii]

The Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook has rules for children. I don't want to post them here for violating any copyright.

[Erts]

Hmm, just a minor idea that I had was for children and younger not to get the minus to Cha. Kids are by nature small and cute, which would make people more willing to listen to them.

Agreed, infants should have +6 CHA, and little kids +4.

Other than that and some other small issues, it looks pretty good.

[Milskidasith]

Agreed, infants should have +6 CHA, and little kids +4.

Other than that and some other small issues, it looks pretty good.

Kids are not persuasive, intimidating, or good at lying. They're just capable of repeating the check for hours on end until the adult gives in, whereas in most cases saying "BUT I WANT IT" would get you thrown out.