|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
I liked the longer age spans for the Dhampires and Aasimars and Tieflings. In a home Carrion Crown game I am in, I have an Aasimar cleric of Iomedae. My friend is playing an Aasimar Paladin of Iomedae. These characters are brothers. We are having fun. if my GM brings it up, I will ask him to keep things the same. What does it matter that the ages have been errataed? In the link that Black Blood Troll kindly provided where James Jacobs said that they intended for Assimars etc to age as humans.
In that post James Jacobs also suggested that it would be a red flag if you sit at a PFS table with a GM that does not allow your aasimar character to have a human starting age (when they had longer starting ages in the ARG)
I will admit, If a, PFS GM is so nit picky, that he wants me to change the age of my Aasimar character to match that of the current Errata, that would be a red flag for me to find another table to play at. That being said, I would understand the Favored Class Bonus's being changed to the current errata. One has an effect on game mechanics, I don't think the other does. PFS i believe ignores age penalties and benefits.