Why edit the age of Aasimar, Dhampir and Tieflings?

[Brew Bird]

Kalindlara wrote:

Brew Bird wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I'm not a fan of the change for Dhampir, as I like the idea that half-dead blood moves more slowly.

Then again, I'm not required to use the change, so I'll keep my impure blood developmentally languid.

It even mentions their elven lifespans in the ARG fluff. Have there been any Dhampir in Golarion that established them as having human (or at least, non-elven) lifespans?

There are extremely few dhampir in the canon, and none that I know of have had roles that relied on human aging rates.

Huh. I'm curious to know what motivated the change then. Aasimar and Tieflings were clearly in error (as shown from Blood of Fiends/Angels, and some developer comments), but the elven aging for Dhampir seemed to be intentional.

EDIT: Found this in Bestiary 2,

B2 Dhampir entry wrote:

Although polluted by undeath, dhampirs do grow old and die, aging at a rate similar to elves.

[Milo v3]

I actually liked that golarion planetouched aged differently, now it just adds an extra three lines to my list of houserules.

[Rosita the Riveter]

I didn't know Planetoiched originally aged slower. Never noticed or expected such a thing.

[Kalindlara]

Brew Bird wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Brew Bird wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I'm not a fan of the change for Dhampir, as I like the idea that half-dead blood moves more slowly.

Then again, I'm not required to use the change, so I'll keep my impure blood developmentally languid.

It even mentions their elven lifespans in the ARG fluff. Have there been any Dhampir in Golarion that established them as having human (or at least, non-elven) lifespans?

There are extremely few dhampir in the canon, and none that I know of have had roles that relied on human aging rates.

Huh. I'm curious to know what motivated the change then. Aasimar and Tieflings were clearly in error (as shown from Blood of Fiends/Angels, and some developer comments), but the elven aging for Dhampir seemed to be intentional.

EDIT: Found this in Bestiary 2,

B2 Dhampir entry wrote:

Although polluted by undeath, dhampirs do grow old and die, aging at a rate similar to elves.

I'm guessing it was done for consistency's sake - the errata-writer may have simply assumed that dhampir got the same changes.

We've had a dhampir in our group since B2, and we relied on that line for his age.

[Entryhazard]

I don't get why long-lived Elves cause long-lived Half-Elves but when virtually immortal Outsiders breed with Humans the resulting Planetouched that are Outsiders themselves instead of Humanoids have the same short lifespan.

Yeah I know it's because "magic" but still

[Brew Bird]

Entryhazard wrote:

I don't get why long-lived Elves cause long-lived Half-Elves but when virtually immortal Outsiders breed with Humans the resulting Planetouched that are Outsiders themselves instead of Humanoids have the same short lifespan.

Yeah I know it's because "magic" but still

Only Dhampir actually have an immortal parent. Tieflings and Aasimar have an outsider somewhere in their bloodline, but not necessarily a parent.

[Issaic The Breaker]

James Jacobs wrote:

The reason these ages were corrected in the reprint is, as noted above, because they were errors. As early as the very first adventure for Pathfinder, Burnt Offerings, we have an aasimar whose age works as if she were human, and that's a pretty important element of the plot of that adventure. We've also got a tiefling in Council of Thieves who is pretty important to be someone who ages as fast as his human sister for story reasons. Up until this point, we hadn't said in print what their age categories were, and the assumption that they were identical to humans (or VERY CLOSE to huamns, at least) made for MUCH stronger stories than any other option.

When Advanced Race Guide first came out, the design team missed these bits of important information; we've since been working hard to bring the design team and the world team in closer cooperation so that the books all properly support each other, and this bit of errata is an example of that.

It's not needless meddling; it's a legitimate correction to bring the rules in sync with the story. In this case, a story that's been established for about a decade and is a fundamental part of one of our most-popular Adventure Paths. So if you prefer our "original content" (such as Rise of the Runelords/Burnt Offerings), then I'd hope you would understand why we made this change in the Advanced Race Guide reprint.

Alright, by that logic I understand the changed ages for Aaismars and Tieflings. But with the exception of a kind of minor NPC in Carrion Crown, I can't think of any Dhampirs that have been printed in any Paizo adventure. So what was the reasoning behind changing how the Dhampir age?

[Luthorne]

Entryhazard wrote:

I don't get why long-lived Elves cause long-lived Half-Elves but when virtually immortal Outsiders breed with Humans the resulting Planetouched that are Outsiders themselves instead of Humanoids have the same short lifespan.

Yeah I know it's because "magic" but still

When virtually immortal Outsiders breed with humans, the result is a half-fiend or a half-celestial, not a tiefling or aasimar. Those are generally a step or two further down the family tree...and often very far down it indeed.

[Dragon78]

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

[Luthorne]

Dragon78 wrote:

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

Yeah, I've actually been playing around with that as a concept, instead of every race having its own unique aging (especially since a lot of them steal from each other), I've been pondering the notion of 'aging tracks' that are predefined with something like five to seven versions of very short-lived (goblins, orcs, ratfolk), somewhat short-lived, human, longer-lived, very long-lived, etc., etc., etc. I think the advantage is that you could just say with new races that they use X aging track, and you could also have notes like, "In this town, goblins live a more civilized life, and the lack of disease and squalor puts them on the [somewhat short-lived] aging track instead," or say that on Hermea humans use a higher aging track due to quality care or something along those lines...just a concept at this point, though.

[Aniuś the Talewise]

Dragon78 wrote:

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

In my setting I have some kind of explanation for the 100 years thing, being: at 25 years of age elves have just become technically capable of sexual reproduction but far from emotionally mature (like 13 for humans) and go through this incredibly long and arduous process of puberty and learning discipline until about the age of 100

I don't know, I'm still working on it. 100 years to mature is difficult to work with, especially when it is technically supposed to match up with human 15.

My approach is kind of reminding me of vulcans, then again Vulcans are basically green-blooded space elves anway

[DM Beckett]

Rosita the Riveter wrote:

I didn't know Planetoiched originally aged slower. Never noticed or expected such a thing.

Its another one of those "its always been that way" deals. So 8ts actually more accurate to say that Paizo made a mistake by adding setting content that didnt flow with the norm, even in the 3.5 era.

[DM Beckett]

Brew Bird wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

I don't get why long-lived Elves cause long-lived Half-Elves but when virtually immortal Outsiders breed with Humans the resulting Planetouched that are Outsiders themselves instead of Humanoids have the same short lifespan.

Yeah I know it's because "magic" but still

Only Dhampir actually have an immortal parent. Tieflings and Aasimar have an outsider somewhere in their bloodline, but not necessarily a parent.

Correction, only Aasimar and Tieflings might have an immortal parent. Dhampirs have a parent that isn't alive at all, or could have two completely mortal parents with one of them being afflicted with dark energies while reproducing.

[Luthorne]

DM Beckett wrote:

Rosita the Riveter wrote:

I didn't know Planetoiched originally aged slower. Never noticed or expected such a thing.

Its another one of those "its always been that way" deals. So 8ts actually more accurate to say that Paizo made a mistake by adding setting content that didnt flow with the norm, even in the 3.5 era.

Actually, back in 3.5, according to Races of Destiny, aasimar and tieflings reached maturity at age 15 (+1d6 for simple classes, +1d8 for moderate classes, +2d8 for complex classes), reached middle age at 45, old age at 68, became venerable at 90, and could live 3-60 years after that (+3d20). So they matured at the same rate as a human, but wound up living somewhat longer, since humans reached middle age at 35, old age at 53, became venerable at 70, and could live up 2-40 years after that (+2d20). So it's not that much of a difference, they generally aged faster than half-elves, much less dwarves, gnomes, and elves. As such, at least reaching maturity at the same time humans do was the norm back in 3.5.

[captain yesterday]

Yeah in 3.5 Forgotten Realms and the other setting neutral books had the plane touched and so on progressed in age like humans.

[Robert Carter 58]

Dragon78 wrote:

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

I liked that how it was described in Races of the Wild, a WotC product, where an elf was physically and emotionally mature (by human standards) at 20 or so, but was not considered an "adult" by elf culture until 100, and didn't have full rights and privileges in the culture (which makes a little more sense).

Not sure how this jives up rules wise with Paizo stuff/stat stuff or whatever.

[wraithstrike]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Only reason I can think they'd do this is that it just makes it the same as golarion... which is a rather poor reason in my opinion. Hopefully a developer can give some insight.

The rulebooks are supposed to be support for Golarion.

But honestly I'm not a fan of long lifespans and high starting ages even in traditionally long lived races. I'd prefer everyone work off human starting ages and vary when middle and old age rules kick in.

50 year old elf teens are just silly.

The core rule books are setting neutral. The setting line of books are for Golarion.

[thejeff]

Robert Carter 58 wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

I liked that how it was described in Races of the Wild, a WotC product, where an elf was physically and emotionally mature (by human standards) at 20 or so, but was not considered an "adult" by elf culture until 100, and didn't have full rights and privileges in the culture (which makes a little more sense).

Not sure how this jives up rules wise with Paizo stuff/stat stuff or whatever.

Makes more sense from one point of view, but then you have to explain why none of these functionally adult, but still considered children, run off to have adventures. You'd think that's when most of them would do so.

And you still have the problem that they start adventuring at 110+ with no more skills than any short lived character. Except in this case they really have been physically and mentally mature for a century and not learned anything. They don't even have the excuse of having been children and needing more time for their brains to mature.

[thejeff]

M1k31 wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't view it as elves taking ten times as long to learn basic skills as much as it is elves take the same amount of time to learn those skills but then get a LOT of extra free time to enjoy life and revel in their extended adolescence. Think of this time as the source of their racial bonus to Intelligence if you will.

Except intelligence is not what you know... it's how fast you learn... skills really are the best analogue for what you are describing... not INT.

Not really. Children learn much faster than adults, but we don't usually think of 5 year olds as much smarter than adults.

[BigNorseWolf]

Would be kind of odd if your little brother was dead from old age before you were out of short pants...

[graystone]

wraithstrike wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Only reason I can think they'd do this is that it just makes it the same as golarion... which is a rather poor reason in my opinion. Hopefully a developer can give some insight.

The rulebooks are supposed to be support for Golarion.

But honestly I'm not a fan of long lifespans and high starting ages even in traditionally long lived races. I'd prefer everyone work off human starting ages and vary when middle and old age rules kick in.

50 year old elf teens are just silly.

The core rule books are setting neutral. The setting line of books are for Golarion.

This is why I wish that the ARG wasn't change to match Golarion canon. Why couldn't Golarion tieflings, aasimars and Dhampir have younger ages instead of altering them in every world?

An FAQ in the nifty, but little used, Golarion Rules and Questions sounds like the perfect place for something done JUST to fit Golarion canon.

[Aniuś the Talewise]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Would be kind of odd if your little brother was dead from old age before you were out of short pants...

In my opinion, that's another reason for elves to have a sociopathic disregard for humans as simpler and lesser creatures.

Maybe we should approach the question a little differently. Maybe it's not "why do elves take so long to mature", but in fact, "how can humans mature so fast and still call it true maturity?"

[Entryhazard]

Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Would be kind of odd if your little brother was dead from old age before you were out of short pants...

In my opinion, that's another reason for elves to have a sociopathic disregard for humans as simpler and lesser creatures.

Maybe we should approach the question a little differently. Maybe it's not "why do elves take so long to mature", but in fact, "how can humans mature so fast and still call it true maturity?"

Because humans in those setting are aware of their shorter lifespan and thus make the most of it while elves are rather lazy and take it rather easy

[M1k31]

Luthorne wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

Yeah, I've actually been playing around with that as a concept, instead of every race having its own unique aging (especially since a lot of them steal from each other), I've been pondering the notion of 'aging tracks' that are predefined with something like five to seven versions of very short-lived (goblins, orcs, ratfolk), somewhat short-lived, human, longer-lived, very long-lived, etc., etc., etc. I think the advantage is that you could just say with new races that they use X aging track, and you could also have notes like, "In this town, goblins live a more civilized life, and the lack of disease and squalor puts them on the [somewhat short-lived] aging track instead," or say that on Hermea humans use a higher aging track due to quality care or something along those lines...just a concept at this point, though.

why not just "parent class aging + x" where x is a number specific to each of the 3 races?

That way Elf Dhampir live comparable lifespans to elves while Orc Dhampir live comparable lives to Orcs... and all Paizo needs to write in the books to fix everything is literally a single defined number instead of a range.

[Luthorne]

M1k31 wrote:

Luthorne wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.

Yeah, I've actually been playing around with that as a concept, instead of every race having its own unique aging (especially since a lot of them steal from each other), I've been pondering the notion of 'aging tracks' that are predefined with something like five to seven versions of very short-lived (goblins, orcs, ratfolk), somewhat short-lived, human, longer-lived, very long-lived, etc., etc., etc. I think the advantage is that you could just say with new races that they use X aging track, and you could also have notes like, "In this town, goblins live a more civilized life, and the lack of disease and squalor puts them on the [somewhat short-lived] aging track instead," or say that on Hermea humans use a higher aging track due to quality care or something along those lines...just a concept at this point, though.

why not just "parent class aging + x" where x is a number specific to each of the 3 races?

That way Elf Dhampir live comparable lifespans to elves while Orc Dhampir live comparable lives to Orcs... and all Paizo needs to write in the books to fix everything is literally a single defined number instead of a range.

Well, partially because I would actually say aasimar and tieflings can use any of the aging tracks, regardless of their heritage, due to the many different forms they can take and degrees of differences from their original race...I mean, if you look at the aasimar/tiefling tables, they could look almost like their normal race, or be quite strange indeed. So it makes sense to me that rather than a specific number it should vary a bit.

But also because increasing goblin age categories by +10 and elf age categories +10 are pretty drastically different, I imagine.

[James Jacobs]

graystone wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Only reason I can think they'd do this is that it just makes it the same as golarion... which is a rather poor reason in my opinion. Hopefully a developer can give some insight.

The rulebooks are supposed to be support for Golarion.

But honestly I'm not a fan of long lifespans and high starting ages even in traditionally long lived races. I'd prefer everyone work off human starting ages and vary when middle and old age rules kick in.

50 year old elf teens are just silly.

The core rule books are setting neutral. The setting line of books are for Golarion.

This is why I wish that the ARG wasn't change to match Golarion canon. Why couldn't Golarion tieflings, aasimars and Dhampir have younger ages instead of altering them in every world?

An FAQ in the nifty, but little used, Golarion Rules and Questions sounds like the perfect place for something done JUST to fit Golarion canon.

Thing is... ARG is our book, and it and the other rule books SHOULD match Golarion's canon as a baseline, because when they don't... well... if we'd never published the error to tiefling and aasimar ages in the first place, this whole thread wouldn't have needed to happen, for example. The book would have been in compliance with the setting published by the book's publishers, and folks would still have been able to houserule as they wanted anyway.

[graystone]

James Jacobs:

*shrug* I guess I've always seen 'setting neutral' and thought that it meant something other than 'no setting names'. I don't see it as unusual if a setting has something that different from the baseline, even the official one. If you guys see it differently, that's cool but it's different than I've taken a 'neutral' product.

Instances of settings being different than core 'neutral': The old eberron and alignments. Darksun and casting.

[James Jacobs]

graystone wrote:

James Jacobs:

*shrug* I guess I've always seen 'setting neutral' and thought that it meant something other than 'no setting names'. I don't see it as unusual if a setting has something that different from the baseline, even the official one. If you guys see it differently, that's cool but it's different than I've taken a 'neutral' product.

Instances of settings being different than core 'neutral': The old eberron and alignments. Darksun and casting.

The goal for the books is:

"Setting neutral, but usable as-is for Golarion."

After all, when there are, for example, three equally viable options for a rule, but only one of those is appropriate for Golarion, and we can only print one rule, it just makes sense for us to produce the rule that works for Golarion.

Your examples are sort of not appropriate in this case, since Paizo only publishes one campaign setting. One of the many reasons we do only publish one official setting is so that we CAN have our rules and setting mesh.

[Brew Bird]

Hey James, were the Dhampir intended to get their age categories changed as well? There are a couple of references to their elven lifespans in the core fluff (bestiary 2, mainly)

[Gisher]

Brew Bird wrote:

Hey James, were the Dhampir intended to get their age categories changed as well? There are a couple of references to their elven lifespans in the core fluff (bestiary 2, mainly)

And also the second printing of the ARG.

ARG second printing, page 96 wrote:

Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity akin to that of elves.

[graystone]

James Jacobs wrote:

"Setting neutral, but usable as-is for Golarion."

Okie dokie then, I'll read it as that from now on: Golarion with all the setting names crossed off it is.

[Vutava]

Something I haven't seen answered is what those of us that used the tables from the ARG 1.0 are supposed to do about their new age categories. We're not supposed to be able to change things about our characters in PFS after 1st level, so we clearly can't correct ages without explicit permission first.

I was able to correct my level 1 aasimar, but what do I do about my 5th level monk? If he gets hit with a single aging curse now, he's dead (it's a good thing I haven't been aging him real-time, or the errata would have killed him).

[DM Beckett]

Luthorne wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

Rosita the Riveter wrote:

I didn't know Planetoiched originally aged slower. Never noticed or expected such a thing.

Its another one of those "its always been that way" deals. So 8ts actually more accurate to say that Paizo made a mistake by adding setting content that didnt flow with the norm, even in the 3.5 era.

Actually, back in 3.5, according to Races of Destiny, aasimar and tieflings reached maturity at age 15 (+1d6 for simple classes, +1d8 for moderate classes, +2d8 for complex classes), reached middle age at 45, old age at 68, became venerable at 90, and could live 3-60 years after that (+3d20). So they matured at the same rate as a human, but wound up living somewhat longer, since humans reached middle age at 35, old age at 53, became venerable at 70, and could live up 2-40 years after that (+2d20). So it's not that much of a difference, they generally aged faster than half-elves, much less dwarves, gnomes, and elves. As such, at least reaching maturity at the same time humans do was the norm back in 3.5.

Prior to that, as they where either immortal (as natural Outsiders, not augmented), or if I recall correctly, had a lifespan similar to Dwarves. Ironically, there was a similar arguement as this in regards to the Aasimar/Tiefling life span when Races of Destiny came out on the WotC forums back then, but it was one of the later books, so didn't really go anywhere.

[James Jacobs]

Brew Bird wrote:

Hey James, were the Dhampir intended to get their age categories changed as well? There are a couple of references to their elven lifespans in the core fluff (bestiary 2, mainly)

I'm not sure why those ages got changed, frankly. There's no in-world canon for them. You'd have to ask the design team on that question.

[Aratrok]

It's mostly frustrating because it ruins a bunch of characters already in play. I have a tiefling whose backstory is now physically impossible that should be long dead of old age.

It sucks even worse for people in PFS, who had characters straight up killed or totally ruined by this change.

[DM Beckett]

Agreed.

Best solution was suggested above, to simply leave it up to the individual. It allows for everything between human aging to elven aging as needed.

That being said, I now highly utilize the reflavoring clause for my angel character.

[necromental]

Aratrok wrote:

It's mostly frustrating because it ruins a bunch of characters already in play. I have a tiefling whose backstory is now physically impossible that should be long dead of old age.

It sucks even worse for people in PFS, who had characters straight up killed or totally ruined by this change.

I don't follow PFS, but are you telling me that when this errata was made, instead of letting people change the age of their characters the who ever runs PFS decided just to kill or age all the characters that were the wrong age?

[thejeff]

necromental wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

It's mostly frustrating because it ruins a bunch of characters already in play. I have a tiefling whose backstory is now physically impossible that should be long dead of old age.

It sucks even worse for people in PFS, who had characters straight up killed or totally ruined by this change.

I don't follow PFS, but are you telling me that when this errata was made, instead of letting people change the age of their characters the who ever runs PFS decided just to kill all the characters that were the wrong age?

As far as I know, that's an assumption and there has been no official word.

The closest I see is this

Quote:

In Pathfinder Society, age is cosmetic and left to the player to decide from a roleplaying perspective (minimum the race's starting age). If you were playing your tiefling as 200 years old, just change the age to what would still work with the concept in the age band you intended. This won't result in a PC keeling over from old age at a GM's whim.

I think people are upset by the change and overreacting by assuming the worst possible consequences. I doubt anyone has actually been killed, though some may find their backstories no longer fit.

If anyone has actually had a GM write them off as dead of old age by this FAQ, they should take to their VO.

[BigNorseWolf]

necromental wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

It's mostly frustrating because it ruins a bunch of characters already in play. I have a tiefling whose backstory is now physically impossible that should be long dead of old age.

It sucks even worse for people in PFS, who had characters straight up killed or totally ruined by this change.

I don't follow PFS, but are you telling me that when this errata was made, instead of letting people change the age of their characters the who ever runs PFS decided just to kill or age all the characters that were the wrong age?

No.

This hasn't happened. Its an urban legend like crocodiles in the sewers, and pop rocks exploding in your stomach.

[Gisher]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

necromental wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

It's mostly frustrating because it ruins a bunch of characters already in play. I have a tiefling whose backstory is now physically impossible that should be long dead of old age.

It sucks even worse for people in PFS, who had characters straight up killed or totally ruined by this change.

I don't follow PFS, but are you telling me that when this errata was made, instead of letting people change the age of their characters the who ever runs PFS decided just to kill or age all the characters that were the wrong age?

No.

This hasn't happened. Its an urban legend like crocodiles in the sewers, and pop rocks exploding in your stomach.

It's no urban legend. My cousin has a friend who knows someone whose stomach exploded from eating pop rocks.

[Ignatious the Seeker of Flame]

It doesn't matter if it has or has not happened. PFS, by it's very nature does not allow for "but in my game". Everyone uses the same rules. The base line is that nothing is allowed unless it is specifically allowed via the Guide or Additional Resources.

I do have one character that is specifically affected by this, with the entire idea for the character, since level 1 (about to hit 12 and become a VC) has been built around the idea he was the created child of Sarenrae and Ragathiel, formed and sent to Golarion to much around with the mortals to learn and develop until he ascends. He actually predates the Pathfinder Society Organization, and had been there so long that everyone just assumed he was a member, but he never officially joined, had a Confirmation, etc. . .

He might just be crazy, (I leave it up to individual DM's if it's an issue), but this change, this garbage change removes a huge amount of the cool factor, and this change doesn't jive with two 3.5 era NPCs not many people have even heard off? I have already spent years and over time 12 levels worth of play with the character RPing.

This sort of thing was uncalled for.

[necromental]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

necromental wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

It's mostly frustrating because it ruins a bunch of characters already in play. I have a tiefling whose backstory is now physically impossible that should be long dead of old age.

It sucks even worse for people in PFS, who had characters straight up killed or totally ruined by this change.

I don't follow PFS, but are you telling me that when this errata was made, instead of letting people change the age of their characters the who ever runs PFS decided just to kill or age all the characters that were the wrong age?

No.

This hasn't happened. Its an urban legend like crocodiles in the sewers, and pop rocks exploding in your stomach.

Ah, so it's an overreaction. Totally uncommon on the internet.

@ TheJeff Yes, reasonable solution is reasonable. It's just that I've seen it mentioned a couple of times across several threads and nobody refuted it so had to check.