Immortal Wizards aren't actually immortal?

[swoosh]

The 20th level arcane discovery option only says that you no longer take penalities to your ability scores from age.

But doesn't that mean that even if you take the discovery you still die of old age? Because the discovery doesn't actually mention that.

Seems like that's the whole point of immortality though.

[Buri Reborn]

I'd say you're actually immortal. It's the name of the ability. It just explains you no longer take age penalties. It'd suck to be 2,000 years old and frail. However, you can still be killed. So, you're not immortal immortal. Just mortal immortal. :/

[Milo v3]

Buri Reborn wrote:

I'd say you're actually immortal. It's the name of the ability. It just explains you no longer take age penalties. It'd suck to be 2,000 years old and frail. However, you can still be killed. So, you're not immortal immortal. Just mortal immortal. :/

Are you saying it's "just the name of the ability" or not? Since Swoosh's talking about how it doesn't even let you be mortal immortal. You wouldn't get to be 2000 years old.

[Opuk0]

I'd say 'Dying' would be considered a penalty for aging

[wraithstrike]

He is actually immortal(does not age).

[swoosh]

Buri Reborn wrote:

I'd say you're actually immortal. It's the name of the ability. It just explains you no longer take age penalties. It'd suck to be 2,000 years old and frail. However, you can still be killed. So, you're not immortal immortal. Just mortal immortal. :/

I'm not talking about being "immortal immortal".

I'm talking about a human wizard dying of old age somewhere between the ages of 72-110 even if he or she takes this discovery. Which seems weird. Which is why I'm asking if I missed something.

Opuk0 wrote:

I'd say 'Dying' would be considered a penalty for aging

Specifically the text just says that you no longer take penalties to physical ability scores from old age.

[Opuk0]

I'd say 'Dying' would be considered a penalty to your ability to be physical for aging

[cnetarian]

Correct, the arcane discovery immortality only affects the physical ability scores lost due aging, it doesn't prevent you from dying from old age. You have to combine it with a resurrection if you want to go on living (with a short interruption) after dying of old age, which shouldn't be a problem for a level 20 character, since nothing about dying of old age says that you cannot be raised or resurrected. This probably works best for humans and half-orcs or some other short lived race so they can get dying from old age out of the way and not have to worry about it for centuries, like elves do.

[Eoxyn]

Actually, every Resurrection spell states that you can't bring back someone who's died of old age.

Every spell except Reincarnate, that is.

[Arbane the Terrible]

It's called 'Immoortality', not 'Leave a Good-Looking Corpse'.

[TriOmegaZero]

It doesn't matter what it's called if it doesn't actually perform the function it's named after.

As so often happens, what was written doesn't quite match what was intended.

[cnetarian]

Eoxyn wrote:

Actually, every Resurrection spell states that you can't bring back someone who's died of old age.

Every spell except Reincarnate, that is.

Reincarnate it is then, I knew there was some way to go on living after dying of old age. I guess the 20th level monk of the 4 Winds immortality works in a similar fashion with reincarnation - as a bonus for the monks, since you remain in the same age category with the ability, if you get to level 20 before becoming venerable then you never enter the venerable age category and never die of old age. The tier 9 mythic ability immortal, that's the ticket, no reincarnation involved and no worrying about the GM treating old age death funny since it specifically says "regardless of ... the means by which you were killed."

[Mummified Familiar]

Immortality = You don't die from aging. However, you will look old.

Invulnerable = You can't be harmed. Period.

Eternal Youth = You can still be harmed and you can still die when your lifespan runs out, but at least you will be the most good looking corpse for your actual age.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

It says you discover a cure for aging, and don't take ability penalties.

Cure for aging = No more aging. No more aging means no death from old age.

The title for this ability does matter in the same that the titles of all abilities matter--it provides context.

[Chuckbab]

A DM that states that the wizard who uses his 20th level feat to get this is only immune to the adverse effects of aging and will still die of old age is officially the worst DM ever.

[UnArcaneElection]

It depends upon where this Discovery comes from, and how much of a rules lawyer the source of this Discovery is.

Immortality Discovery wrote:

Benefit: You discover a cure for aging, and from this point forward you take no penalty to your physical ability scores from advanced age. If you are already taking such penalties, they are removed at this time. This is an extraordinary ability.

If this Discovery comes from Hell or some place having similar inclinations, it just keeps you from taking ability score penalties, but does not prevent you from dropping dead when your time is up, and may even leave you evolving at an accelerated rate to look like the Portrait of Dorian Grey. So the question becomes how well you can enforce the "cure for aging" part of it to mean not being killed for exceeding your natural maximum lifespan.

And this opens up an interesting thought: Maybe Razmir HAS actually taken the Immortality Discovery, but has also found out before it is too late that even though it means that he won't get more frail with time, Golarion is actually run behind the scenes by the worst GM ever, and he's still looking older (perhaps even at an accelerated rate, like the Portrait of Dorian Grey) and/or is still going to drop dead when his time is up, and is desperately seeking to remedy the loopholes in this Discovery.

[swoosh]

Chuckbab wrote:

A DM that states that the wizard who uses his 20th level feat to get this is only immune to the adverse effects of aging and will still die of old age is officially the worst DM ever.

Positively. Still confused about the wording of the actual ability forgetting to mention old age.

[TriOmegaZero]

Chuckbab wrote:

A DM that states that the wizard who uses his 20th level feat to get this is only immune to the adverse effects of aging and will still die of old age is officially the worst DM ever.

Indeed, but it still doesn't make the rules say something that they don't.

[Cthulhudrew]

Does anyone play the game long enough that aging ever plays a factor? Not a dig, genuinely curious.

[TriOmegaZero]

Haven't yet. I also expect to never have a character with this discovery in any of my games, so this is really just an academic discussion to me.

[Mummified Familiar]

You can play the game as an "Adult" that is technically 1 year away from Middle Aged as a Human from my experience (Age 34 going to Age 35). So you could feasibly in 1-year later within the game age to middle age at Age 35 for being a Human.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/description

You also can technically play a human Teen/Kid within Pathfinder (Age 8-14) who then becomes an adult (Age 15). However your also restricted to NPC classes while you are a young character (Adept, Aristocrat, Expert, Warrior, Commoner)

[cnetarian]

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Does anyone play the game long enough that aging ever plays a factor? Not a dig, genuinely curious.

Well yes, did one campaign where we were civilians instead of adventurers and went on one adventure every year or so, and the campaign took place over 40 years and slightly fewer game sessions. Kingmaker campaigns can take several years I imagine. If the GM wants to, and the players are agreeable, there is no reason a campaign cannot last a considerable time on the game calender without taking an excessive amount of time on the RW calender.

[Matthew Downie]

GM: "You return from your quest. The kingdom is saved. You are proclaimed heroes. Nothing much happens for the next hundred years. Then, as the prophecy warned, the dark lord rises again. Immortal Wizard, you're fine. Immortal Alchemist, you're fine. Elf Cleric, you move up an age category. Human Fighter, you're dead and can't be resurrected. Make a new level 1 character."

[wraithstrike]

From Sean K Reynold when he was actually still a dev.

"And considering that the "timeless body" ability specifically says you still reach a point when you die from a maximum age, and the immortality and eternal youth discoveries do not, I do think it is as clear as I suggest. :)"

PS: He was saying earlier that you do not die of old age. He just had some snark in it.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Good point, although Paizo's entries for various related things aren't entirely consistent about when they put in or leave out specific GOTCHAS.

[wraithstrike]

Yeah, I understand. If that is "official enough" or not depends on how picky the GM is.

[GM Tyrant Princess]

wraithstrike wrote:

Yeah, I understand. If that is "official enough" or not depends on how picky the GM is.

Indeed.

settles onto living throne of subjugated players

Eh... I'd allow it. Who reaches 20th level, anyway? I suppose they can have something nice.

[Snowblind]

This isn't really a big deal for level 20 wizards

Salve of the second chance is a thing.

If you want to play semantics games with your GM (which you already are if immortality doesn't prevent death from old age), you can even point out that reincarnate lets wish grant you your previous form back. It says nothing about giving you your previous age back.