What are the PFS rules for character age?

[Rycaut]

Specifically can you make a character with a starting age other than young?

(and take the appropriate Age penalties and bonuses for your race?)

and/or is the Breadth of Experience feat legal for PFS play? For a Gnome that would put the character into "Middle Age" though Elves and Dwarves could still be young. Only Elves would qualify for this feat via their RAW starting ages (110 years + modifier by class)

I've seen characters in PFS who have been role played as being older (in one fantastic case a grizzled character finally seeking to join to Pathfinders, great role playing by that player - I was the DM in that case)

Anyway I think it might be interesting for some players to explore the option of a character who is older than the relatively young starting ages of characters - however I can also see the arguments against allowing older characters due to the actual age benefits and penalties which might in some cases be exploitable by optimizers?

[deusvult]

You may make your character whatever age.

However, you may not apply any stat block modifiers for non-standard age bracket.

[Dragnmoon]

deusvult wrote:

You may make your character whatever age.

However, you may not apply any stat block modifiers for non-standard age bracket.

Not Quite correct...

The minimum age rule from the Core Rulebook still apply.

Though the rest is correct.

[Deussu]

I have a puzzling thing about this as well.

A local player created a character that has this Racial Heritage thing. A human character with dwarven heritage, thus making him eligible for dwarven feats. So he took Breadth of Experience, and I questioned him about how old his character was. He was a human anyway, and the player replied that since age doesn't matter (in mechanical terms) he decided his character's age was 102 or something.

To me, that doesn't seem right.

[Mergy]

It seems fine to me. Dwarves live much longer than humans, and this human must have some dwarf blood in him that has allowed him to live so long. Perhaps 102 is merely old age for this dwarf-blooded human.

[The Grandfather]

I don't see a real problem with that either. As long as he is portrayed as a venerable human.

[Talonhawke]

I would rather see 102 than the 7 year old fighter some one posted early last month.

[Mergy]

I'm sure that was an interesting roleplay exercise. And by that I mean barf.

[BigNorseWolf]

Mergy wrote:

It seems fine to me. Dwarves live much longer than humans, and this human must have some dwarf blood in him that has allowed him to live so long. Perhaps 102 is merely old age for this dwarf-blooded human.

Dwarf blood= alcohol

Growing up among dwarves= lots of drinking.

Lots of drinking= alcohol in blood

Alcohol in blood= Dwarven blood.

He's well preserved.

[Thod]

I haven't seen the character being played - but it sounds a lot like using the rules.

From the description of Breath of Experience

'Although still young for your kind, you have a lifetime of knowledge and training.'

Do people actually read this as well when making a decision or do they just skip the 'fluff' and all that is important is the bonus they get.

Nobody can tell me with a straight face that a 102 year old human - even with some dwarven blood in his veins - is still young for his kind.

I like creativity and maybe everything is finely written into a backstory. But if the 102 year old otherwise just plays like any other human because 'age doesn't matter' in PFS then I feel less well about it.

Players have to be aware that it is these examples done without any thoughts of fluff to justify it that may lead eventually to clamp down like the Animal Companion or Flurry of Blows.

It isn't the player who innocently starts it and might have some roleplay in mind. It is the internet that allows copies and makes it widespread by players who only want a mechanical advantage that will eventually catch up.

All I can tell the player would be - don't leave the society or complain when it will be 'clarified'. It might never happen - but who knows.

[Deussu]

I usually don't read the fluff descriptions very literally. For example I have a character, a dwarven cleric, who is over 300 years old, and I'm taking Breadth of Experience for him although the description says "young". The feat's effects fits the character to an old, wise dwarven cleric who even took the Knowledge domain!

This fluff alteration applies to everything. In Pirates of the Inner Sea there are many archetypes that are meant for pirates and such, but you could easily alter the Freebooter archetype to, say, a packleader or marshal type. Personally I find ingenious fluff changes refreshing.

[Thod]

Deussu

There is a difference between ingenious fluff change and ignoring any fluff in favour to gain a mechanical advantage.

Without having seen a player at my table I can't tell and it is very dangerous to assume a player is doing the latter as he (righly) can become pretty upset.

All I'm saying is that I stronly dislike the latter and it is the latter that tends to hurt the ingenious fluff change.

Table 7.2 - aging effects - also has a column of maximum age.

For a human this is 70 + 2d20. Even taking 2 times 20 you get to a max. of 40 which is 70 + 28 = 98 years.

So the whole chain goes the following for a 102 year old human

a) He is venerable (>70 years) but in PFS any age related stat changes are ignored
b) He has taken the feat Racial heritage to overcome the maximum age limit of 98 to reach 102

All I can say is - a 102 year old human is 'streching' the rules - even with a feat and he takes advantage of an abnomality in PFS that disregards aging effects.

The danger of this is - if also played in disregard of any roleplay - and it doesn't even have to be the player who started it - it could be a copycat - that a GM might complain - resulting in a PFS rule change or 'clarification' which then has the side effect that your venerable dwarf cleric close to the maximum age suddenly becomes caught by the rule change / clarification meant to outrule excess.

Players pushing the envelope of what is 'possible' using the rules have to be aware of the dangers they might cause for others. Yes - there is a chance the 102 year old human will some day be the downfall for you 300 year old dwarven concept.

Rules in PFS have the awkward sideeffect that they either apply or don't. So if too much misuse happens they get clarified or changed. And yes - this sometimes causes innocent builds caught in the crossfire.

[ShadowcatX]

You can't live your life in fear, even in fear of rules clarifications that screw over a character. And seriously, comparing a human being 102 years old and then ignoring the fluff of a feat when it says "young" to an ape wielding a weapon and wearing armor because he non-magically gained sentience is a bit extreme.

[Calixymenthillian]

Thod wrote:

Table 7.2 - aging effects - also has a column of maximum age.

For a human this is 70 + 2d20. Even taking 2 times 20 you get to a max. of 40 which is 70 + 28 = 98 years.

So the whole chain goes the following for a 102 year old human

a) He is venerable (>70 years) but in PFS any age related stat changes are ignored
b) He has taken the feat Racial heritage to overcome the maximum age limit of 98 to reach 102

All I can say is - a 102 year old human is 'streching' the rules - even with a feat and he takes advantage of an abnomality in PFS that disregards aging effects.

At what point does 40 become 28? 102 is still 8 years below the maximum age of 110, and so isn't stretching the rules at all.

In fact, while I'm aware that the PFS rule is that the minimum age is still enforced, I don't think it's been addressed if the maximum age is taken into account, since all ageing effects are ignored, potentially including death at the maximum age.

[Kerney]

Calixymenthillian wrote:

At what point does 40 become 28? 102 is still 8 years below the maximum age of 110, and so isn't stretching the rules at all.

In fact, while I'm aware that the PFS rule is that the minimum age is still enforced, I don't think it's been addressed if the maximum age is taken into account, since all ageing effects are ignored, potentially including death at the maximum age.

On paper, yes. But this is just one of those cases I would say let paper be damned.

What is more, it is obviously someone trying to 'game' the system. It reminds of a few weeks ago back when I saw someone cast mass inflict wounds in the opening bar of the Ruby Phoenix Tournament while another player is trying to stablize a wounded wrestler and according to the GM, 'killed several dozen local fishermen and barmaids.'

I don't like it when such characters aren't declared evil and kicked out on their ass by the GM and backed by the local venture captain. Simularly, I don't like arguments where 102 year old human is starting adventuring when it's obvious it's a ploy so they can take breath of experience.

It is the same kind of abuse, and it is wrong. The fact that we even need to argue this is the kind of thing is what makes people throw up their hands and want to leave the same way they left LFR or LG.

[LazarX]

Talonhawke wrote:

I would rather see 102 than the 7 year old fighter some one posted early last month.

In Living Greyhawk, 80 year-old human fighters were almost as common as the dirt farms they came from.

[Thod]

Sorry - I cross read the table and interpreted it as 40% on 70. Should know it isn't as complex as that. So yes - 110 is possible but there is also the line that the GM secretly rolls dice.

All I'm saying is - be aware of extreme builds that they might get nerfed if game designers feel offended by the way the rules get used.

[Calixymenthillian]

Thod wrote:

Sorry - I cross read the table and interpreted it as 40% on 70. Should know it isn't as complex as that. So yes - 110 is possible but there is also the line that the GM secretly rolls dice.

Fair enough, I thought you might have seen something I didn't.

Kerney wrote:

What is more, it is obviously someone trying to 'game' the system.

Ah yes, those damn munchkins! Starting human characters at 102 years old just so they can spend 2 feats to get +2 to all knowledge and profession skills!

Personally, I like the idea of the dwarven blood giving him an unusual longevity.

aside regarding the 'evil' character:

Murdering innocent bystanders should of course be considered evil, especially with targeted spells such as mass inflict wounds; at least with fireball they could claim not to have seen them... but my guess in this case is the GM misinterpreting the rules; the player was probably intent on targeting just the enemies which presented themselves, and the GM thought that the spell was an area effect and declared a slew of innocents dead.

[Kyle Baird]

I'd say let him play it and have him roll fort saves once in a while to survive heart attacks. Remind him that you rolled in secret and only you know his maximum age. :-)

[W. Kristoph Nolen]

The problem that I see here is that you are comparing a DWARF blooded character to HUMAN lifespans.

[Michael Brock]

Deussu wrote:

I have a puzzling thing about this as well.

A local player created a character that has this Racial Heritage thing. A human character with dwarven heritage, thus making him eligible for dwarven feats. So he took Breadth of Experience, and I questioned him about how old his character was. He was a human anyway, and the player replied that since age doesn't matter (in mechanical terms) he decided his character's age was 102 or something.

To me, that doesn't seem right.

I don't believe you can take Breadth of Experience unless you are A dwarf, elf or gnome. I will get further clarification tomorrow from the rules team. The way it is written, is that you have to be one of those three races as well as 100+ years old. It has two prerequisites - a specific race and a certain age.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Racial Heritage lets a human meet the requirement of counting as either an elf, dwarf or gnome for feat selection, but it does not give an extended lifespan. It might just be easier to limit the starting age rather than have a bunch of 100 year old humans running around. lol

[Michael Brock]

I've actually considered only allowing medium and old age and disallowing venerable age category. It is one of those changes I'm considering for guide 4.2. What is everyone's thoughts?

[Eric Brittain]

If this is an actual problem that is causing issues in the organized play environment then I would suggest constraining it.

If it is not a problem I would recommend doing nothing.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

There are very, very few corner cases, like the one talked about in this thread, that doing so would invalidate. Besides, the PFS staff has always been nice about letting people make their characters anything other than just the standard starting ages, so enforcing the minimum, as you already have, and setting a maximum, as you are considering, sounds fine to me, as long as you can pick an age and do not have to roll the random starting age dice.

[BigNorseWolf]

Michael Brock wrote:

I've actually considered only allowing medium and old age and disallowing venerable age category. It is one of those changes I'm considering for guide 4.2. What is everyone's thoughts?

It gets everyone that can get Breadth of experience (elves gnomes dwarves) in, which is the only mechanical consequence i can think of.

[Deussu]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

I've actually considered only allowing medium and old age and disallowing venerable age category. It is one of those changes I'm considering for guide 4.2. What is everyone's thoughts?

It gets everyone that can get Breadth of experience (elves gnomes dwarves) in, which is the only mechanical consequence i can think of.

The only mechanical, yes. In the terms of the world – Golarion – I would see enforcing some age rules fitting. The society probably wouldn't recruit underage candidates nor those who have their left leg stuck in a grave.

What I'd do is not list this as a strict rule, but more as a guide how to create your character. Also one line saying that age cannot have mechanical benefit rules-wise would clear out the issue with racial heritage + breadth of experience.

It's not that I find the feat imbalanced or anything, but with the character's concept as a 102-year-old human with dwarven blood. I've heard many stupid characters in my life, but that's too stupid for my standards.

[W. Kristoph Nolen]

I would fully support the idea of an age maximum, as there is a minimum as well.
As it stands, even with the new ruling, I could imagine *that guy*being insistent, and putting the age of a character as the maximum age, and then playing the character for a year or two (or fudging his sheet on a PC he's already played for a year or two) and saying he's 102, or whatever. ... and no one likes *that guy*.
I only mention this because the FAQ says that "a character may not be created that is older than the maximum allowable age for a race."
... and someone is going to try to game the system on that.

All that being said, I cannot imagine in RP that the PFS would want a member that was venerable, unless they were already a powerful, influential character. ... and I think that they'd be an NPC that was *already* a member. Just like there are individuals that only speak a single native language and bonus languages are essentially for PC classes, I believe that while there could be venerable Pathfinders, that age catagory is only appropriate for NPCs.