Suppose a human in their early 30s [say 31 years old] becomes a lich. (Ordinarily, folks wait until they are near the end of their lives to undergo the procedure, but perhaps this individual was worried about a violent death and wanted the security of a phylactery).
So, when they reach the [mental] age of 35, do they receive the mental attribute modifiers for middle age, and so on for 53 and 70?
Obviously there are no rules for additional ability increases for the period after venerable, and that can be chalked up to the mind of undead creatures eventually ossifying as negative energy slowly saps their progress and drive for self-improvement (as described in Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead). But that seems like such a gradual process that it wouldn't occur until the timescale has extended past the average human lifetime.
Suppose a human in their early 30s [say 31 years old] becomes a lich. (Ordinarily, folks wait until they are near the end of their lives to undergo the procedure, but perhaps this individual was worried about a violent death and wanted the security of a phylactery).
So, when they reach the [mental] age of 35, do they receive the mental attribute modifiers for middle age, and so on for 53 and 70?
Obviously there are no rules for additional ability increases for the period after venerable, and that can be chalked up to the mind of undead creatures eventually ossifying as negative energy slowly saps their progress and drive for self-improvement (as described in Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead). But that seems like such a gradual process that it wouldn't occur until the timescale has extended past the average human lifetime.
I'd say no. They're no longer human, they're now undead. I think this is a logical extension from this FAQ.
Vampire: Does a ranger with favored enemy: humanoid (human) get his favored enemy bonus against a human-turned-vampire?
No. According to the vampire template, a human-turned-vampire doesn't keep the (human) subtype, so the ranger's bonus doesn't apply—the vampire isn't quite human enough anymore. In general, favored enemy: humanoid isn't effective against a creature that is a type other than humanoid (such as a vampire, which is type: undead).
If you're no longer human, you no longer use the rules for humans and age.
I'd say under normal conditions, once you become undead, age modifiers for the living no longer apply - so nothing specifically happens when that human lich attains various age levels.
On the other hand, using Ravenloft rules, some types of undead including vampires and mummies (ancient dead) have modifiers that are enhanced with the number of centuries that have passed while being undead. A thousand year old vampire has far greater vampiric powers than younger vampires. So if you used Ravenloft rules, some types of undead gain modifiers based on age.
Still these have nothing to do with the age adjustments based on the race of the undead being while it was alive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say you still get the bonuses (but not the penalties) once you reach the appropriate age for your base race.
You don't get the ranger favored bonuses anymore because the physical bits that made them human (or whatever) aren't there anymore.
"but thats his heart! and those are his kidneys! i specifically aimed for those!'
"yeah but.. he's undead now, and those are gone. you gotta learn how to kill an undead"
Mentally however the individual is just as nuts as they were before they decided to become an undead thingie. I too would say they get the age bonuses to mental stats. The older you get the wiser you get- after all.
While I can see an argument for "but they live forever now" and all that I think it would take awhile for that mentality to set in and would actually be part of the age-ability score thing. You get older, wiser, more in charge of your abilities and in the ability to start looking out for the long term. (all things that increased mental stats would allow for).
As a rules question though, RAW and all that?
No clue.
-S
I'm inclined to say no, as you no longer age. That and most intelligent undead already get pretty impressive mental ability modifiers that I always assumed kinda incorporated that kind of thing. Increasing them even more seems duplicitous.
And that keeps someone from growing smarter and wiser how, LazarX?
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's left to the GM. My suggestion would be to allow it for those who grew older before they became undead. You can say that being undead messes with your biology enough that it stabilizes any not-yet-applied ability score modifiers and prevents them from occurring. That's pretty much the assumption I've made over the past 10+ years of developing adventures with undead, after all.
Wasn't there a separate rule set in the libris mortis for ancient undead? I recall something about evolving.... Sorry, its been a while.
It's left to the GM. My suggestion would be to allow it for those who grew older before they became undead. You can say that being undead messes with your biology enough that it stabilizes any not-yet-applied ability score modifiers and prevents them from occurring. That's pretty much the assumption I've made over the past 10+ years of developing adventures with undead, after all.
But surely the design-choice with aging has been: You becme more frail as you get older (chest pains, sore joints ello!), but you also get smarter, wiser and a better leader (Ok, gray hair instills confidence) due to your life-experience and more time to ponder these things.
Simply because you turn undead does not mean that your mental faculties get blown to pieces, nor that you cannot learn anything new. So, the age bonusses to mental stats should stay. Iconic would be the Elder Vampire being smarter and more powerful than the young ones. Not just more powerful (class levels), but actually smarter and wiser. I would find it hard to argue that due to a change in biology undead would stop becoming smarter due to literally ages of experience they will gain.
You can even argue that although it does not kill you (undead ello!) that the sands of time do grind away some of the physical form of undead (Ancient Nosferatu being hideous and deformed and such, Lich becoming Demi-Lich). This would account for at least some drop in physical stats (but capping out and maybe not killing you).
So logically I could at least think of some reasons for just applying the aging rules for undead.
It's left to the GM. My suggestion would be to allow it for those who grew older before they became undead. You can say that being undead messes with your biology enough that it stabilizes any not-yet-applied ability score modifiers and prevents them from occurring. That's pretty much the assumption I've made over the past 10+ years of developing adventures with undead, after all.But surely the design-choice with aging has been: You becme more frail as you get older (chest pains, sore joints ello!), but you also get smarter, wiser and a better leader (Ok, gray hair instills confidence) due to your life-experience and more time to ponder these things.
Simply because you turn undead does not mean that your mental faculties get blown to pieces, nor that you cannot learn anything new. So, the age bonusses to mental stats should stay. Iconic would be the Elder Vampire being smarter and more powerful than the young ones. Not just more powerful (class levels), but actually smarter and wiser. I would find it hard to argue that due to a change in biology undead would stop becoming smarter due to literally ages of experience they will gain.
You can even argue that although it does not kill you (undead ello!) that the sands of time do grind away some of the physical form of undead (Ancient Nosferatu being hideous and deformed and such, Lich becoming Demi-Lich). This would account for at least some drop in physical stats (but capping out and maybe not killing you).
So logically I could at least think of some reasons for just applying the aging rules for undead.
In 3.X once you become undead your ability to learn and adapt becomes almost becomes nonexistent. I am aware that is not a PF rule since they have not made an official stance at all. I am just providing precedent.
To answer the OP from a rules point of view there are no more age categories, however I would understand a GM making up something because it does make sense.
edit:That was from Libris Mortis.
It's left to the GM. My suggestion would be to allow it for those who grew older before they became undead. You can say that being undead messes with your biology enough that it stabilizes any not-yet-applied ability score modifiers and prevents them from occurring. That's pretty much the assumption I've made over the past 10+ years of developing adventures with undead, after all.But surely the design-choice with aging has been: You becme more frail as you get older (chest pains, sore joints ello!), but you also get smarter, wiser and a better leader (Ok, gray hair instills confidence) due to your life-experience and more time to ponder these things.
Simply because you turn undead does not mean that your mental faculties get blown to pieces, nor that you cannot learn anything new. So, the age bonusses to mental stats should stay. Iconic would be the Elder Vampire being smarter and more powerful than the young ones. Not just more powerful (class levels), but actually smarter and wiser. I would find it hard to argue that due to a change in biology undead would stop becoming smarter due to literally ages of experience they will gain.
You can even argue that although it does not kill you (undead ello!) that the sands of time do grind away some of the physical form of undead (Ancient Nosferatu being hideous and deformed and such, Lich becoming Demi-Lich). This would account for at least some drop in physical stats (but capping out and maybe not killing you).
So logically I could at least think of some reasons for just applying the aging rules for undead.
Well, to take a page from White Wolf, the older a vampire gets the more expensive it gets to change their base attributes. The undead body AND mind resist change. So, if you apply that logic to D&D/Pathfinder then as an undead without great effort (ie, gaining a new level and the requisite class/etc bonuses) undead do not change basic mind and body things.
Once you're dead, I would think your stats would stay the same.
In 3.X once you become undead your ability to learn and adapt becomes almost becomes nonexistent. I am aware that is not a PF rule since they have not made an official stance at all. I am just providing precedent.
I know 3.0/3.5 almost as well as Pathfinder, and I'm not familiar with any such official rule. Source? Was it buried deep in Libris Mortes perhaps?
Once you're dead, I would think your stats would stay the same.
When you're dead, you're effectively an inanimate object.
When you become UNdead, however, there's no reason whatsoever to believe you wouldn't get those mental stat increases.
In 3.X once you become undead your ability to learn and adapt becomes almost becomes nonexistent. I am aware that is not a PF rule since they have not made an official stance at all. I am just providing precedent.I know 3.0/3.5 almost as well as Pathfinder, and I'm not familiar with any such official rule. Source? Was it buried deep in Libris Mortes perhaps?
Once you're dead, I would think your stats would stay the same.When you're dead, you're effectively an inanimate object.
When you become UNdead, however, there's no reason whatsoever to believe you wouldn't get those mental stat increases.
It was in Libris Mortis. I don't remember the page number. Check the section on undead in general and then check the section on liches.
Well i guess it would amke sense for vampires, common tropes include old vampires as really powerful
There was a variant vampire in 3.x that represented this. It was either immune to sunlight or could survive a lot longer while exposed to it. It had other abilities also.
|
Per pure RAW, the creature is no longer the original species and we lack undead aging charts ergo they wouldn't age up.
Per RAI, the idea behind the increases is breadth of experience and also learning how to do things wiser and easier because of increasing physical limitations (this is an old 2e explanation).
On both categories, I'd argue the undead don't get it. You shouldn't get rewarded for being undead. Its supposed to be kind of a devil's bargain and suck in general.
|
The planet Eox in the solar system Golarion is in would be liches(Bone Sages) of massive intelligence if aging added mental stats indefinately. Undead would have an unlimited number of age categories, since the normal end at venerable is based off lifespan. They have been around thousands of years since they destroyed their own atmosphere during a interplanetary war. It does make logical sense, as they are still learning and advancing themselves.
I'd say you still get the bonuses (but not the penalties) once you reach the appropriate age for your base race.
Why would a half-orc lich gain power so much faster than an elf lich?
While not for Liches, there is precedence for this an AP.
Per pure RAW, the creature is no longer the original species and we lack undead aging charts ergo they wouldn't age up.
That's like saying "we don't understand how bees fly, so they don't fly."
It's a gray area to be sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't get the bonuses at all.
I'd say you still get the bonuses (but not the penalties) once you reach the appropriate age for your base race.Why would a half-orc lich gain power so much faster than an elf lich?
Because he was a half-orc.
Because he was a half-orc.I'd say you still get the bonuses (but not the penalties) once you reach the appropriate age for your base race.Why would a half-orc lich gain power so much faster than an elf lich?
Key word is was. He is now no longer a half-orc, he is now a lich. What you are saying is that a lich can die of old age because he was a living being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While not for Liches, there is precedence for this an AP.
** spoiler omitted **
Old before death however.
I don't know about how it would work for undead, but other creatures that become immortal still accrue age bonuses while removing the penalties. So I guess the real question here is whether undead still grow as people, or if they become mentally stagnant.
Judging from the typical undead seen in Pathfinder, I would lean towards saying that the vast majority of undead are more or less "stuck" at the mental point they were at when they died.
|
|
Per pure RAW, the creature is no longer the original species and we lack undead aging charts ergo they wouldn't age up.
That's like saying "we don't understand how bees fly, so they don't fly."
It's a gray area to be sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't get the bonuses at all.
Just pointing out that if people try to use the 'RAW' argument, since we're in Rules Questions, there's no grounds for it.
The rules don't indicate a stat expansion for the undead, as their type changes. As they have no listed table for age categories, they have no age categories per RAW. Unless we're going with legal umbras and pre-umbras bunk. This means that the discussion really comes down to intention.
From an intention standpoint, the idea behind the increases is not merely time, but an issue of built up experiences. A lich doesn't need to find easier ways to do things (int and wis building) because he's an undead horror with his capabilities relatively unlimited and non-decaying. He's not a guy who has to deal with his body getting weaker then it used to, or learning the wisdom of seeing limitations in himself.
Also, most undead sit on their asses. A 10,000 year old Mummy hasn't learned much snoozing in his sarcophagus. And vampires? The old ones invariably become old ones by finding ways to hide away from people and reality. Spending decades hiding on the outskirts of society or cached away within your mouldering old haunts don't seem especially conducive to the sorts of things exemplified by the stat increases. Ghosts are literally beings that are stuck and so forth.
For intelligent undead, I would allow them to accrue additional age-related bonuses but create a new age progression chart for them. I wouldn't allow an intelligent undead of a short-lived race to accrue bonuses faster than the same undead type of a long-lived race.
Bonuses that have already accrued before conversion to undeath, however, I would allow to remain.
It's left to the GM. My suggestion would be to allow it for those who grew older before they became undead. You can say that being undead messes with your biology enough that it stabilizes any not-yet-applied ability score modifiers and prevents them from occurring. That's pretty much the assumption I've made over the past 10+ years of developing adventures with undead, after all.But surely the design-choice with aging has been: You becme more frail as you get older (chest pains, sore joints ello!), but you also get smarter, wiser and a better leader (Ok, gray hair instills confidence) due to your life-experience and more time to ponder these things.
Simply because you turn undead does not mean that your mental faculties get blown to pieces, nor that you cannot learn anything new. So, the age bonusses to mental stats should stay. Iconic would be the Elder Vampire being smarter and more powerful than the young ones. Not just more powerful (class levels), but actually smarter and wiser. I would find it hard to argue that due to a change in biology undead would stop becoming smarter due to literally ages of experience they will gain.
You can even argue that although it does not kill you (undead ello!) that the sands of time do grind away some of the physical form of undead (Ancient Nosferatu being hideous and deformed and such, Lich becoming Demi-Lich). This would account for at least some drop in physical stats (but capping out and maybe not killing you).
So logically I could at least think of some reasons for just applying the aging rules for undead.
In 3.X once you become undead your ability to learn and adapt becomes almost becomes nonexistent. I am aware that is not a PF rule since they have not made an official stance at all. I am just providing precedent.
To answer the OP from a rules point of view there are no more age categories, however I would understand a GM making up something because it does make sense....
You have lost the ability to mature and grow...because you are dead.
You get to stick around as you are forever...but you are only what you are now forever. You do not grow, you decay. You rot. You erode. There is no building up, only the slow wear down of time.
Sure, you can accumulate experiences, and get more knowledge... but it doesn't ever really change you. You never gain new insight or revelations. You never quite figure out why your plans to take over the world always get thwarted ("why does this guy care that I am sacrificing kids? It isn't like I am sacrificing his children"). All you gain are new ways to do the exact same things you have always done.
And that is the key problem with undeath- there is no longer any room for introspection, since there is nothing left when you look inside of yourself.
Sorry, I just got into a little tirade there. I just fell in love with the narrative implications of all this. Not sure if it is how this really works in game, but I would completely run it this way, since it breaths new life (death?) into a worn out trope.
Because he was a half-orc.I'd say you still get the bonuses (but not the penalties) once you reach the appropriate age for your base race.Why would a half-orc lich gain power so much faster than an elf lich?Key word is was. He is now no longer a half-orc, he is now a lich. What you are saying is that a lich can die of old age because he was a living being.
He is not a lich. He is a half-orc lich. That remains an important distinction. Lich is a template, not the entire creature.
He wouldn't die of old age because the lich entry specifically states that, that is no longer a concern to liches. It says no such thing about not accumulating aging bonuses.
I'm not saying my interpretation is absolutely right, as it isn't explicitly stated in the rules one way or the other (making for a fine gray area) but I believe you guys are seriously over-thinking the matter.
You are saying that undead can't evolve in power. I'm saying that, that is not supported by the rules or fluff anywhere in Pathfinder.
You have lost the ability to mature and grow...because you are dead.
You get to stick around as you are forever...but you are only what you are now forever. You do not grow, you decay. You rot. You erode. There is no building up, only the slow wear down of time.
This is wholly untrue. If it were true, a lich wouldn't be able to gain new character levels.
It depends on flavor and what you want to create as a DM.
Some folks go with the well established trope that undeath is the end of physical progression, a popular thing with vampires and ghosts in which undeath tend to freeze your physical appearance.
Other DMs will argue differently because they want to create 10,000 year old liches with Int scores in the 50's. (You know who you are :)
The rules don't mandate either to be the correct answer exclusive of the other.
Nailed it. (Though even with the idea that physical aspects no longer progress, I'd argue that mental stats are not physical, they're mental.)
While not for Liches, there is precedence for this an AP.
** spoiler omitted **
But was he an old human before he became a ghost?
I really like the Ravenloft rules here. Or if you prefer use the dicefreaks adaption of them for vampires, liches, death knights and ghosts
Undead do not age normally anymore and not all undead of the same base race age the same. A ghoul has no real base race anymore he is a ghoul now.
Ravenloft gave age categories for vampires, liches, and ghosts, with them gaining different powers among them stat increases and SLAs. I think it was the Dicefreaks variant rules that posited that for example liches needed to complete special rituals before gaining a new age category. (And they did formulate how to ascend to lichdom in the first place with much more details iirc)
|
|
RAW does not support the position of undead gaining age progression.
RAW also doesn't address it by saying 'no.'
End result? Rules-as-Written doesn't cover it.
If we step away from the RAW, if you want them to gain it, go right ahead its your table. If you don't? Its your table.
I keep going back to the RAW thing since we're in the Rules Questions.
The real answer to this discussion is 'the rules don't cover it.' Just like the rules don't cover what color your pants are, or what the precise shape of your sword is, or the precise amount of how many Inevitables there are.
RAI from the olden days supports the 'no aging' benefit for reasons of sanity. You don't get the int and wis through just sitting there and watching a status bar fill, you get by experiencing the trouble of growing old and being forced to find new solutions to issues. A lot of problems go away when you're dead.
I don't need to find easier ways to do my housework. I just stop caring.
Eating certain other substances and learning my limitations? I don't /need/ to really eat anymore (vamps and ghouls don't 'starve'). Having to deal with the ever changing world by adapting to it? Becoming undead isn't adaptation, its cowardice.
There is no age modifier for undead, just as there is no age modifier for elementals.
But there are age modifiers for many of the base races that become liches.
Applying age modifiers to any creature not listed in the RAW as using them is house rules.
Is it a house rule, or a ruling made to cover a gray area in the rules? I've always thought of house rules as making something wholly new, or changing something that already existed. Not patching a hole in the rules.
BTW, if you apply the age bonuses, why not the age penalties too ? ;-)
Because! ;P
More seriously though, it's made clear by nearly every source in the game that halts your aging that you no longer take the physical penalties. The same is not necessarily true of the mental bonuses, however.
Why not? They get a lot more than other monsters? Powerful abilities, long unlife, a host of immunities, darkvision, etc.
Their relative immortality is actually one of the weakest things they obtain.
I wouldn't include age modifiers for undead in a game I ran, not in the manner we are discussing at least. But I might see fit to create a new age category chart for undead, one that takes a much longer time to advance on.
I'll take that as my cue to bow out of this discussion.