| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hmm, guys...
Aasimar starting ages (dhampir and tiefling have the same problem)
Aasimar 20 years +4d6 +6d6 +8d6
See the problem?
GM: All players must roll their starting age.
Okay,
Okay, my starting age is MIDDLE-AGE, just 3 years shy of OLD.
Yeah, please tell me you haven't send this to print yet? There is still time to fix this? It's worse than the previous error!!!
Different races have different age categories.
Yes, and their age categories have been changed to match the HUMAN age categories.
Aasimar 35 years 53 years 70 years 70 + 2d20 years
As for your edit, no it has nothing to do with alignment, and as the errata just came out, I am fairly sure d20pfsrd is not the site to prove anything, as they haven't had time to update it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, guys...
Aasimar starting ages (dhampir and tiefling have the same problem)
Aasimar 20 years +4d6 +6d6 +8d6See the problem?
GM: All players must roll their starting age.
Yes! You're right! I see the problem!
The problem is you have a DM who forces you to roll age. Who the f~** does that?
Hmm, guys...
Aasimar starting ages (dhampir and tiefling have the same problem)
Aasimar 20 years +4d6 +6d6 +8d6See the problem?
GM: All players must roll their starting age.
Yes! You're right! I see the problem!
The problem is you have a DM who forces you to roll age. Who the f+*+ does that?
Wheaton's Law.
That was just an example of how it could be the worst, but even then okay you pick your age, a Dhampir is minimum 30 then becomes middle aged at 35. They failed to change the DICE rolled, which means the minimums are crazy high.
Yes, you can just use the human chart (sans the 20) like the actual errata document says, but this is about what the actual 2nd printing book says.
I know it's probably already went to print, but either way I'm not just ignoring it, I am reporting it.
So again I say to you, Wheaton's Law.
Yeah, they were always supposed to have near-human lifespans, the old stats in the ARG were a mistake.
Personally, I'd just also use the human starting ages for them as well, since I don't think they're going to be able to fix this before printing.
Oh yeah, I knew about the issue before, that's why I was so excited to see it had been fixed (I DLed the errata document before I downloaded the PDF) then doubly devastated to see they screwed it up even worse in actual print.
|
Tiefling and Aasimar have always had the ages of Humans.
Hell, I had my Tiefling with the staring age of a Human, and had full Developer support.
No one batted an eye, and now I have additional proof, that I was always right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still use the pre-errata table, because I ignore most errata. They're usually stealth nerfs or nonsensical anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't play PFS, but those who do have my condolences.
I actually like longer-lived dhampir, aasimar and tieflings. I've got nothing against you being right on the Golarion canon though.
Contributor
|
Yup.
The ARG completely bashed Golarion Canon with those misaligned ages.
Hell, there is a very iconic Aasimar, in the very first real Adventure Path for Pathfinder, that would make no sense, with those age categories.
Not even the basic non-Golarion Race flavor text makes sense with them.
There's also Council of Thieves, obviously.
The first AP's like Rise of the Runelords were part of a series called Pathfinder, but used the 3.5e rules. They later named the RPG after it, since those AP's were the reason why wanted to make the RPG in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I never quite supported the complete replacement of the original starting ages myself.
I like the idea that tieflings and aasimar could be on par with elves for age. It reinforces their outsider status (societal, not...type), and made them more 'mystetical'.
I can understand wanting them to have human-ish growth periods (although again, going back to elves, I like the forlorn vibe of having them take forever, and have them try to survive as long lived children).
I would more support 30+ [current rnadom numbers], and then using the original numbers for middle aged and such (which were..what? Had you at around 100 before middle aged? I would check, but I unfortunately always used teh srd for this table, adn that has already been "updated")
So yes...this is currently broken. They used human like age categories, and put in a human like base age...but unfortunately still kept the 'long lived race' dice for determining age. While the original was a bit incongruous with the actual material in the Golarion setting...it at least made sense.
So, while I usually do not advise people to ignore RAW...this was a change that was not actually proof read. So just use half elf age things instead. Or how about gnomes'? They seem like a fair enough balance between 'long lived' and 'easily worked backstory with a human society'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am in awe of your abundance of f#&%s, that you have so many to give for the age category chart.
I am in awe of your abundance of f$~+s, that you have so many to give for the age category chart.
They could just be differently prioritized f~+#s.
Also, presume this will just get a small FAQ/correction when the reprint is out. It will only take as long as writing the text, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh okay. I see what you're saying. They changed the milestones without changing the modifiers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the longer age spans for the Dhampires and Aasimars and Tieflings. In a home Carrion Crown game I am in, I have an Aasimar cleric of Iomedae. My friend is playing an Aasimar Paladin of Iomedae. These characters are brothers. We are having fun. if my GM brings it up, I will ask him to keep things the same. What does it matter that the ages have been errataed? In the link that Black Blood Troll kindly provided where James Jacobs said that they intended for Assimars etc to age as humans.
In that post James Jacobs also suggested that it would be a red flag if you sit at a PFS table with a GM that does not allow your aasimar character to have a human starting age (when they had longer starting ages in the ARG)
I will admit, If a, PFS GM is so nit picky, that he wants me to change the age of my Aasimar character to match that of the current Errata, that would be a red flag for me to find another table to play at. That being said, I would understand the Favored Class Bonus's being changed to the current errata. One has an effect on game mechanics, I don't think the other does. PFS i believe ignores age penalties and benefits.
Tiefling and Aasimar have always had the ages of Humans.
Hell, I had my Tiefling with the staring age of a Human, and had full Developer support.
No one batted an eye, and now I have additional proof, that I was always right.
Yes, but I am saying they fixed it in the ARG, IN THEORY but they didnt' fix it, they made it worse.
Yes, no GM (that I would play with) is going to force you to use an aging chart that is OBVIOUSLY in error, but by the RAW of the ARG 2nd printing they do NOT use the same as the humans. On the random starting ages table they changed the starting age from 120 to 20. That's it. The errata document says use human for everything else, but that's not what the book says now. The age categories are changed though, which makes it like I said above... minimum age for a 'trained' dhampir by the RAW is 30.
People seem to be missing that I am not talking about the PREVIOUS error, I am talking about a NEW ERROR in the NEW PRINTING.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am in awe of your abundance of f$~+s, that you have so many to give for the age category chart.They could just be differently prioritized f***s.
Also, presume this will just get a small FAQ/correction when the reprint is out. It will only take as long as writing the text, really.
I know, and since I know it's already gone to print, that's all I ask for now. (I know my OP didn't make that 100% clear, I mean I hope there is still time to fix it, which is why I said what I did, but... I don't think there is)
Jesus, the way some people act you'd think I was demanding that Paizo immediately burn every copy of the 2nd printing book, refund everyone who ever purchased the ARG in hardcover or PDF format from any retailer, fix the error, then send everyone who ever bought a Paizo book or PDF a free copy of ARG 3rd printing in hardcover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason these ages were corrected in the reprint is, as noted above, because they were errors.Have you by any chance had a look at the changes as they were actually issued in the errata and PRD? I cannot help thinking that there must have been a miscommunication somewhere. Here is what we got:
Base age: Changed from 60 or 110 to 20.
Random dice added to base age: Left unchanged, including the +10d6 added to starting age of Dhampir in a trained class.Aging effects: Set to human values.
What were the actual intended changes?
Sigh.
No.
Looks like they forgot to change the random dice element. Very, very frustrating.
