Why edit the age of Aasimar, Dhampir and Tieflings?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can someone tell me why they needed to get younger, was someone using the age of them in some way that was op?.

we got a Dhampir Paladin in the party who be dead 5 times over from when he was born.


Instead of other things that were just nerfs, the ages for Aasimars and Tiefling in the ARG were actual errors: they went starkly against canon, and JJ said they were an error shortly after the ARG came out.
In fact, they were fixed in Blood of Fiends and Blood of Angels, so the mechanical age change isn't even a new thing: those books came out in 2012, so it's been like that for more than 3 years.


any idea about Dhampir then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


HiddenBoss wrote:
any idea about Dhampir then?

I don't have Blood of the Night, so I can't check that, sorry. :/

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the race age tables in pre-nerf ARG are a carry-over from 3.5e D&D, but just happen to clash with the established canon of Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adahn_Cielo wrote:

Instead of other things that were just nerfs, the ages for Aasimars and Tiefling in the ARG were actual errors: they went starkly against canon, and JJ said they were an error shortly after the ARG came out.

In fact, they were fixed in Blood of Fiends and Blood of Angels, so the mechanical age change isn't even a new thing: those books came out in 2012, so it's been like that for more than 3 years.

What are the current age adjustments?

Cause the ones on the public reference document can make a tiefling wizard that is 2 years below venerable...for his starting age at level 1.

The changed the base value for age and the age categories...but they did not change the dice used to determine starting age. So you can have a 68 year old tiefling wizard because it is 20+8d6. Again, the age categories here are 35 for middle aged, 53 for old, and 70 for venerable.

The original values at least WORKED. They represented a race that is long lived and 'mystical'. Similar to elves. While not entirely in line with the setting, it at least worked.

This set of values has wizards that might not finish magic college to get to level 1 before they are ready for the grave.

While the original was an error...it was a consistent error. This has human age categories, half elf starting age, and 'long lived' race dice. I personally just say throw all that out and use the numbers for gnomes/dwarves- start at 40, so you can have a family and such, but have a long enough life that you get that forlorn feeling.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

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.

Better long lifespans than having your character start as venerable age category just because you're playing as a wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The issue with the old age categories is that they didn't make any sense... If you were born to human parents, then they would likely be dead before you were even considered a "teen" in terms of development.

If you figure average lifespan for humans in Golarion would be 70s... and the aasimar's parents gave birth the them at 20... Then the parents would be in their 80s before the aasimar/tiefling was considered an appropriate age of adulthood.

Given that aasimar can technically be of any base race, I feel using the base race age categories would have made more sense.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

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.

Better long lifespans than having your character start as venerable age category just because you're playing as a wizard.

It's obviously an oversight, like I know errata is important, but surely you can see that this was something that was missed.

That the ages have changed, so maybe those random ages should change too. It was missed, but the game is run by human GMs not machines directed by punch-card programmed algorithms.

Just use the human starting ages.

Most people just pick their age.

I've had players start as young teens, or old folks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:

The issue with the old age categories is that they didn't make any sense... If you were born to human parents, then they would likely be dead before you were even considered a "teen" in terms of development.

If you figure average lifespan for humans in Golarion would be 70s... and the aasimar's parents gave birth the them at 20... Then the parents would be in their 80s before the aasimar/tiefling was considered an appropriate age of adulthood.

Given that aasimar can technically be of any base race, I feel using the base race age categories would have made more sense.

Still, you could play it with its own set of logic.

I am going to repeatedly make reference to forlorn elves. You know, the backstory for the rogue iconic. Yeah, that one.

The idea of a child that is a 'child' for generation, forced to raise themselves sinc etheir parents passed long ago....that already has a place in setting.

The old values can have their own logic. The new one appears to be a poorly copied misprint when you were already trying to fix a mistake. Which just seems far, far worse than an initial mistake. Having to errata your errata is embarassing.


It's odd that Aasimars, Tieflings and Dhampirs became adult at 20+ instead of 15+ like their Human parents, but also at the same time their Middle Age, Old, Venerable, Maximum Age is the same of the Humans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Having to errata your errata is embarassing.

I think you should have smelled that 'embarrassing'.


Matthew Downie wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Having to errata your errata is embarassing.
I think you should have smelled that 'embarrassing'.

Spelled.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Having to errata your errata is embarassing.
I think you should have smelled that 'embarrassing'.
Spelled.

Having to fix your own spelling mistake while parodying another person's spelling mistake is embarrassing... ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A missing R is slightly less enberessink then having a wizard that goes directly from level 1 to the nursing home.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
A missing R is slightly less enberessink then having a wizard that goes directly from level 1 to the nursing home.

LOL. "Yes, I finally learned how to cast my 1st level spell. Be a dear and hand me my walker and bedpan... Oh, and get me a glass of water for my dentures."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact they made races that are mixed with immortal parents/grand parents have human life age range, is just bad design. I am fine with races reaching adult hood about the same time but different life expectancies make the world and it's races more interesting. So they did it for "balance" then why not the elves and dwarves have human age ranges. Finally stuff like this should be more up to the DM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

All the really smart tieflings spend 4d6 years learning to be sage sorcerers and 5 days retraining to wizards. Wizard school is a trap for tieflings without enough system mastery to really be wizards.


I vastly prefer the new age, since it allows an aasimar or tiefling to grow up properly. I wouldn't have particularly minded letting them keep a long lifespan, but I don't play aasimars or dhampirs anyways, sooooo... ;D


That adult thing isnt the legal age of adulthood. its the Physical age.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Adahn_Cielo wrote:
HiddenBoss wrote:
any idea about Dhampir then?
I don't have Blood of the Night, so I can't check that, sorry. :/

That book has no direct statements about dhampir aging. It does mention that their human mothers usually do not live to see them grow up, but whether that is a result of slow aging by their dhampir offspring, the toll on their bodies from carrying a half-vampire baby, or abuse by their vampire mates is unclear.


Since aasimars can be from any race per their own source book, tying them to human lifespans doesn't make sense. I see it as needless meddling. I'm starting to strongly prefer Paizo's original content to their revised stuff almost across the board.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Since aasimars can be from any race per their own source book, tying them to human lifespans doesn't make sense. I see it as needless meddling. I'm starting to strongly prefer Paizo's original content to their revised stuff almost across the board.

On the other hand, having them take 100 years to grow up, regardless of their parents doesn't make sense either.

Plus, while aasimar can be of any race, aren't all their stats based on human? Not just lifespan, but size, vision, etc.

Optional rules for variant aasimar from other races would be cool, but they'd go beyond starting ages or lifespan.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

thejeff wrote:

Plus, while aasimar can be of any race, aren't all their stats based on human? Not just lifespan, but size, vision, etc.

Optional rules for variant aasimar from other races would be cool, but they'd go beyond starting ages or lifespan.

Correct. The vast majority of aasimars are mostly human and outsider (same for tieflings), and as such, the vast majority of rules assume that and that's why we use that as a baseline. Aasimars and tieflings that break that average and norm can be adjusted however you see fit in your game. If you're playing a PFS game, you need to suck it up and assume the norm, alas, since the structure of a massive multiplayer campaign like PFS requires some sacrifices on the altar of standardization, since GMs don't have as much leeway for adjusting the rules.

That said... no one will care or probably even notice if you say your character's a different age than starting or anything like that. As long as you're still using the standard modifiers for adult characters and aren't messing with ability scores as a result, the rest is just flavor and has no effect on actual game play in something like PFS anyway.

Additionally, there's a certain point where optional rules for too many things just starts to clutter books up. Where that limit is varies according to taste, but when you're the person building the book, your opinion ends up being the one that counts, I guess.


thejeff wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Since aasimars can be from any race per their own source book, tying them to human lifespans doesn't make sense. I see it as needless meddling. I'm starting to strongly prefer Paizo's original content to their revised stuff almost across the board.

On the other hand, having them take 100 years to grow up, regardless of their parents doesn't make sense either.

Plus, while aasimar can be of any race, aren't all their stats based on human? Not just lifespan, but size, vision, etc.

Optional rules for variant aasimar from other races would be cool, but they'd go beyond starting ages or lifespan.

Definitely not vision (all aasimar have darkvision), but other than that they're based on being of human origin. I think ruling that non-human aasimar follow the aging process of their parents would solve that problem.

...Though it still leaves me to wonder why long-lived races can spend up to a literal century learning what short-lived races can master in a handful of years. From a concept standpoint I greatly prefer the idea that long-living races mature normally till they're in early adulthood, and then "slow". It avoids the problem of the disciplined focused militaristic dwarf who spent 30 years learning to be a fighter compared to the chaotic short-sighted and utterly undisciplined goblin, who mastered the exact same training in a single year.


Kudaku wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Since aasimars can be from any race per their own source book, tying them to human lifespans doesn't make sense. I see it as needless meddling. I'm starting to strongly prefer Paizo's original content to their revised stuff almost across the board.

On the other hand, having them take 100 years to grow up, regardless of their parents doesn't make sense either.

Plus, while aasimar can be of any race, aren't all their stats based on human? Not just lifespan, but size, vision, etc.

Optional rules for variant aasimar from other races would be cool, but they'd go beyond starting ages or lifespan.

Definitely not vision (all aasimar have darkvision), but other than that they're based on being of human origin. I think ruling that non-human aasimar follow the aging process of their parents would solve that problem.

...Though it still leaves me to wonder why long-lived races can spend up to a literal century learning what short-lived races can master in a handful of years. From a concept standpoint I greatly prefer the idea that long-living races mature normally till they're in early adulthood, and then "slow". It avoids the problem of the disciplined focused militaristic dwarf who spent 30 years learning to be a fighter compared to the chaotic short-sighted and utterly undisciplined goblin, who mastered the exact same training in a single year.

That's another issue entirely.

But, ignoring the vision, there are other differences as well. Your halfling aasimar should be Small, for example. It would seem odd if the physical stats at least weren't based off the parent race.
Basically, you'd really want to work up a package for each race. (And then variants for the different outsider type aasimars for each race?)


thejeff wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Since aasimars can be from any race per their own source book, tying them to human lifespans doesn't make sense. I see it as needless meddling. I'm starting to strongly prefer Paizo's original content to their revised stuff almost across the board.

On the other hand, having them take 100 years to grow up, regardless of their parents doesn't make sense either.

Plus, while aasimar can be of any race, aren't all their stats based on human? Not just lifespan, but size, vision, etc.

Optional rules for variant aasimar from other races would be cool, but they'd go beyond starting ages or lifespan.

Definitely not vision (all aasimar have darkvision), but other than that they're based on being of human origin. I think ruling that non-human aasimar follow the aging process of their parents would solve that problem.

...Though it still leaves me to wonder why long-lived races can spend up to a literal century learning what short-lived races can master in a handful of years. From a concept standpoint I greatly prefer the idea that long-living races mature normally till they're in early adulthood, and then "slow". It avoids the problem of the disciplined focused militaristic dwarf who spent 30 years learning to be a fighter compared to the chaotic short-sighted and utterly undisciplined goblin, who mastered the exact same training in a single year.

That's another issue entirely.

But, ignoring the vision, there are other differences as well. Your halfling aasimar should be Small, for example. It would seem odd if the physical stats at least weren't based off the parent race.
Basically, you'd really want to work up a package for each race. (And then variants for the different outsider type aasimars for each race?)

There is actually some support for aasimar of non-human descent. I can't remember off-hand if it's in the Blood Of-series or in the ARG, but there's a sidebar explaining it on D20PFSRD.


I know it's in Blood of Angels, but it might be in the ARG as well (as I don't own a copy of the latter yet).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Otagian wrote:
I know it's in Blood of Angels, but it might be in the ARG as well (as I don't own a copy of the latter yet).

We have a similar sidebar in Blood of Fiends. It's not in the ARG as far as I know. In any event, these variant aasimars and tieflings are pretty rare overall. Of course, rarity doesn't matter when picking player character options... but keep in mind player characters are the rarest of all. ;-P


Where are these corrections posted?


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.

OK. Perhaps, needless meddling was too strong. However, I hope you understand my point. How do you maintain consistency with their diverse origins as well as them not being a quintessential deus ex machina for tying in other races to "normalize" them to humans in the setting? A core element to the background of an aasimar I'm currently playing isn't possible if I were to "follow the rules."

It might have worked for those other campaigns. From what I see, though, your characters that are special tend to be written in special ways which is completely fine and how I would prefer things, personally.

Maybe you didn't intend for aasimars and tieflings to be special but through this whole thing and how they've been for years now that's very much the case. Credence has been given in the other direction because of the emphasis on their otherworldly origins and what that means through several other source books and how they can seemingly come from anywhere and not just a human lineage.

Why not simply nudge the age to increase its consistency with released material by stating age categories are the same as the parent race? It just seems to me that these kinds of changes actively deny future games the charm that has drawn me to them.

I know it's "just me" here but all I can do is relate my own experience. If I were to come into the game new, I'm sure I'd have fun. It's just sad to know the experiences I've already had simply aren't possible now. It's not just this change. It's indicative of the general strategy you guys have used to make these kinds of "retroactive" changes. They're absolute leaving nothing of the heritage they've helped build.

Idk. Maybe I'm just emotional since the Daily Show finale. Life goes on. Thanks for the response.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
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?

Silver Crusade

Hmm... didn't notice the changes. I'll need to go check the ages of my aasimar and tiefling in PFS, and probably adjust them both downward.

This actually could have a huge impact on the aasimar's back story, since I intentionally gave him a back story that he was raised by elves, based on his long lifespan.


Fromper wrote:

Hmm... didn't notice the changes. I'll need to go check the ages of my aasimar and tiefling in PFS, and probably adjust them both downward.

This actually could have a huge impact on the aasimar's back story, since I intentionally gave him a back story that he was raised by elves, based on his long lifespan.

That reminds me! Another reason I liked the ages was because it wasn't an elf. Sometimes I like sweeping arcs in my backgrounds but elves are easily cliché just for being elves.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

12 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Of course, if you intend to have tieflings and humans grow up at the same rate, even the 20 base age leaves a noticeable difference.

So should the random dice match those for halflings or half-elves?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

Of course, if you intend to have tieflings and humans grow up at the same rate, even the 20 base age leaves a noticeable difference.

So should the random dice match those for halflings or half-elves?

Half-elves, since their die rolls are smaller.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So since you're here... is there any Golarion justification for elves taking 10x as long to learn basic apprentice skills as some other races? Or just because that's the way it was in D&D?

If so please let it be because as aliens they have completely different developmental stages that they metamorphose through as they grow. Elves do not learn, per se, until the final stage known as adulthood. Prior to that, they operate purely on instinct, at almost an animal level, although their instincts are complex enough to appear like learned behavior to an untrained observer. Every 7 years or so they go through a growth metamorphosis which increases their size equivalent to a year of human growth and provides them with a new set of instincts equivalent to a year of human learning. When they go through the final metamorphosis their brain develops true cognition similar to a human, and at that point they become capable of learning from their experiences. Trying to make an elf learn prior to then actually slows their development, possibly making them take decades longer to reach adulthood. Only the most learned of all elf masters understand this however, and most make their students study before they are ready. But 1 in 60466176 elf wizards can train an apprentice in 10 years, similar to the average human, simply by recognizing the signs of maturity and waiting until the brain is fully developed.

For dwarves, apprentices are literally just too stubborn to learn stuff, like at all, but after 50 years their master finally gets fed up with their incompetence and literally hammers their heads into shape so they get a class (see phrenology for why this works). Master wizards just have more patience than master barbarians, which is why it takes them longer.

Edit: fixed elf wizard age to 10d6, instead of 8d6

Paizo Employee Creative Director

chocobot wrote:

So since you're here... is there any Golarion justification for elves taking 10x as long to learn basic apprentice skills as some other races? Or just because that's the way it was in D&D?

If so please let it be because as aliens they have completely different developmental stages that they metamorphose through as they grow. Elves do not learn, per se, until the final stage known as adulthood. Prior to that, they operate purely on instinct, at almost an animal level, although their instincts are complex enough to appear like learned behavior to an untrained observer. Every 7 years or so they go through a growth metamorphosis which increases their size equivalent to a year of human growth and provides them with a new set of instincts equivalent to a year of human learning. When they go through the final metamorphosis their brain develops true cognition similar to a human, and at that point they become capable of learning from their experiences. Trying to make an elf learn prior to then actually slows their development, possibly making them take decades longer to reach adulthood. Only the most learned of all elf masters understand this however, and most make their students study before they are ready. But 1 in 60466176 elf wizards can train an apprentice in 10 years, similar to the average human, simply by recognizing the signs of maturity and waiting until the brain is fully developed.

For dwarves, apprentices are literally just too stubborn to learn stuff, like at all, but after 50 years their master finally gets fed up with their incompetence and literally hammers their heads into shape so they get a class (see phrenology for why this works). Master wizards just have more patience than master barbarians, which is why it takes them longer.

Edit: fixed elf wizard age to 10d6, instead of 8d6

It's because that's the way it's always been in D&D, and because when we built Pathifnder, we really wanted to retain as much backward compatibility with the previous edition as possible as we were really timid about the changeover at that time. And now, a lot of the flavor we've built on elves (such as the Forlorn) means that the world has embraced that long-lived element, so it's really something we generally just kind of ignore.

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.


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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Shrug.


M1k31 wrote:


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.

Having higher int gives you more skills..

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The editing of ages was one of the only changes to the ARG I loved.

The ARG did not match any Golarion Canon.

I have been running my 25yr old Tiefling in PFS long before the ARG age change.

I only had one person mention the ARG ages, and I stated those ages were not Golarion canon.

There was a shrug, and that was it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


This change makes sense because I was always terribly confused by the obvious contradiction between Nualia's life story and the Aasimar's ages.

The original age (same as elves, if d20pfsrd is to be believed) is fine outside of Golarion canon in my opinion, but in Golarion canon, it's a contradiction.


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?

Silver Crusade Contributor

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.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why edit the age of Aasimar, Dhampir and Tieflings? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.