Include an optional Level to Age Table in Pathfinder

[quest-master]

It seems that all the concerns about 2 + Int ranks per level and starting hit points would be solved with a simple age table in the section describing level advancement or the section including the table for racial starting ages.

This would be an OPTIONAL table that would easily be backwards compatible since most adventures and campaigns start with the PCs facing opponents with 3 or more Hit Dice. Since it is OPTIONAL and not adding or subtracting to any rules, it would be an easy compromise with the players complaining about skill points or hit points or options at starting level.

The table of suggested guidelines would include the following:

1st level should be relegated to characters at a young child age (10-12 for humans).
2nd level should be relegated to characters in their early teens (13-15 for humans).
3rd level should be relegated as the starting level for PCs (16 and older for humans).

Appropriate ability score adjustments would also be suggested.

Maximum or static fraction of HD hit points for the first three levels.

For example a starting level Fighter would have 3 x (HD or static hp + Con mod.) + 3 x (2 + Int mod.) skill ranks, as a YOUNG ADULT or older. Statistics for younger PCs or NPCs would thus use 1st or 2nd level statistics.

It would make people stop complaining and make it easier for DMs to flesh out their NPCs with younger characters.

The ranks per level would not have to be changed. I dare say hit dice for classes would not have to be changed. Hit Dice can be changed back to what they were before since maxing out or giving a decent static amount for the first three levels gives PCs plenty enough hit points to survive at earlier, more dangerous levels.

[airwalkrr]

Have you always assumed 1st level characters are 10 years old? I don't know where this idea comes from, but I don't see any problem with first level characters being young adults between 16 and 25, depending on their class. I don't know what "problem" you are trying to solve with the alleged table.

[gryc_ueusp]

In all my years of roleplaying, I've never seen any correlation between level and age. I've seen ten year old, 6th level sorcerors and 80 year old, third level wizards. People with zero experience are 0th level characters. People with loads of experience are 10th level. If people complain about skill ranks and starting HP, ask them how they explain all this spellcasting business and all that elf nonsense.

[quest-master]

airwalkrr wrote:

Have you always assumed 1st level characters are 10 years old? I don't know where this idea comes from, but I don't see any problem with first level characters being young adults between 16 and 25, depending on their class. I don't know what "problem" you are trying to solve with the alleged table.

I'm have not and am not ASSUMING anything of that sort. The suggestion I've written uses only the assumption that the current skill rank system and number of skill ranks per level remain unchanged.

I am simply SUGGESTING an OPTIONAL way to handle character level based on age that COULD satisfy players complaining about 2+ Int skill ranks and whatnot while maintaining backwards compatibility.

[TerraNova]

This is sadly not as backwards compatible as you claim, since there are age brackets mentioned for several OGL classes (at first level). Most of these solidly fall into your "Level 3" band.

Honestly, i do not see what you are trying to do here, except maybe "leave a trace in the sand". I've never had a problem divorcing age and level. Think of some poor kid trained as an assassin from pretty much birth in an intrigue-heavy setting, or a bumbling apprentice wizard who, despite being close to 40, still does not get together his cantrips with any kind of success rate.

Heck, think of the wizard iconic in pathfinder.

[quest-master]

TerraNova wrote:

Honestly, i do not see what you are trying to do here, except maybe "leave a trace in the sand".

This indeed was a shot in the dark thread. I was passing some time. If any of you posting here were not also passing time and feel I've wasted your time I apologize.

With beta coming after this stage, this is my last post on this thread and my last shot in the dark.

[SirUrza]

I don't see age correlating with level at all. Why? Because you can play an adventure (like Rise of the Runelords) from level 1-15 in less then a years time.

Level 1 means you've stopped being a civilian. It doesn't matter what your age is.. look at Ezren, he's old and crusty, missing a finger, and he JUST started his path of Wizardry.

[Valen_Dragonstar]

SirUrza wrote:

I don't see age correlating with level at all. Why? Because you can play an adventure (like Rise of the Runelords) from level 1-15 in less then a years time.

Level 1 means you've stopped being a civilian. It doesn't matter what your age is.. look at Ezren, he's old and crusty, missing a finger, and he JUST started his path of Wizardry.

True!

If you start thinking about age too much,you get to problems like, Elves starting their adventure lives at age 100+, they say Elves take time to mature and do things they way, but than when they start adventure they go from level 1 -> 18 in 2 years. Its like what the heck are they doing those 100 years.. This would suggest that teaching methods of Elves and all other longlived races are like teaching the dumbest people on the world. With Elves I think it goes like this, everyday a teacher teaches one word and lets them ponder that for few days..

Anyway, I think Age to Level charts should be House rules for each group who wants to use it,not something to be put into published book.
But if enough people want it, I will bow down to it.
=)

[Laithoron]

quest-master:

While it may be off-topic, particularly in light of the goals of the Pathfinder RPG forums, I have a Passive-XP-Over-Time system that I developed for NPCs that I think You might find useful.

Disclaimer: The rule I am about to post is irrelevant to the development of PRPG (for one it uses the standard d20 XP tables, for another I originally wrote it for a discussion on an unrelated website). It is one that I use for my campaign world to explain the differences in skill and learnedness among races of varying longevity even if they do not adventure. Indeed, under this system, what sets adventurers apart from non-adventurers is not "something special" so much as the fact that adventurers gain XP so quickly compared to non-adventurers ("All men are created equal" and all that jazz).

"You learn something new every day."

Laithoron wrote:

XP Gained per Week = 5 + Wis Modifier*

* In this way, creatures with a extremely poor Wisdom/Perception are essentially incapable of effectively applying knowledge (i.e. Intelligence) to their life.

For the sake of simplicity, XP gain can be calculated from the earliest point at which a standard member of that race should be capable of reproduction or 2/3 of the standard starting age. Let's also use 50 weeks per year (instead of 52) just to keep the math tidy.

In this way, by the standard starting ages listed in the PHB, races would be the following levels at starting age...

Wis Mod: 0
Human, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling: 2nd
Dwarf, Gnome: 3rd
Elf: 4th (nearly 5th)

Wis Mod: +1
Human, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling: 2nd
Dwarf, Gnome: 3rd
Elf: 5th

Wis Mod: +2, +3
Human, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling: 2nd
Dwarf, Gnome: 3rd
Elf: 5th (just shy of 6th)

Wis Mod: +4, +5
Human, Half-orc: 2nd
Half-elf, Halfling: 3rd
Dwarf, Gnome: 4th
Elf: 6th

I'd go on, but it makes for fairly interesting fantasy world demographics to use such a system for NPCs. Basically, average humans who never go adventuring end up being 2nd-level around their high-school years, 3rd in their 30s and 4th by their 50s. The truly wise ones may even reach as high as 5th level by retirement reaching the preceeding levels much earlier than their more average peers.

Thus, among non-adventurers, the only chance of finding a cleric who might be capable of casting Heal or Raise Dead would be among the wisest and most venerable of the elves, dwarves and perhaps gnomes... That might explain why nobility simply do not always just use their vast wealth to have loved-ones brought back from the dead at the drop of a hat. The spell has time-limits and in a world where adventurers aren't so common-place, finding someone powerful enough to wield such magic might be truly difficult indeed!

Valen_Dragonstar:

Since I'm already off-topic, I figure I'll go for broke by touching on the subject of we elves and our starting age...

I made the following argument based on someone's assertion that elves must have high childhood mortality if they take 100 years to actually become full-grown (we don't!) and also have that CON penalty...

Laithoron wrote:

Consider that elves develop at the same rate as humans yet don't actually suffer the negative effects of aging until after their human counterpart's grandchildren are dead and buried. The -1 penalty elves have to Fortitude saves (if You don't grant elves immunity to sickness as Tolkien did) becomes somewhat irrelevant since per capita there are a far greater number of people who can cure wounds and diseases. Also by the time a human is 53, their CON has been reduced by 3 points; the average elf now has a better CON than they do.

By the time an elf has reached the age of majority (which is around 100... about 80 years after physical maturity), and it would be socially acceptable for them to become a parent, they are of high enough level to easily stand up to most natural animals and may even be able to cure any ill or heal any injury they or their off-spring might suffer.

Thus, child mortality is far less of an issue for elves than it is for their human friends. As for low birth-rates, human parents have a hard enough time dealing with 1st to 2nd-level teenagers for the span of a few years. Consider what a pain it would be having to put up with the what a 3rd to 5th level 'teen' could get into over the course of 80+ years...

After all, where do You think all those attractive half-elves come from? >:D

/me runs and Hides in Shadows