| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every place I look people claim different conclusions about this, so I would really welcome an official ruling. Effectively, do features like the wizard Immortality Arcane Discovery, the alchemist Eternal Youth Discovery, or the Imperious sorcerer Immortal Legend ability, or the Solar oracle Final Revelation let characters live beyond their racial maximum or not?
The regular monk and druid Timeless Body ability explicitly says with those abilities you still die of old age, you just don't take aging penalties.
The Time oracle Final Revelation explicitly says you don't die from old age, as does the living monolith capstone and the effects of Numerian Fluids, and the Longevity mythic path ability.
At least one published NPC (Jatembe) has the Immortality wizard Arcane Discovery and is thousands of years old.
So for the abilities that do not say either way, which is it? Will a character with those die of old age or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on each individual ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure a dev has stated that Eternal Youth and Immortality (The Grand Discovery and Arcane Discovery, respectively), both stop you from dying of old age, but in general, I think it's probably up to the GM and player to figure out what makes the most sense.
Druids are probably gonna want to return to the earth, but Arcane casters are probably more OK with circumventing the "natural" cycle, and so on.
I don think this is super likely to come up in a situation where RAW really matters. In the kinds of campaigns that could span multiple lifetimes, there's already gonna be some GM fiat. If they're making a really old NPC, the GM can do whatever they want.
SKR did indeed state that was intent for the Wizard and Alchemist ability, back in 2012, when he still worked for Paizo. But _every_ thread where this is mentioned, several people interpret it differently, such that any ability that does not explicitly say you die from old age (whether you still age or not) still means you die of old age. I really would want this resolved so that the baseline expectation is harmonized between GMs, because whether or not this ever comes up in a game, it is my first priority when designing any character, which I will shape the rest of the build around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ability name: RAI is for not dying
Ability text: does not say you die of old age, unlike certain Druid/Monk powers.
Flavor: "Cure for aging" -> RAI for not dying of old age.
Timeless Body: no such flavor, ability name is neutral, and the text says they DO die, unlike other powers that remove aging penalties.
Also that dev comment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paths of the righteous also has the Sphere Singer prc, which has this capstone:
Tapestry Traveler (Ex, Sp): At 10th level, the sphere
singer transcends mortality like a butterfly emerging
from its chrysalis, her essence infused with stardust and
unearthly energies. Her type changes to fey, and she grows
large butterfly wings, gaining a fly speed of 50 feet (good).
In addition, she becomes immune to cold and gains the no
breath universal monster ability.
I was thinking to myself when I read this whether or not "transcends mortality" means that she becomes immortal, and whether this is by virtue of becoming a fey creature, with the implication that the fey are immortal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR did indeed state that was intent for the Wizard and Alchemist ability, back in 2012, when he still worked for Paizo. But _every_ thread where this is mentioned, several people interpret it differently, such that any ability that does not explicitly say you die from old age (whether you still age or not) still means you die of old age. I really would want this resolved so that the baseline expectation is harmonized between GMs, because whether or not this ever comes up in a game, it is my first priority when designing any character, which I will shape the rest of the build around.
Is it really? You build ALL of your characters as immortals?
I would say that the general answer is probably no. But, if you don't do a good enough job of keeping a low profile, you may find your way on some inevitable's list.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paths of the righteous also has the Sphere Singer prc, which has this capstone:
Tapestry Traveler (Ex, Sp): At 10th level, the sphere
singer transcends mortality like a butterfly emerging
from its chrysalis, her essence infused with stardust and
unearthly energies. Her type changes to fey, and she grows
large butterfly wings, gaining a fly speed of 50 feet (good).
In addition, she becomes immune to cold and gains the no
breath universal monster ability.I was thinking to myself when I read this whether or not "transcends mortality" means that she becomes immortal, and whether this is by virtue of becoming a fey creature, with the implication that the fey are immortal.
Fey just get reincarnated a lot, with very little consequence. It's in the new First World book (interesting book btw) and Fey do die in that realm, but it isn't too serious. The problem with that interpretation is that the Sphere Singer is likely to be on any other plane thus susceptible to properly dying. Also, Fey do age, but not in the same way. They are just born again in 1d10 days.
Both books may have been released the same week, but these parts don't clearly align.
It's a GM interpretation job, methinks. It's a real niche case of one particular class, though the Fey template isn't otherwise impossible to get. Remember, Fey are Weird, so make something up. The ability only comes at 15th level at the earliest, so it will never happen in PFS thus doesn't need a hard rule for such an abstract ability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Writer of the sphere singer here; cross-posting from Mr. Seifter's thread.
I didn't expressly mean for it to grant immortality; that was more embellishment and pretty words than any definite intent. However... if fey are indeed immortal, then it presumably should grant that benefit as well. At the very least, I see it changing how aging affects you in flavorful ways - less wrinkles and withering, more fading strength and becoming more ethereally beautiful, until one day you just... pass away. Perhaps even joining the cycle of the First World, if you're on that plane.
Hope this helps. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both books may have been released the same week, but these parts don't clearly align.
Just wanted to touch on this quickly. The books were released simultaneously, but they probably had separate development teams. In fact, simultaneous release can increase the chance of divergence, since one book can't build off the other - I couldn't directly reference The First World while writing for Paths of the Righteous. (In fact, I didn't even know it was coming. It hadn't been announced yet.)
See Path of the Hellknight and Book 5 of Hell's Vengeance for another example of this divergence at work:
It's a GM interpretation job, methinks. It's a real niche case of one particular class, though the Fey template isn't otherwise impossible to get. Remember, Fey are Weird, so make something up. The ability only comes at 15th level at the earliest, so it will never happen in PFS thus doesn't need a hard rule for such an abstract ability.
This is good advice. ^_^
SKR did indeed state that was intent for the Wizard and Alchemist ability, back in 2012, when he still worked for Paizo. But _every_ thread where this is mentioned, several people interpret it differently, such that any ability that does not explicitly say you die from old age (whether you still age or not) still means you die of old age. I really would want this resolved so that the baseline expectation is harmonized between GMs, because whether or not this ever comes up in a game, it is my first priority when designing any character, which I will shape the rest of the build around.Is it really? You build ALL of your characters as immortals?
More or less, yes. Or at the very least ensuring there is nothing standing in the way that I could have removed, e.g. selecting classes because their capstones or later features make it possible, whether or not the game ever gets there. I realize this is not the most common priority among players, however.
SKR did indeed state that was intent for the Wizard and Alchemist ability, back in 2012, when he still worked for Paizo. But _every_ thread where this is mentioned, several people interpret it differently, such that any ability that does not explicitly say you die from old age (whether you still age or not) still means you die of old age. I really would want this resolved so that the baseline expectation is harmonized between GMs, because whether or not this ever comes up in a game, it is my first priority when designing any character, which I will shape the rest of the build around.
I would offer the opposite argument.
Quite a few abilities, e.g. Timeless Body, explicitly state the user still passes at their appointed time.
Given so many abilities explicitly call out continued mortality, those lacking said langue also lack the limitation.
This was confirmed by SKR at a time when developer posts were still considered official.
That depends on if you treat the rules as permissive or restrictive.
The rules say what they say, not what you want them to say.
When the RAW says, "You discover a cure for aging," it means just that. You don't age. Without explicit rules defining a predetermined limit, the character will never die due to age related issues.Timeless Body has such a limit explicitly defined., "and the druid still dies of old age when her time is up."
The wizard discovery, Immortality, does not have this rider attached. The wizard has access to eternal youth with no arbitrary limitation attached.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules say what they say, not what you want them to say.
When the RAW says, "You discover a cure for aging," it means just that. You don't age. Without explicit rules defining a predetermined limit, the character will never die due to age related issues.
That is not what they say. You don't take age penalties. That does not mean you do not die. If the rules don't specifically calls something out, you default to the baseline, which is characters dying at some point.
Refusing to acknowledge poor wording prevents the team from avoiding the same mistake in the future.
That depends on if you treat the rules as permissive or restrictive.The rules say what they say, not what you want them to say.
When the RAW says, "You discover a cure for aging," it means just that. You don't age. Without explicit rules defining a predetermined limit, the character will never die due to age related issues.Timeless Body has such a limit explicitly defined., "and the druid still dies of old age when her time is up."
The wizard discovery, Immortality, does not have this rider attached. The wizard has access to eternal youth with no arbitrary limitation attached.
"You discover a cure for aging", mechanically, means what exactly? Do you not die from old age? Stop taking penalties? Stop gaining bonuses? Revert to an infant (So you never aged at all)? You have to read what the specific ability does to know what a "cure for aging" mechanically does.
Aging has 3 separate effects.
1. AS you get older, you gain boosts to mental ability scores (charisma, wisdom, intelligence).
2. As you get older, you gain penalties to physical ability scores (Strength, dexterity, constitution).
3. After reaching a certain point (depending on race), you die of natural causes.
Mechanically, the only thing the wizards immortality discovery does is remove the penalties from aging. The only penalties that age causes are the penalties to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. That is all. The discovery says nothing else, so changes nothing else about the general rules of aging.
The rules of aging are already explicit. The only way those rules are changed is if there is a specific rule saying it is changed. The monk and druid abilities that say you still die of old age are actually redundant. If that was removed, it would still change nothing as the general rules of aging still apply.
It may have been the intention of the authors that you could not die from old age, but that is not what the ability says. A post on a message board doesn't change rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Time oracle Final Revelation explicitly says you don't die from old age, as does the living monolith capstone"
Those two appear to let you live forever.
So does the Monk of the Four Winds:
Immortality (Su)
At 20th level, a monk of the four winds no longer ages. He remains in his current age category forever. Even if the monk comes to a violent end, he spontaneously reincarnates (as the spell) 24 hours later in a place of his choosing within 20 miles of the place he died. The monk must have visited the place in which he returns back to life at least once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the easiest solution just playing a Gnome within the Golarion setting?
They don't die of old age at all.
Sure, there is this little detail of surviving the Bleaching but that isn't old age. Add to that that Bleachlings don't die of old age (most are already old or venerable when they get there) and Gnomes are solid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shabati are immortal right off the bat. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two types of abilities that change how you age:
1) You gain all the benefits, but not the penalties, for aging, which means you still age and die, but you will look young until your maximum age limit is reached.
2) You stop aging completely, do not gain further bonuses nor take any penalties. This means there is no longer an age limit anymore, thus you won't die due to aging.
#2 is the wizard's arcana and alchemist's discovery, #1 is druid's and monk's timeless body ability.
Between those two, there are variations here and there with different exceptions, but for most of it, it should be one of the two cases.
Notably, the ones that say you do not take penalties, but still gain the bonuses, will either have to add an exception saying you do not die, or will fall under #1. There are a few examples of those, like the oracle's mystery.
Refusing to acknowledge poor wording prevents the team from avoiding the same mistake in the future.
Nah, quite the opposite. This discussion is happening because some people want to interpret it in a favorable light, including the description and title, while others want a stricter reading. If everyone simply used the stricter reading, there would be no discussion, and things would continue unchanged.
Besides, one can acknowledge the poor writing, say "Boy, it would be nice if this were better written for clarity," and then still recommend the more generous reading of "cure for aging" or whatever. One can consider published material, like the thousand-year-old Wizard with the Immortality discovery, while still mentioning that the writing should be clearer so that such obscure sources wouldn't be necessary. If it's a case where a reasonable interpretation would be a stretch by RAW, it's fine to acknowledge that.
In answer to the OP, I'd recommend checking with the GM at the start. There is an answer from a dev on the matter, as well as NPC material that supports your position. Some abilities specify no death from aging, while others specify death from aging, so those that do neither clearly need some sort of interpretation. And in general, it's largely a matter of flavor, so it's unlikely to be a balance issue unless you're just trying to get old age bonuses.
Thanks all for your perspectives. What's ckear to me is that there is no consensus, which again makes me eager for a FAQ clarification.
The rules say what they say, not what you want them to say.
When the RAW says, "You discover a cure for aging," it means just that. You don't age. Without explicit rules defining a predetermined limit, the character will never die due to age related issues.That is not what they say. You don't take age penalties. That does not mean you do not die. If the rules don't specifically calls something out, you default to the baseline, which is characters dying at some point.
Refusing to acknowledge poor wording prevents the team from avoiding the same mistake in the future.
If you do not age, old age will not kill you.
Immortality, first segment of the first sentence, "You discover a cure for old age." I need no additional rules to tell me that something I never incur does not kill me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about the wizard discovery even suggests that you no longer gain bonuses though.
If you do not age, how to do you gain the bonuses?
The druid/monk ability clearly says you gain the bonuses. Immortality doesn't say anything about it.With age, a character's physical ability scores decrease and his mental ability scores increase (see Table: Aging Effects).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imperious Sorcerer says you cease ageing.
Seems like you don't die from old age there either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks all for your perspectives. What's ckear to me is that there is no consensus, which again makes me eager for a FAQ clarification.
Notice any difference in the wording?
A wizard's immortality is just that. The chance to live forever. With appropriate secondary precautions, a wizard becomes effectively unkillable.Correct.
Thanks all for your perspectives. What's ckear to me is that there is no consensus, which again makes me eager for a FAQ clarification.
Notice any difference in the wording?
A wizard's immortality is just that. The chance to live forever. With appropriate secondary precautions, a wizard becomes effectively unkillable.Correct.
There so it has to say you die of old age otherwise Immortal! ;)
how it functions?
Because the text says that "it" no longer functions.
So why should we assume you gain benefits for something that no longer affects your character?Its like trying to obtain HP bonus from a character with no constitution.
The oracle, monk and druid abilities clearly state that you don't take penalties, you still gain the bonuses and you will die when you reach the maximum age.
No, it isn't, because it simply says you no longer age, meaning that it would normally be interpreted that you keep all bonuses and penalties obtained from aging up to the day you obtained the ability.
However, it benefits you further when it says you remove all physical penalties.
If the intent was to keep gaining mental bonuses, it would explain so, like it does for monks, druids and oracles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the easiest solution just playing a Gnome within the Golarion setting?
They don't die of old age at all.
Sure, there is this little detail of surviving the Bleaching but that isn't old age. Add to that that Bleachlings don't die of old age (most are already old or venerable when they get there) and Gnomes are solid.
Hmm, according to Gnomes of Golarion they are not immortal:
Of all the civilized races, only elves live longer than gnomes, giving rise to the popular misconception among other races that gnomes are immortal save for the Bleaching. In truth, gnomes age the same way as the other humanoid races do, only more slowly, growing older and weaker until they finally succumb to disease or failing organs.
Of course, hundreds of years is better than what humans get. You pay with the need to experience new things all the time - few gnomes survive the transition to bleachling:
The Bleaching is almost always fatal—gnomes eventually become so bored that even breathing and circulating blood seem burdens too great to bear.
A gnome trying to avoid the Bleaching ends up pretty much in the same situation as a vampire - which is immortal, but driven and endangered by its needs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Immortality, first segment of the first sentence, "You discover a cure for old age." I need no additional rules to tell me that something I never incur does not kill me.
That is how it is described, but the mechanics of the ability do not support it.
I would rule much the same way as you, but that does not change the fact that the text does not actually say you never die. (It actually doesn't even make you immortal, but that's more semantics than anything.)
Shabati are immortal right off the bat. ;)
They're also not intended as player characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shabati are immortal right off the bat. ;)They're also not intended as player characters.
Bestiary 5 gives them a list of racial traits just like it does for all other races. So yeah, they are as playable as any other non-core rulebook race is.
I would be interested to see some evidence for that assertion. Unless you forgot to add "purely in my opinion" or something. It happens. ^_^Shabati are immortal right off the bat. ;)They're also not intended as player characters.
I don't recall seeing any rules in the bestiary entry for "Shabati as PCs".
It's in their original Mummy's Mask entry too.
They look rather unbalanced... 2 positive attributes, darkvision, a bloat load of outsider immunities, a spell like ability that's pretty potent, and only one significant drawback which may never come into play.
|
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They look rather unbalanced... 2 positive attributes, darkvision, a bloat load of outsider immunities, a spell like ability that's pretty potent, and only one significant drawback which may never come into play.
Unless you forgot to add "purely in my opinion" or something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Pathfinder is not a legal document, but instead uses everyday language. (As said by SKR and others multiple times)Let us look at what the dictionary has for the definition of Immortal:
im·mor·tal.[i(m)ˈmôrdl]
ADJECTIVE
1.living forever; never dying or decaying:
"our mortal bodies are inhabited by immortal souls"
synonyms: undying · deathless · eternal · everlasting · never-ending · endless ·
[more]NOUN
1.an immortal being, especially a god of ancient Greece or Rome.
synonyms: god · goddess · deity · divine being · supreme being · divinity
So I would rule that, unless said otherwise, Immortality stops aging (no more bonuses or reductions) and you no long have to fear dying from old age.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's in their original Mummy's Mask entry too.They look rather unbalanced... 2 positive attributes, darkvision, a bloat load of outsider immunities, a spell like ability that's pretty potent, and only one significant drawback which may never come into play.
Powerful, yes. But, no more than an Android - another flavorful choice for their related Adventure Path.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They look rather unbalanced... 2 positive attributes, darkvision, a bloat load of outsider immunities, a spell like ability that's pretty potent, and only one significant drawback which may never come into play.
Also, it just occurred to me... other than the drawback part (and sometimes the spell-like ability, if it's not traded out), this describes aasimar pretty much to a T. And I'm pretty sure aasimar are a PC race. ^_^