Reverse dog years: or, half-elf / elf starting ages seem off to me.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Jeff, I think you may have misunderstood me...PCs and NPCs in the SAME CONDITIONS need the same rules. If mortality is communicable, then NPCs need to be just as susceptible to it.

For that matter, PC elves w/ no exposure to mortals that don't leave elf lands for however long it takes to lost immortality should stay immortal.

I wouldn't do any of it, personally, and would just use Core rules for elf ages, it's more than enough to justify the "they live a really long time" trope w/o invoking the "they live incomprehensibly long"-related consequences.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, I never read Tolkien,

Heathen!

One way I think of looking at the aging thing and elves and such taking so long to learn a craft, is they have time to do things like watch a tree grow.

So, in essence, they would likely not be in anywhere near as a "hurry" as say humans would.


Chobemaster wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm going to fix this by not having half-elves in my homebrew setting. ;)
That's pretty solid, IMO. They are an obvious artifact of the Tolkien-based concepts of the original game, so if you're diverting from that (and the rules have continued to leave that feel in the dust, though they started to do so almost immediately), then they are probably a question-raising anomaly as much as anything else.

And in Tolkien there were only a handful of actual crossbreeds. Two known and one possible pairings. The known ones, Beren & Luthien and Tuor and Idril, were both driven by Fate. (Luthien also had a Maiar parent, just to complicate things.) Having a limited number of pairings makes it much easier not to worry about the mechanics.

The Dunedain could be considered a "half-elven" race, though by the time of the LotR it would be a much smaller fraction. Humans with a slightly longer lifespan and some elvish traits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Elrond is half-elven, it's part of his epithet: Elrond Half-elven. Tolkien complicated things even more by saying that any half-elven person had the ability to make a choice to live the immortal life, or to embrace mortality.

Hey, maybe that's where the: "adventuring elves age faster" thing comes from? Perhaps elves that choose to adventure consciously set aside their immortality to partake of the "faster" more exciting life.

Like a rockstar, live fast, die young.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Geistlinger wrote:


Heathen!

Thank you! :)

Geistlinger wrote:


One way I think of looking at the aging thing and elves and such taking so long to learn a craft, is they have time to do things like watch a tree grow.

So, in essence, they would likely not be in anywhere near as a "hurry" as say humans would.

Yeah, it still doesn't fit my sense of verisimilitude. I'd want an age category progression like dragons or elf base class progression.


Chobemaster wrote:

Jeff, I think you may have misunderstood me...PCs and NPCs in the SAME CONDITIONS need the same rules. If mortality is communicable, then NPCs need to be just as susceptible to it.

For that matter, PC elves w/ no exposure to mortals that don't leave elf lands for however long it takes to lost immortality should stay immortal.

I wouldn't do any of it, personally, and would just use Core rules for elf ages, it's more than enough to justify the "they live a really long time" trope w/o invoking the "they live incomprehensibly long"-related consequences.

Agreed. I also don't think I'd use it as a regular thing. I'm fine with the Core approach. Or the longer lived, Tolkienesque EoG approach, for that matter.

I was just intrigued by the idea of the suggested "losing immortality" fix and was kind of brainstorming how it could actually work. And how people, particularly other elves, in the game world would think about it.

Essentially, if it's reversible it's not interesting because there is no real effect. My elven PC is short-lived for the 5 years or so he's out in the world and then goes back home and is long-lived again. That doesn't even mean anything. Giving up immortality permanently produces far more interesting character development, even if you don't play out the full lifespan.
I'm not sure if it should be retroactive. That doesn't really make sense, but it's the only way to use it to ban really old starting characters, which seemed to be part of the goal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:

Elrond is half-elven, it's part of his epithet: Elrond Half-elven. Tolkien complicated things even more by saying that any half-elven person had the ability to make a choice to live the immortal life, or to embrace mortality.

Hey, maybe that's where the: "adventuring elves age faster" thing comes from? Perhaps elves that choose to adventure consciously set aside their immortality to partake of the "faster" more exciting life.

Like a rockstar, live fast, die young.

Elrond is technically 9/16 Elven, 6/16 Human, 1/16 Maiar, if I've counted the generations right. As was his brother Elros.

Elrond chose to counted among the elves and his children also had that choice, though their mother was fully elven.

Elros chose to be human. That choice applied to his descendants (Numenoreans/Dunedain) as well, though they got longer lives and other benefits as well, that faded as the bloodline became thinner and they became more corrupt.

D&D half-elves resemble the Dunedain more than they do Elrond, IMO.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
MendedWall12 wrote:


Hey, maybe that's where the: "adventuring elves age faster" thing comes from? Perhaps elves that choose to adventure consciously set aside their immortality to partake of the "faster" more exciting life.

Like a rockstar, live fast, die young.

That's an interesting idea I will have to consider. Right now my elves and dwarves have to return home every so often to enter a regenerative sleep. Effectively, they 'die' and are reborn into slightly different people, with only vague recollections or their past lives.


thejeff wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:

Elrond is half-elven, it's part of his epithet: Elrond Half-elven. Tolkien complicated things even more by saying that any half-elven person had the ability to make a choice to live the immortal life, or to embrace mortality.

Hey, maybe that's where the: "adventuring elves age faster" thing comes from? Perhaps elves that choose to adventure consciously set aside their immortality to partake of the "faster" more exciting life.

Like a rockstar, live fast, die young.

Elrond is technically 9/16 Elven, 6/16 Human, 1/16 Maiar, if I've counted the generations right. As was his brother Elros.

Elrond chose to counted among the elves and his children also had that choice, though their mother was fully elven.

Elros chose to be human. That choice applied to his descendants (Numenoreans/Dunedain) as well, though they got longer lives and other benefits as well, that faded as the bloodline became thinner and they became more corrupt.

D&D half-elves resemble the Dunedain more than they do Elrond, IMO.

Which actually would fit with the 3.5/Pathfinder mechanics because "half" in any race only means enough of a portion genetically speaking to be present and noticeable. A "quarter" elf as far as the mechanics are concerned is a half-elf. Likewise a "quarter" orc, for the purposes of the mechanics is a half-orc. Essentially it's just enough "blood" in the system to register as not being completely of one heritage/race or the other distinctly.

In Elrond's case you might have to add the celestial template. :P


mdt wrote:

The way I handled it in my game world (Note : Homebrew!) was this :

Halflings, Gnomes, and Humans all live about the same time. They're the ephemeral races.

Dwarves, Elves, and Drow are the elder races, and they live for a very long time (or a VERY VERY long time, see below).

90% of all Dwarves, Elves, and Drow are 'core' book variations. They all tend to take about twice as long as humans to grow to adulthood (about 30 years). They tend to live to around 300 or 400 years as adults, another 200 or so as middle aged, another 200 or so as old, another 200 or so as venerable, and finally another 200 or so as ancient. So the maximum lifespan of most dwarves, elves and drow are about a 1000 years (discounting misadventure).

10% of all Dwarves, Elves, and Drow are 'Nobles'. Noble Drow (from the bestiary), or the Elven or Dwarven equivalents. All of these grow up at the same rate (about 30 years to adulthood). However, once they hit 'adult', they just sort of stop aging physically. Mentally, they still pick up the various age ranges, but physically, they just sort of stop around late adult and hang out for centuries.

Just bouncing off of this, Earthdawn took a superficially similar approach. Most elves were just long-lived. A handful, nowhere near 10%, maybe less than a 100 total, were actually immortal. Apparently created by the great dragons. They tend to be rulers and/or behind the scenes manipulators.


Yeah, I loved Harlequin's adventures for Shadowrun (tied to Earthdawn).


thejeff wrote:


And in Tolkien there were only a handful of actual crossbreeds. Two known and one possible pairings. The known ones, Beren & Luthien and Tuor and Idril, were both driven by Fate. (Luthien also had a Maiar parent, just to complicate things.) Having a limited number of pairings makes it much easier not to worry about the mechanics.

The Dunedain could be considered a "half-elven" race, though by the time of the LotR it would be a much smaller fraction. Humans with a slightly longer lifespan and some elvish traits.

Yeah, but the Numenoreans didn't really correlate to the game's take on half-elves.

The hobbit makes mention of other half-elves being @ Rivendell. The Hobbit is barely canon, though, since the Professor himself recognizes it needs some of what we today call retconning.


thejeff wrote:


D&D half-elves resemble the Dunedain more than they do Elrond, IMO.

Wow, I don't agree at all. Look at Aragorn, look at Elrond, then look at the picture of a half-elf in the book. Aragorn is not at all out of place with the stature and build of the Rohirrim or men of Minas Tirith.

The Lords of Gondor were not portrayed in film or book as being lesser of stature or build than the "low men" they ruled.


Chobemaster wrote:
thejeff wrote:


D&D half-elves resemble the Dunedain more than they do Elrond, IMO.

Wow, I don't agree at all. Look at Aragorn, look at Elrond, then look at the picture of a half-elf in the book. Aragorn is not at all out of place with the stature and build of the Rohirrim or men of Minas Tirith.

The Lords of Gondor were not portrayed in film or book as being lesser of stature or build than the "low men" they ruled.

Well, true, but then neither was Elrond. Elves in Tolkien were not lesser of stature than men. Possibly of build.

My point was not necessarily intended to be "resemble" in looks, but in role.

Half-elves, in D&D, have always felt closer to men than to elves to me. Their lifespan is closer to that of men than that of elves. They seem more like humans with some tweaks than like elves with some tweaks.
Which fits Aragorn, who is a long-lived human with some advantages from his heritage better than Elrond, who is essentially an Elf, despite being called "Half-elven".


thejeff wrote:

My point was not necessarily intended to be "resemble" in looks, but in role.

Still not sure I'm there...elf blood in Middle Earth is associated lordship/kingship of Men, whether it's Elros, the Numenoreans/Gondorian Kings/Dunedain, the Princes of dol Amroth, or the line of Elessar.

I can't think of a publication with a half-elf king in a human kingdom, which is not to say it hasn't happened. And it might be a bit unreasonable, a political marriage of a prince to an "elf-maid" probably SHOULD have happened at some point, somewhere.


This may deserve its own post and I apologize if it isn't relevant, but along the lines of aging do the rules ever state how a tiefling or Asimar ages? they are outsiders which I'm not sure have a "life span". So do they age to adulthood at normal rates then wander around until they are killed? As an outsider their body and soul are one unit not separate, but as a "native" they can still be resurrected by normal means. Does this suggest they have a soul and body separate and can therefore age normaly?


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Luckily, Brian Jacques took up the slack in my formative years, so I have Redwall as a basis for what I think fantasy should be. ;)

one of the master story tellers....

only read angel's command. and only then becuase it was a signed copy.... was very good though

Grand Lodge

I always found the idea of staying children for 100 years silly and had them mature to adults at the same rate as humans approximately.Maybe thats why they rarely have kids.Can you imagine having a child for 100 years?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chobemaster wrote:
Overall age/starting age/no difference in accumulation of XP is an insoluble mess that it's best to ignore, IMO. Elves learn way slower than humans for undefined reasons, until they become 1st level, then they solve that problem and learn at the same rate, via an undefined mechanic.

This!

fasthd97 wrote:
I always found the idea of staying children for 100 years silly and had them mature to adults at the same rate as humans approximately.Maybe thats why they rarely have kids.Can you imagine having a child for 100 years?

And this!

This is the question I've always had. Are you seriously telling me that elves start their "adult lives" after the age of 100 and with no more skill or knowledge than their human counterparts at the age of 18?

<rolls eyes> Come on... after 100 years of life, they should be, at least, 10th level rangers, 10th level druids, have studied the arcane arts, and be accomplished acrobats, climbers, swimmers, and riders (all that tree and forest living). They've had 100 years to learn and perfect themselves. To learn. Can you imagine what it would be like if you had 100 years of childhood before living for an additional 500+? You'd be so well-educated in so many facets of life, the only things unknown to you would be things not in the purview of your race (nobility, local history of various places, certain arcane/religious knowledge [but rare]).

I could, with 40 years of schooling, have an M.D. (even be a neurosurgeon), have several Ph.D.s in Mathematics, Computer Science, Literature, and Physics. So the kid blows off 60 years just being a kid (not all at once). But seriously... and coming out of the forest 100 years later, he can't beat up a 18 year old 5th level fighter? What are they teaching these kids, really?

Liberty's Edge

jupistar wrote:

This is the question I've always had. Are you seriously telling me that elves start their "adult lives" after the age of 100 and with no more skill or knowledge than their human counterparts at the age of 18?

<rolls eyes> Come on... after 100 years of life, they should be, at least, 10th level rangers, 10th level druids, have studied the arcane arts, and be accomplished acrobats, climbers, swimmers, and riders (all that tree and forest living). They've had 100 years to learn and perfect themselves. To learn. Can you imagine what it would be like if you had 100 years of childhood before living for an additional 500+? You'd be so well-educated in so many facets of life, the only things unknown to you would be things not in the purview of your race (nobility, local history of various places, certain arcane/religious knowledge [but rare]).

I could, with 40 years of schooling, have an M.D. (even be a neurosurgeon), have several Ph.D.s in Mathematics, Computer Science, Literature, and Physics. So the kid blows off 60 years just being a kid (not all at once). But seriously... and coming out of the forest 100 years later, he can't beat up a 18 year old 5th level fighter? What are they teaching these kids, really?

Firstly, not everyone gets to 10th level in 100 years. Most peasants are, what, 5th or 6th when they die at the age of 80? Less? I'd say 4th maybe 5th is average.

Secondly, I've always interpreted it as an Elven inability to focus except when in direct and deadly danger. They just...get distracted, and wander off to play in the woods (or whatever). They're very smart, but not necessarily dedicated or as capable of focusing as human beings are...at least not unless arrows are flying. They become much more focused almost immediately then, and can learn very quickly indeed if they truly must.

That justification mostly works for me.


That, and they are children for most of those 100 years.
Undeveloped, immature, etc. Both physically and the brain chemistry. They take longer to develop.

They're not humans who age too slowly, they're elves who age at the right speed for elves.

Frankly most of the world problems with elves, except for the skill levels of starting PCs, get worse if you make them adult at 20. If elves learn at the same rate as humans, the woods will be full of ridiculously high level elves.
The same applies, to a slightly lesser extent to dwarves and gnomes, both of whom can live for hundreds of years and start adventuring after 40. Maybe they wouldn't be 20th level at the start, but they should easily be 10th.

You either have to make all the races have the same age categories or accept that they don't all learn things at the same rate for whatever reason. I find the second more interesting.

I'd also argue, as I've said before in this thread, that the average PCs rate of progression has to be an anomaly. A PC group can easily make it to high levels in a couple years of game time. If that rate was a applied to everyone, even most humans should have levels in the high teens by the time they're 30. If that's not the case in your world, why get upset that elves aren't all high level when they're 200?

Adventurers are the exception. Most people, even those with PC classes, learn slowly by training and practice. Most probably plateau, either when they hit the limits of their trainers or when they stop trying new things in their fields. They're working to earn a living, not pushing to excel at new things.


thejeff wrote:

That, and they are children for most of those 100 years.

Undeveloped, immature, etc. Both physically and the brain chemistry. They take longer to develop.

This!

You can't think of the time period in the human perspective. It isn't the same. Gestation and growth are very different by species. Some animals are born with the ability to stand and then run in the span of less than an hour. It is this way so they can survive. Fluff-wise I'd say those ancient lived species are probably babes at the breast for at least a decade (Yikes).

And this

thejeff wrote:
I'd also argue, as I've said before in this thread, that the average PCs rate of progression has to be an anomaly. A PC group can easily make it to high levels in a couple years of game time. If that rate was a applied to everyone, even most humans should have levels in the high teens by the time they're 30. If that's not the case in your world, why get upset that elves aren't all high level when they're 200?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

How does a race who remain children for a hundred years survive compared to races that mature quicker?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
How does a race who remain children for a hundred years survive compared to races that mature quicker?

That is the question, isn't it?

Part of the answer may be that they don't. Elves are usually portrayed in fantasy as a race in decline, making way for the younger races. In Golarion, the height of elven civilization was before the rise of humanity.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
How does a race who remain children for a hundred years survive compared to races that mature quicker?

The herd of 20th level wizard grandparents, I guess. ;)

The elf race as a whole becomes the ultimate glass blaster. They'll probably kill you, but if they don't and the bad guys are able to fall upon their civilians, they are probably permanently toast, since they can't replenish ranks timely.

Not PARTICULARLY consistent with the generally-displayed high lethality of drow society, either. They'd have glass-punched themselves. That and never been able to establish themselves in the nee-Underdark in the first place.


thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
How does a race who remain children for a hundred years survive compared to races that mature quicker?

That is the question, isn't it?

Part of the answer may be that they don't. Elves are usually portrayed in fantasy as a race in decline, making way for the younger races. In Golarion, the height of elven civilization was before the rise of humanity.

Yep, but their decline would be fast if it was driven by a near-complete inability to replenish losses. Which is a decent 3rd Age of Middle Earth feel, for those of us who have bothered to read the primary foundation for our avowed hobby ;)...the Elves get involved in the wars of men at GREAT cost, not just personal cost, but essentially sealing the fate of their race in Middle Earth.

Since they are ultimately just on vacation in Middle Earth anyway, that's not as sad as it seems.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Indeed, I prefer my elves to be a little less endangered. Hence the previously mentioned change. It becomes more of a personal choice than societal choice, as violence is the only way they can die. So gathering a force willing to risk that takes time.


Chobemaster you just reminded me of another long lived race on Middle Earth, the Ents. The Entmoot they hold takes days (over a week IIRC), and at the end of the first day all the Ents have done is reintroduce themselves to each other, and agree that the hobbits are hobbits, not little orcs. That's a LONG coversation. Partly because their language is long and drawn out. This could also be part of elven tradition, a long, vowel-laden, polysyllabic language that takes longer to learn and to speak properly. Even a conversation between elves could be a 6 hour event.


I've always figured that the quick rate at which adventurers gain XP (compared to those who don't) strongly supported the fantasy trope of the brash young heroes surprising the aged sages with their prowess.

I did an experiment once in which I presumed that all of the humanoid races age at roughly the same rate, but that it is the 'age of majority' for their culture that differs. When working from the premise that a non-adventurer might gain 1xp/day (perhaps a bit more during a week if they are particularly savvy), what I found was that by the time a human would be out of high school or college, they'd be 2nd level, whereas a typical elf who has reached their age of majority (i.e. 100+) was around 5th level.

In my mind, this tends to support the lore that elves and dwarves are just 'that much better than humans', but not because of some inherent magical spark. Rather it was thru sheer dint of having been alive and learned/experienced so much more. After all, it doesn't matter what race you are, if you have several levels on another person, you will be able to run circles around them.

When looking at the problem from that standpoint, it became clear to me that the adventuring elves who really were 1st level were most likely 'children' who (like an 18-year old at a party with no parents and plenty of alcohol available) decided to go off and do their own thing without parental consent. In my homebrew, it also explains why there are so many half-elves — only elves who have reached the age of majority can marry while all systems have been go for probably 70 or 80 years by that point.

IMO, elves who mature almost as quickly as humans but aren't considered adults until long after their childhood human friends/lovers and even their children have died of old age makes a great deal of sense. Part of their emotional maturation comes from experiencing that love and loss.

Naturally YMMV, but that's the great thing about this game — each group can enjoy their lore as they like best and it doesn't diminish anyone else's fun.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Firstly, not everyone gets to 10th level in 100 years. Most peasants are, what, 5th or 6th when they die at the age of 80? Less? I'd say 4th maybe 5th is average.

GMG doesn't really reflect that. Average Barkeep is level 5, I doubt if all barkeepers are 100 years old. Slavers and trappers level 4 (again, doubt they are all 80 years old). Let us not even consider the 140yo Hermits, Archaeologists, and Traveling Merchants.

GMG wrote:


Noble Scion Aristocrat 4 2
Prisoner Expert 4 2
Barkeep Expert 4/Warrior 1 3
Dealer Expert 1/Rogue 3 3
Guard Officer Fighter 4 3
Pilgrim Commoner 5 3
Slaver Fighter 2/Ranger 2 3
Trapper Ranger 4 3
Turnkey Warrior 5 3
Battle Monk Monk 5 4
Hedge Wizard Commoner 2/Wizard 3 4
Medium Cleric 5 4
Battle Mage Evoker 6 5
Cavalry Fighter 6 5
Fortune Teller Bard 3/Sorcerer 3 5
Gladiator Barbarian 3/Fighter 3 5
Minstrel Bard 6 5
Monster Hunter Ranger 6 5
Raider Barbarian 6 5
Shaman Adept 7 5
Tomb Raider Rogue 6 5
Torturer Expert 5/Fighter 2 5
Traveling Merchant Expert 7 5
Archaeologist Rogue 7 6
Beast Master Ranger 7 6
Conjurist Conjurer 7 6
Hermit Druid 7 6
Highwayman Fighter 4/Rogue 3 6
Holy Warrior Paladin 7 6
Princess Aristocrat 8 6
Watch Captain Fighter 7 6
Guide Expert 9 7
Knight Aristocrat 2/Paladin 6 7
Sellsword Fighter 8 7
Viking Barbarian 2/Fighter 6 7
First Mate Expert 4/Fighter 5 8
Mayor Aristocrat 3/Expert 7 8
Noble Aristocrat 10 8
Priest Cleric 9 8
Slayer Ranger 5/Assassin 4 8
Champion Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 9
Merchant Prince Expert 4/Rogue 6 9
Celebrity Bard Bard 11 10
Chieftain Warrior 12 10
General Fighter 11 10
Guild Master Rogue 11 10
Queen Aristocrat 12 10
Bandit Lord Fighter 8/Rogue 4 11
Bounty Hunter Ranger 12 11
Captain Expert 3/Fighter 9 11
Cult Leader Cleric 10/Rogue 2 11
Pirate Captain Fighter 7/Rogue 5 11
Sage Expert 7/Abjurer 5 11
Saint Paladin 12 11
High Priest Cleric 13 12
King Aristocrat 16 14
Master Monk 15 14


mdt wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Firstly, not everyone gets to 10th level in 100 years. Most peasants are, what, 5th or 6th when they die at the age of 80? Less? I'd say 4th maybe 5th is average.

GMG doesn't really reflect that. Average Barkeep is level 5, I doubt if all barkeepers are 100 years old. Slavers and trappers level 4 (again, doubt they are all 80 years old). Let us not even consider the 140yo Hermits, Archaeologists, and Traveling Merchants./QUOTE]

I think my argument would be more that levels plateau and are therefore relatively independent of age, past novice/apprentice stage. Once you're skilled enough to do your daily tasks by Taking 10, you slow down or stop.

Does Average level 5 mean lots of 1s and lots of 10s averaging to 5 or does it mean the vast majority of Bartenders are level 5?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :)


thejeff wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:

I take serious offense at the human Middle Age modifiers. I'm 37 myself, and work out pretty regularly (which in my estimation is closely akin to an adventurer using their muscles routinely) and I'm stronger now than I was in my twenties. Does this translate into game mechanics?

...

I'd say an adventurer (at least those relying on physical abilities) would be more akin to a professional athlete than to working out pretty regularly. There aren't a lot of professional sports where players peak after 35 and they tend to be the less physically demanding ones.

*Fencing. After a number of years at fencing, I got pretty good, won some comps. I'm in my late 20s. I am not anywhere near as good as those in their 40s, who have been doing it for two decades +, the old seasoned fencers. The best which peak in their 30s, and if they avoid injury remain pretty brilliant physically into their 30s to 50s (I've seen "old" fencers tire out young fit men, the young fencers use too much energy too quickly). A very skilled fencer that ages, well, they start to get very smart in my experience, extremely well trained and calm. Think of how many attacks and parries they have made? How many people they have fought by the time you "have a go" when they are in their 40s? This can also apply to other martial arts, where youth is good, training and focus is better.

Makes you wonder about age rules, physical penalties and such. This is another reason I make ability scores adjust with effort and determination.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :)

They aren't, they're dependent on experience. :P

The arbitrary dispensation of experience to non-player characters is really proprietary to the GM. Is the barkeep and ex-adventurer? Then they deserve more levels. Also that table in the GMG is designed to give you various NPCs by increasing CR. Near the very beginning of the list is a barmaid listed as Commoner 2. So not every "barkeep" has to be that level. It's just a list to use for pregenerated NPCs. By no means is that a "this is the rule of thumb" list.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
MendedWall12 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :)
They aren't,

But people think they should be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :)
They aren't,
But people think they should be.

Many people do yes, but, then again, many people also thought communism would work. :P


MendedWall12 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :)

They aren't, they're dependent on experience. :P

The arbitrary dispensation of experience to non-player characters is really proprietary to the GM. Is the barkeep and ex-adventurer? Then they deserve more levels. Also that table in the GMG is designed to give you various NPCs by increasing CR. Near the very beginning of the list is a barmaid listed as Commoner 2. So not every "barkeep" has to be that level. It's just a list to use for pregenerated NPCs. By no means is that a "this is the rule of thumb" list.

I really like npcs having some serious levels, if they are deserved. I do question though, if npcs will just keep levelling by doing the same day in and out, without real challenge, innovation, new difficulty. I am a supporter of real hero adventurers being higher level than most, but that doesn't mean they are higher level than everyone, or that most aren't higher than them when they are just starting out. E.g. if a level 1 fighter has a go at a veteran watchman, someone who has broken up more brawls than he can count, knocked out and arrested a number of crims, beaten out a few confessions, served on the wall in a few battles, yeah, the fighter is going to get caned hard (he might be facing a level 7).

So I cap npcs a bit, unless they have faced a lot of hard challenges. I did however talk to a dm that wanted many nps in his world to be really high level by the time they get to old age. So experts, commoners, aristocrats etc, get into the really high levels by the time they are 50-60, they are around 15. Not how I do things as a rule.

The barmaid levels as they do their job, but they are not getting to level 19-20 from serving drinks in the same bar, in the same town over 30 years in my games.

Likewise a court wizard will have some levels on them, but advising a noble, small experiments and a life without risk will not make them a level 15. That is how I do it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :)
They aren't,
But people think they should be.

I think it makes sense to see a correlation there. No causation, sure, but correlation. Age won't give you levels. If all you do for the entirety of your life is plow the soil, you're only going to improve yourself to a certain degree; your self-growth will be slow.

But with age comes the time, the events, and the opportunities to be more than you are. And everyone who doesn't lead a life of dull mediocrity will learn and grow. Anyone who wants more for themselves will be able to find growth opportunities with time.

So, we're talking about Elven children living for 100 years. In most fantasy worlds I've read about, elven communities are about old wisdom, self-enlightenment, and communing with nature -- sort of like sylvan monasteries. We assume their parents encourage their self-enlightenment as does their community and, presumably, they want it themselves. Otherwise, they're not interested in learning about the world, just frolicking in the treetops all day long for a century? Consider all the living a human does in 100 years... that's a lot of treetop frolicking. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 Loyalist: Sounds like a very reasonable system, and is pretty much exactly how I run my worlds as well.


Considering how many advocate that elves are slow and have a learning disability, should they really have that +2 to Intelligence? ;)


My own take on it :

Age should be a cap on levels, but mainly on the low age end, not on the adult side.

For example, there shouldn't be very many (if any at all) 15th level 12 yo prodigies. Yes, they are a genre staple, but they are also so few that they should be almost unheard of (PCs for example, or the prodigy prince of some realm).

On the other hand, I have no issues with a 5th level octogenarian, he simply rose to his level of incompetence and then coasted. I know people in real life who do that (I do it myself at times).

But, in general, age shouldn't do more than limit how fast you can gain levels, not your maximum level. I find a world where everyone but the PCs are level 5 or less to be a major reality disjoint. This is due to the fact that a group of level 10 adventurer's are nigh onto unstoppable by anything short of an army if no-one is higher than level 5.

In my own world, I tend to taper off NPCs after level 10. Most people who are in their 30's and 40's (human/halfling/etc) tend to be in the 5 to 10 range. Exceptional people in the 11 to 15 range, and a small cadre of elites in the 16 to 20 range. Most people in the 16 to 20 range have heard of each other, at least in passing.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Considering how many advocate that elves are slow and have a learning disability, should they really have that +2 to Intelligence? ;)

Very few people claim that "elves are slow and have a learning disability". They claim that elves have an extended childhood which is an entirely different thing.

I also claim that elves, like humans, tend to plateau fairly early in their lives and do not go on gaining levels linearly with age.
Elves may top out slightly later than humans, or perhaps both go on learning much more slowly which allows elves to get a bit farther.

In the real world, extended childhoods are linked to greater intelligence, not less. Humans are immature for longer than (almost?) any other species. A wolf raising a human baby (a common mythological/fantasy trope) would think the human was hopeless. Can't walk at 6 months? Can't fend for itself after a year? After 5 years?


mdt wrote:

My own take on it :

In my own world, I tend to taper off NPCs after level 10. Most people who are in their 30's and 40's (human/halfling/etc) tend to be in the 5 to 10 range. Exceptional people in the 11 to 15 range, and a small cadre of elites in the 16 to 20 range. Most people in the 16 to 20 range have heard of each other, at least in passing.

The problem with this is that starting adventurers are now fragile and incompetent compared to everyone they meet. Why are they off to save the village, when a couple of 7-8th level commoners could do a much better job despite the lack of specialized skills?


I also like Burning Wheel's approach to elves. Elves are immortal and the longer they live, the stronger they get (physically and mentally). A 1500 year old elf who is a trained soldier will kick a 500 year old elf soldier's butt.

The limit of an elf's life is their Grief attribute. As elves get older they see more and more people die. They have seen betrayal more than anyone else. They remember all of it, all the time. An elf can take steps to slow down how fast they gain Grief, but almost never can it reverse. Once Grief reaches 10 (the limit of stats in BW), an elf either commits suicide, dies of sadness, or "travels into the west".

Elves who travel with humans are more likely to see death and sorrow, so they will probably progress their Grief faster.

The other races have emotional attributes as follows (for comparison):
Dwarves - Greed
Men - Faith
Orcs - Hatred

There's an optional rule for elves, they can turn their Grief into Spite. This is when they've seen so much betrayal, that they decide to turn the tables. They're basically the equivalent of drow, but they don't have black skin, they're just normal elves turned evil. If they're particularly violent, they can turn their Spite into Hatred eventually (they start to resemble orcs very slightly and gain access to orc only skills).

The cover of the supplement is an elf hanging another elf from a tree. The back cover is the hanged elf's friend being forced to watch.


Irontruth wrote:
The cover of the supplement is an elf hanging another elf from a tree. The back cover is the hanged elf's friend being forced to watch.

I try to never judge a book by its cover... but that sounds like an HAWESOME cover! What a great symbolic message about the disparity of people's outlook based on varied life experience. Good stuff.


MendedWall12 wrote:
Chobemaster you just reminded me of another long lived race on Middle Earth, the Ents. The Entmoot they hold takes days (over a week IIRC), and at the end of the first day all the Ents have done is reintroduce themselves to each other, and agree that the hobbits are hobbits, not little orcs. That's a LONG coversation. Partly because their language is long and drawn out. This could also be part of elven tradition, a long, vowel-laden, polysyllabic language that takes longer to learn and to speak properly. Even a conversation between elves could be a 6 hour event.

Yeah, Ents properly played would be unworkable as PCs as a result. Unless ALL the PC's are Ents and they never talk to anyone other than Ents, then the players and DM can translate into English.

And of course to the extent we're using Eldar-Elves, it's as logical as anything to use the actual Eldarin languages, which are not meaningfully drawn out vs. human languages.


Let's use the example of Mass Effect series. The Asari are basically space elves.

One of the main companions, Liara, is a young Asari scientist. She started putting out research papers when she was like 70? But wasn't taken seriously as she had not yet reached the age of maturity (100ish?).

I see elves being the exact same. They are fully cognitively developed, but their race doesn't consider them to have enough life experience to be deemed an adult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
mdt wrote:

My own take on it :

In my own world, I tend to taper off NPCs after level 10. Most people who are in their 30's and 40's (human/halfling/etc) tend to be in the 5 to 10 range. Exceptional people in the 11 to 15 range, and a small cadre of elites in the 16 to 20 range. Most people in the 16 to 20 range have heard of each other, at least in passing.

The problem with this is that starting adventurers are now fragile and incompetent compared to everyone they meet. Why are they off to save the village, when a couple of 7-8th level commoners could do a much better job despite the lack of specialized skills?

A) Why are they saving a village at level 1? Level 1 is not 'save the village'. Level 1 is 'go get rid of the rats in the sewer' or 'go chase off the goblins who are raiding our crops at night'. You work up to saving the village from the lizardmen or hobgoblins at level 5.

B) Why does anyone who's more powerful than the PCs hire them? Because they have better things to do. The barkeep, the mayor, and the town hunter might be able to go spend a week hunting down the goblins and killing them. In the meantime, they are not running the town, not running the inn, and not leading the hunts. Or, they spend a hundred gold to hire the PCs to go deal with it. A barkeep, at level 5, has a profession skill of 5 (Ranks) + 2 (Cha) + 3 (Class Skill) + 2 (Inn) = 10, with an average check of 20. That means he get's 10 gp a week profit. 40gp a month. It takes 10 people in the village donating 10 gp to pay for those adventurer's. If the village averages about level 4 or 5, then that's again about a weeks wages for most of them. Maybe 2.

C) The assumption that all the villagers are level 1 and 2, and need 4 level 1's to save their village means that paying them even 100 gp to chase off to goblins would require that the village give up not a week of pay, but a month of pay. That's a HUGE hit to the village's economy.


thejeff wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Considering how many advocate that elves are slow and have a learning disability, should they really have that +2 to Intelligence? ;)

Very few people claim that "elves are slow and have a learning disability". They claim that elves have an extended childhood which is an entirely different thing.

I also claim that elves, like humans, tend to plateau fairly early in their lives and do not go on gaining levels linearly with age.
Elves may top out slightly later than humans, or perhaps both go on learning much more slowly which allows elves to get a bit farther.

In the real world, extended childhoods are linked to greater intelligence, not less. Humans are immature for longer than (almost?) any other species. A wolf raising a human baby (a common mythological/fantasy trope) would think the human was hopeless. Can't walk at 6 months? Can't fend for itself after a year? After 5 years?

That's mainly a function of the size of our heads relative to our mothers' pelvises, though. Which is not meaningfully different for Elves.


dunebugg wrote:

Let's use the example of Mass Effect series. The Asari are basically space elves.

One of the main companions, Liara, is a young Asari scientist. She started putting out research papers when she was like 70? But wasn't taken seriously as she had not yet reached the age of maturity (100ish?).

I see elves being the exact same. They are fully cognitively developed, but their race doesn't consider them to have enough life experience to be deemed an adult.

But what their society considers to be an adult isn't what's on the age table. It's got PHYSICAL modifiers on it, not legal ones. I don't know the out-of-game lore on Asari (or Krogan) enough to know about their growth rates...how long does it take for an Asari or Krogan to reach full size? That's when they "start adventuring" wrt a D&D model.

A model that says a Krogan child from Tchuanka that's been raiding/defending from raids for 100 years is a 1st level Soldier, same as an 18 year old human with some spacer-training, maybe shot up a couple of Batarian slavers once, doesn't work logically, IMO.

And we know Krogan can at least be tank-bred quickly, which seems inconsistent with an inherently slow maturation period.

51 to 100 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Reverse dog years: or, half-elf / elf starting ages seem off to me. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.