Hi
This is not a question about how it works, or how much the penalties are, etc. I know that.
This is supposed to be a discussion about when you think its worth it to start at a higher age, considering the penalties and bonuses.
Ok, I go first.
First to say, obviously for any physical character it's a bad decission. Middle age might work for RP reasons, but anything beyond that will probably cripple you too much for no real benefit. So it's only really a consideration for casters
Middle Age: -1 str/dex/con for +1 int/wis/cha, seems like it could be a reasonable tradeoff for anyone playing a caster.
Old: -3 for a +2 ... I think this might still be viable for casters. Might have to raise your con a bit higher so that after the penalty you aren't too frail. Getting a +2 on your main stat (which is probably 16/17 at char creation) is worth more points than balancing a -3 in one or two relatively low stats.
Venerable: -6 for +3 ... this is really where I start to think, that its not worth it anymore. Sure you can make a character that starts with 23 int at 1st level (18 start, +2 racial, +3 age), but your con is most likely in the negatives, and carrying a loaf of bread for breakfast encumbers you due to really low strength. (15 start for an 18/20 total is probably better though, so you have some points left for soemthing else)
Remember that you can always drop at least one or maybe 2 of the attributes to 9/8/7 and due to the age bonus you still have a 10 in it at the end. So as a venerable wizard you can get +8 bonus points that way, if you don't care too much for wis and cha, which can then be spend on countering those low physical stats.
This is obviously assuming point-buy, if you rolled really high stats with 4d6 or so, then it might be different.
What's your opinion?
Have you ever played older than normal characters, and if so, how did it turn out?
According to the game mechanics all new player characters start at young (adult) age.
Older age categories are present to illustrate the effects of aging and they are not intended to be an option for new pcs.
Ignoring that, you can always ask your GM to allow you to play a middle aged Wizard but I don't think that's fair to martial characters.
So, you're wrong when you say the age categories are not intended to be an option for new PCs.
They are not, at least from my point of view. You can choose your age or randomly generate it.
There are no options for randomly generating characters of older age so its illogical to assume that you may choose what you may not normally generate from a dice roll.
Choosing your age is an alternative to dice rolling and the dice rolling is strict in what age category a newly created character starts, so you may choose what you might normally get from a dice roll strictly speaking because it doesn't matter that much really.
From a pure gameplay perspective I would disallow choosing your age in any case, mainly because it's a boon to some classes while others won't gain anything from it.
An obvious example of a bad game design if it was allowed with all it's benefits and drawbacks.
The only limit is that you're at least the minimum age for your race, thats all.
It's true that the random rolls only generate "adult" ages, but I just guess they don't want to force someone into an older role that way.
There's nothing saying you can't deliberately choose to start older. It doesn't say "Pick an age, but only from the adult spectrum", it says "you can choose your characters age".
|
It's a big advantage to caster classes. You basically give characters not reliant on their physical stats the chance to be +3 to all mental stats at a cost of 6 to all physical( or +2/-3 or +1/-1 respectively). There are really no aging effects any more, so unless the campaign is very long, then there is no chance of dying of old age.
I had a character play a wizard who was old-age. Wasn't too disruptive. The biggest problem the other players had was "how the heck did you get to be that old, and are still level one?!" Good times...and in the long run, +3 to a casting stat isn't too bad as long as you have cool players. I like the idea, and you know, if someone played an old fighter in my game, from level one, I'd give him major RP props.
|
I once played a 1st level human cleric who started adventuring at 65 years old. I bought his stats normally and then aged him, taking the appropriate penalties/bonuses. I played him for 3 levels.
Let me say this: age adjustments are NOT a blanket advantage for casters. The trade-offs are significant. Adventuring is a fairly physical activity, and the hit you take to hit points, armor class, encumberance, and physical skills will really hurt you at some point.
We were a 4-person party, and my cleric's weaknesses certainly slowed the group down. The concept was interesting and fun to play, but it might have worked better in a larger party.
why can't we play children?
a wizard's apprentice is fairly iconic
as is the street urchin or guttersnipe
the altar boy/girl
the young noble heir who disinherited themselves and fled from home
and the squire
and a lot of these could be stretched to accomodate quite a few classes.
why can't we play children?
Well, as Hama said: children are weak, fragile, and inexperienced. An adventuring party is assumed to be competent and good at what they do.
Think of the average orc versus the average fighter or wizard. Pretty fair fight, yeah?
Think of the average orc versus the average altar boy. Not terribly pretty.
Children are a liability to the party.
With all that said: young template. The rules do support it. However, children do not qualify for any of the PC classes due to age. So, you'd have to have your level 1 (or 0) in an NPC class (I haven't even checked if any of them have minimum starting ages, they might).
why can't we play children?
Considering the general flavour of Golarion and some of the content of the APs, I think enough people might have enough of a problem with rules for child PCs that it might have just been prudent for Paizo not to include them. I don't think it's in bad taste, but I can see how others might.
i'd allow the child PC to take a PC class. as long as they were old enough to function and reason. in other words, at least double digits. maybe 8 or 9 in some cases.
Giving full casters an opportunity to pull ahead of martial classes even further isn't a good idea.
Agreed! I specifically would not allow this, especially with druids as in the early levels, with that low con, they would reincarnate themselves getting rid of all the penalties, giving them nothing but the positives.
Giving full casters an opportunity to pull ahead of martial classes even further isn't a good idea.Agreed! I specifically would not allow this, especially with druids as in the early levels, with that low con, they would reincarnate themselves getting rid of all the penalties, giving them nothing but the positives.
Pretty sure a dead druid can't cast a spell with an hour-long cast time, so no worries there.
Pretty sure a dead druid can't cast a spell with an hour-long cast time, so no worries there.Giving full casters an opportunity to pull ahead of martial classes even further isn't a good idea.Agreed! I specifically would not allow this, especially with druids as in the early levels, with that low con, they would reincarnate themselves getting rid of all the penalties, giving them nothing but the positives.
Well true they wouldn't be able to cast it on themselves, but I am sure that they probably would get another to do the job in case of their death. If they are the only healer/raiser in the part other casters of an older age would benefit greatly.
For most campaigns there's no real reason not to select an older age category.
However, in a campaign where characters can age relatively significantly, starting out at Venerable is a good way to literally die of old age. Kingmaker as a prime example. Fortunately, ghosts don't actually age you by years anymore.
why can't we play children?
Didn't you say you were trying to break away from your reputation as the creepiest member of this forum?
I don't allow child characters under any circumstances due to the situations the party is likely to get into (or rather, are likely to put themselves in).
i am trying not to be creepy, but i find nothing wrong with child PCs as long as they are old enough to function and reason. at least double digits, maybe a year or two off if an appropriate case could be made.
i would be happy if some random dude came to my table with a tiefling barbarian modeled after Ibuki Suika. i'd expect all the RP baggage that accompanies it. the freeloading, the partying, Etc.
I've started out middle age once or twice, and it really depends on the party and the character. While definitely not helpful for pure martial types, it can be just as bad for pure casters. The reduction of the physical stats even further than the typical low scores they usually receive is often just enough to make even the staunchest min/maxer wonder if they should have paid a little more attention to the physical stats. It's not one big thing that get you, but the little things that come up constantly.
Having the usual weak AC, fort save, vulnerability to attribute drain, or carrying capacity that wizards are notorious for can be dealt with in the usual party, but weakening those even further can put the character solidly in the realm of annoying, at least in a small party, as Wolfsnap pointed out earlier in the thread. Adventuring is a physical activity, and taking a universal penalty to all physical stats has a noticable effect. It is similar to playing a child as far as basic competency is concerned. With a child, it is the mental competency that can cause problems; with middle age, it isn't too bad actually as long as the player adjusts how the character is played accordingly and the party makeup lets him do so; old or older, however, would get to be a real problem.
|
|
One of the starting characters in my Second Darkness game was a wizard who was about 60-70. The concept was that he had spent his entire life gaining power, and an enemy had permanently drained his power, thus forcing him to start again. He was also from Geb, and planned to become a lich, so being reduced to level 1 forced him to go adventuring, so that he could gain the power and knowledge he needed before he died (not having the option to take the long way again.) It was a pretty cool concept (I wasn't entirely happy with the character's motivations, but I'm just the GM,) so I suggested that he make the character old, and take the requisite penalties. I think he ended up with a Con of 6. :)
The weakness made sense, and the character did fairly well...until he got hit by an empowered fireball. Alas, crappy physical stats and bugger all hitpoints meant that he didn't have a sufficient reflex save, and even if he had made it, he'd still be dead.
I'm very much in the "If a player wants to do it, it's my job to find a way," camp. If a player came to me and said they wanted to play a child, I'd probably allow it. Well, it would depend on the player. But I would most likely bestow a penalty to all stats except maybe Dex and Cha. Or maybe just a limitation. I can't imagine a 10 year old with an 18 Str, for example.
I've only ever played one character with a non-standard age category myself. And even then I actually technically didn't.
Back in 3.5 I played a character in an evil campaign who'd been killed by slavers when he was 8 and raised as a Curst by a necromancer, who had him trained as an assassin. Technically he was in his 40's when he joined the party, but he still looked 8, due to not physically aging as an undead creature. In that character's case we just ignored aging bonuses an penalties entirely due to the weird circumstances of his existence. He's still one of my favorite characters and an RP gold mine (devil-possessed teddy bear cohort, constantly poisoning everything, intense hatred of slavers...)
I guess the point of this is that there's always some way for a DM to make oddly aged characters work in a campaign. It just takes some creative flexibility and players willing to not ludicrously min-max.
As mentioned by some, age changes are rarely wholly worthwhile for casters. Dropping a physical stat may not be that bad, but dropping all of them, when you are probably only really benefiting from one of the stats being raised, nets out pretty poorly.
That said, I could definitely see a mystic theurge doing this to good effect.
Also... a 16 stat (fairly common purchase for casters) costs 3 points more than a 15.. if all your physical stats can be increased by 1 for 1 point each, then there is a pure net benefit in doing this. And I'd see nothing wrong with it - casters are traditionally a bit older in fiction, and they've still lost their youth.
|
|
casters are traditionally a bit older in fiction, and they've still lost their youth.
It's a very good point, and sadly something that gets lost in most games. In my opinion, a powerful wizard *should* be older, yet in many campaigns, a wizard goes from neophyte to archmage in a year or less.
Also, it amuses me greatly that in 3.5/PF (not sure how it worked in older versions,) the older you get, the better your eyesight and hearing get. :)
Umm... unless I am missing something, increasing age past middle age only adds physical stat penalties without increasing mental stats. I just started a new ap with a middle aged Sorcerer, mostly for story reasons but also because I rolled five odd stats :p
I've made two old characters before... one was a wizard with the standard long white beard. He started about 12th level, so it worked out fine :)
The other was an old retired texas ranger for an 1890's ravenloft game. He started at level one, and the explaination was he'd been 'out of practice' so long that his stats and thac0 had dropped back to starting levels...
Again, when I play an older character, it's purely for the RP potential rather than the stat boosts... Still hoping to do some fun stuff with the Ranger ^_^
Umm... unless I am missing something, increasing age past middle age only adds physical stat penalties without increasing mental stats. I just started a new ap with a middle aged Sorcerer, mostly for story reasons but also because I rolled five odd stats :p
You're missing the sentence "The effects of each aging step are cumulative" in the text accompanying the table. So each step gives +1 more to mental stats than the last one, but the physical penalties get unproportionally worse each step.
|
i am trying not to be creepy, but i find nothing wrong with child PCs as long as they are old enough to function and reason. at least double digits, maybe a year or two off if an appropriate case could be made.
i would be happy if some random dude came to my table with a tiefling barbarian modeled after Ibuki Suika. i'd expect all the RP baggage that accompanies it. the freeloading, the partying, Etc.
Not really helping the creepy...
Umm... unless I am missing something, increasing age past middle age only adds physical stat penalties without increasing mental stats. I just started a new ap with a middle aged Sorcerer, mostly for story reasons but also because I rolled five odd stats :p
The benefits and penalties listed in the aging effects table are intended to be cumulative. So when you hit Venerable age, you've taken -6 total to all your physical stats, and your mental stats have increased by +3.
Hmmm... I just realized, that's a decent reason why you can't reduce stats lower than 7 when doing point buy; otherwise you'd end up paralyzed or dead when you hit Venerable. Of course, that's still a possibility for those with a racial -2 to physical stats...
i am trying not to be creepy, but i find nothing wrong with child PCs as long as they are old enough to function and reason. at least double digits, maybe a year or two off if an appropriate case could be made.
i would be happy if some random dude came to my table with a tiefling barbarian modeled after Ibuki Suika. i'd expect all the RP baggage that accompanies it. the freeloading, the partying, Etc.
Considering by RAW you can start as a Half-Orc as early as 15 years old or a Human at 16 for Barbarians, Rogues, Sorcerers and presumably other similar "instinctive" classes, I don't think we really need to go younger.
There are feats that get rid of ageing penalties. Two PCs in our group are venerable. My PC is 15,000 years old.
Oh? Where are these feats from, out of curiosity?
For me, old age implies additional wisdom and a life of experience. While I don't begrudge anyone who wants to start the game with an oldster, I don't agree with the concept. I certainly don't agree with giving the oldster more crunch. Why can't everyone start out as young adventurers?
I'm playing with an oldster, cowardly, PC in my current game and it really bugs me. The concept simply doesn't mesh with what I'm going for, in terms of party make-up. Having said that, I haven't complained and I won't. I just ignore the PC. :)
|
Elf Blood (Source: Spycraft - Origin of the Species - Classic Fantasy)
The ancient blood of elves flows through your veins, granting you
some measure of their grace. Humans with this feat are often called
‘half-elves.’
Prerequisites: Career Level 1 only, any non-Elf.
Benefit: Your Wisdom score rises by 1, your base Speed increases by
5 ft., and you gain the light sleeper NPC quality. Further, you may requisition gear and choose Species Feats as if you possess the Elf Talent. Finally, beginning with Career Level 4, each time you gain a level, you may choose to decrease your Constitution score by 2 to increase your Wisdom score by an additional 2 (for a total increase of 3) and permanently gain both the fey and improved hearing NPC qualities. You may do this only once.
Special: When you choose this feat, you may permanently decrease
any one of your attributes by 2 to also gain any 1 Species Feat with
prerequisites of both ‘Career Level 1 only’ and ‘Elf.’ You must still
meet all of the feat’s other prerequisites before selecting it.
Light sleeper NPC quality: You are neither blinded nor helpless while sleeping.
Fey NPC quality: The character has a deep supernatural connection to
the wilds and is as much a spiritual embodiment of a natural force or
location as a creature of flesh and blood. Fey creatures often display
skin and/or fur coloration that complements their native surroundings.
The NPC ignores all aging penalties, remaining vigorous until death.
Natural animals will not attack or flee from the character unless they
are diseased, poisoned, trained to do so, or attacked by the NPC or
his teammates. Also, if the NPC is a special character, each time he
may choose an additional permanent feat, he may instead select a
feat from the Terrain tree. Finally, a fey character eats, sleeps, and
breathes unless otherwise indicated.
Improved hearing NPC quality: Your base hearing range is equal to your Wisdom score × 10 ft. Further, unless deafened, you gain a +4 bonus with Notice/Awareness and Search/Perception checks made
to determine surprise (see the Spycraft 2.0 Rulebook, page 323).
---
ETERNAL YOUTH [GENERAL] (Source: AEG Feats)
Your increased vigor allows you to ignore the effects of
aging.
Prerequisite: Con 13+, middle age or younger.
Benefit: You do not suffer the penalties for
progressing into middle age, until you are old.
You do not suffer the penalties for progressing
into old age until you are venerable.
Normal: A character progressing to middle age
suffers a -1 penalty to Strength, Constitution,
and Dexterity. A character progressing to old
suffers a -2 penalty to Strength, Constitution,
and Dexterity.
---
YOUTHFUL EXUBERANCE [Disposition] (Source: Codex Effusio)
You possess the health and vigor of a much younger person.
Benefit: You may ignore age penalties as if you were one age category younger than you actually are.
---
ETERNAL YOUTH [EPIC] (Source: Epic Feats & Familiars)
You will never die naturally, and your body remains in
its prime eternally.
Prerequisites: Extended Life Span (x2).
Benefit: You no longer have a maximum age.
You do not take any aging penalties to ability scores,
and any you have already taken are reversed. You still
gain aging bonuses to ability scores as normal.
Special: If you’ve taken the Dotage flaw, then
this feat does not restore aging penalties you’ve already
taken (though you do not gain any more).
stuff
Thanks! This might be useful down the road.
I'm a bit of a min/maxer, and I've done this on occasion. I played a 2E Druid who was middle aged. He had been the lord of a keep, and had a mid-life crisis when his wife died, he left everything to his son and disappeared, wandering the countryside for a few years. When he met up with the party, he was middle aged. I also planned to make a venerable elf cleric/mage, but that probably won't happen.
Sometimes when I talk about characters being old or whatever, my group rolls their eyes at me. I have lots of fun playing old people! They can be so abrupt and can get away with so much more than peers.
Umm... unless I am missing something, increasing age past middle age only adds physical stat penalties without increasing mental stats. I just started a new ap with a middle aged Sorcerer, mostly for story reasons but also because I rolled five odd stats :pYou're missing the sentence "The effects of each aging step are cumulative" in the text accompanying the table. So each step gives +1 more to mental stats than the last one, but the physical penalties get unproportionally worse each step.
Damn, I swore I would never be one of those people that read a table without reading the text. Thanks for pointing that out!
|
|
Well everyone, I am currently playing a character in the Rise of the Runelords AP that is middle aged. I have enjoyed it, and to be honest, I havent even noticed a huge difference in the stats.
I am playing a 3.5 bard for this (of which I am not going into detail as it is a drill sergeant bard that has all sorts of alternate class features), and am frail with a 9 str, weilding the vicious +1 military pick from the scrag in AP#3. Lots of fun.
The numbers did nothing but help make my character more like an aging military man would be... strong charisma, not so strong body any more...
If the campaign i'm playing in allows for other than 2st level chars, I adjust the age to try to match the level somewhat, like a level 10 human should be around 35+,
Also I see no problem playing children as pcs. Have you ever played most of the Jrpgs out there? most of them are teens (If the original poster meant young or young adult "teens" then it sounds reasonable, but cildren children like 10 or less is not gonna be pretty effective (In fact I would consider it giving it the young template XD).
If the campaign i'm playing in allows for other than 2st level chars, I adjust the age to try to match the level somewhat, like a level 10 human should be around 35+,
Also I see no problem playing children as pcs. Have you ever played most of the Jrpgs out there? most of them are teens (If the original poster meant young or young adult "teens" then it sounds reasonable, but cildren children like 10 or less is not gonna be pretty effective (In fact I would consider it giving it the young template XD).
that is what i intended. i have never played a PC under the age of 12. and a truly 12 year old PC is a rarity for me. try more, racial equivalent to young adult teen with a slighter build that makes them seem younger. not too hard to visualize with the japanese demographical statistics.
Yeah, but Pathfinder is kinda not manga or anime based...as much as i like manga and anime, the trend of 5 year olds punching through concrete walls and levitating cities with their mind is growing old. I prefer grownups, or at the worst above 15 year-olds.
when you get past a certain point, you are already achieving animesque deeds. i don't need explain. look at levels 12 and up. nothing stops you from building a level 12 tian monk and calling Him Son Goku.
age and level don't always have to be connected.
you can get to 20th level in a matter of months.
a 12 year old girl can become the most badass character of her class before she even turns 13. all she really requires is a reason to kill, and some worthy opposition.
PCs are any age the player feels like making them.
.
..
...
....
.....
M'thinks the key word is/was 'trend'.
One youngling displaying awesome powers in a group of elderlings - novel (well, it was once..) character.
However, repeated younglings displaying awesome powers?
Detracts from the rarity/impact of the whole schabam - ya know?
::
No, wait, I mean..
GO TEEN TITANS!11!
::
|
Hi
This is not a question about how it works, or how much the penalties are, etc. I know that.
This is supposed to be a discussion about when you think its worth it to start at a higher age, considering the penalties and bonuses.
I might be jumping in a little late but here goes... I had one campaign where a boy was a lost member of royalty and he started as a younger than usual character. His mentor/guardian was a older than average gentleman. It made for some interesting times, the Player of the young noble played him to the hilt i.e. a sheltered non worldly kid. The older knight was played interestingly because of his lower physical attributes, he fought smarter. Now I did lessen the penalties arguing that this character kept his body conditioned so the ravages of time were lessened somewhat. Im just saying that it can lead to a very good and rich experience.
As for level and age, Ive played campaigns and run campaigns that last over a year and take the characters into epic levels. During the playing of these campaigns I had the characters age and the passage of time played a part in our campaigns. We had a good time and it really got us attached to these characters. it can be a poignant moment when the NPC Older Fighter realizes that he is retiring and can not continue on due to the weakening of his sword arm, not to mention the weakening of his will.
Just my 2 cents
I've played both really young and really old characters. Stat modifiers aside, there are plenty of reasons for people of all ages to start adventuring. I once played a character who started out age 65. His village was attacked by orcs, and being able-bodied, he took up sword and shield and fought to protect his home; old age doesn't mean that you are more experienced, mechanics wise.
On the flip side, I've played a really young character as well. He was what some people call a prodigy or a child genius. He was ten when his oracle powers manifested; he wasn't much for melee combat, but he was pretty badass with a sling.
Yeah, but Pathfinder is kinda not manga or anime based...as much as i like manga and anime, the trend of 5 year olds punching through concrete walls and levitating cities with their mind is growing old. I prefer grownups, or at the worst above 15 year-olds.
All character archetypes and tropes have "grown old". If I can find it on tvtropes.org, it's been "done to death". Since there are no new original ideas, just derivations of old ones, I don't see how this can really be used to shoot other peoples ideas or preferences down.