View Full Version : Dead Thread
12-27-2009, 07:29 PM
12-27-2009, 08:27 PM
I have absolutely no idea, so: Are these cumulative? Or do the penalties supercede each other? You should clarify this.
A few notes:
1. The kobold's "Middle age" should have +1 Cha, rather than -1
2. "Other" elves get no changes between Old and venerable. was this intended
3. The Jungle Elves are weird. They get no str penalty or cha bonus at middle age, then get a sudden -2 str and additional -1 con for only a +1 cha, then accrue no further penalties (but get bonuses) at venerable. It's just odd.
4. Why that order of bonuses on the Giants I would think Wis, Cha, Wis again, but I'm more along the lines of just wondering how you decided on it.
5. Into more general terms, I'm wondering why the savage races (Giants, gnolls, bugbear, hobgoblin Orc etc) get int increases. I would think that they would only get Wisdom and Charisma.
6. Hobgoblins. Middle Age: Str + Dex penalty. Old age: Str + Con penalty.
7. Hobgoblins are severely penalized with little benefit. Most unequal tradeoff of all the races.
8. Barbaric Humans are odd, in that aging affects 2 stats at middle age, then all three at old and venerable, whish is out of place among the other races.
9. I think you can take out the Str penalty for lizardfolk.
10. Ogres have no change between old and venerable.
12-27-2009, 09:01 PM
If these are cumulative I don't think humans needed more mental abilites when they got old.
What about planetouched?
12-27-2009, 09:03 PM
So humans get -6 to all physical and +6 to all mental scores at venerable? Helloooooo 2 dex 2 str 12 con 24 wis druid!
12-27-2009, 09:12 PM
I was unsure, as it was a complete overhaul, and I was unsure of whether or not you change that. anyway, 4, 7 and 9 still apply.
My basis for the original assumption was the human entry. As noted above, I thought you had just made the penalties smaller, but instead you made it so that the older you are, the more broken it gets. Not an insult or anything, I'm just saying that that was why I thought that.
12-27-2009, 10:26 PM
I think it's a good idea, at its base. I've always thought the original system was unrealistic. So, yes, I suggest a system such as this in your campaign setting.
12-28-2009, 02:18 AM
tbh, the idea that stats should rise simply from getting older strikes me as nonsense, both from a game-balance point (favours casters excessively), and from a realism point (too many examples to cite, plus most great scientists did their most notable work while still in their early adulthood).
I always took those modifiers as averages the GM should use when generating NPCs, to represent that all people get frailer (lower Str/Con/Dex) as they age, and to represent that as they get older, dumber people tend to die faster, as they have less going for them on a law-of-averages basis. Older people aren't actually getting smarter, it's just that the average rises as the dumb ones die earlier. PCs should never get to use those ageing bonuses. Not the penalties either, given that under 3e raw, a character hits level 20 in 9 1/2 weeks.
12-28-2009, 03:05 AM
I disagree with you most drastically.
You have some half-points, but other than that, it's all not good enough.
As for me, I could probably provide a good argument, provided I did a tiny bit of research or took the time to write something out.
But, I'm lazy, and tired, so I shall not.
But I still say your argument is full of flaws and half points.
But anyway-- This post is relatively pointless, as I'm not providing an argument, but merely an opinion that I dislike what you said, and disagree with it.
Perhaps that is an argument, but whatever.
I do thank you however, and all others for posting your opinions. I would enjoy more.
The post is not pointless. As the only arguement against aging effects it stands.
Anyway, I once read on this board that realistically there should be aging penalties.
Anyway, human butler anyone.
Yes, get that ability before you turn middle aged, and then end up with a +6 to all stats!!! Brilliant.
The above was pointed out to people using the butler class and a similiar aging effects table.
12-28-2009, 03:20 AM
I think the point I was making was that the fundamental concept behind the ageing bonuses was flawed, so anything that simply pushes the sliders is no more than rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
And really, if you are going to be so scathing towards the only reasoned criticism so far, you really ought to have a better justification than "But, I'm lazy, and tired, so I shall not."
If you don't want honest criticism ("PEACH"), you shouldn't ask for it.
12-28-2009, 04:40 AM
I don't see anything wrong with it.
I am curious what the reason behind the change is though?
Drow elf max age is 666? I laughed,:smallbiggrin: then cried.:smallfrown:
12-28-2009, 05:15 AM
This sentence alone states that in your opinion that essentially, if not all, most people. Do NOT learn from their mistakes. People are just either smart, or they are dumb, and when the dumb ones die out. The smart people are the only ones left.
Learning from mistakes is represented by gaining experience and levels. Simply sitting at home in your cottage tending to the sheep for 70 years won't make you any smarter if you stay a level one character.
Fighting off wolves and other hazards while protecting those sheep might, however. That's because you levelled up. Interestingly, you also get the opportunity to raise an ability score (such as intelligence) every four levels. You literally learned from experience.
I have no problem with characters learning from experience. But learning from getting old is just weird.
12-28-2009, 05:20 AM
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone got upset about someone else criticizing their work.
Personally, I happen to agree with Ashtagon. 3.5 already has the 'improve with experience' thing built into it with the ability increases every four levels. At the least, the improvements to mental abilities ought to be far less than the penalties to physical capabilities. Total of -6 physical, +2 mental, f'rinstance.
Have you also considered writing the reptiles so they don't improve mentally with age (or even take penalties), but rather improve physically?
12-28-2009, 05:32 AM
A farmer who sits at home tending sheep for 70 years without any significant threats is unlikely to rise beyond a level 1-3 commoner.
A farmer who makes it rich, buys a small library and chats with scholars... he most likely spent money training in a different class (1e actually had rules for converting gold to xp; this is almost akin to university students spending money on a degree course). Even if you don't buy into the convert gold to xp paradigm, there's a ton of good rp-based xp right there, not to mention the xp that he would be justified in receiving for making the massive amounts of money that made buying those books and the scholars' time possible in the first place.
He probably gained a couple of levels of expert and spent those skill points on various Knowledge skills.
But really, this farmer-scholar is an extreme corner-case. It didn't much happen in real world history, or in traditional (pre-D&D) fantasy stories.
12-28-2009, 05:35 AM
I'm going to ignore your atrocious behavior for a moment to bring up one last bit. d20 Modern came up with the idea of having a minimum recommended level for each age category. 1st for an inexperienced adult, all the way up through to 7th for venerable. If you incorporate rules nerfing nonheroic characters, such as not increasing their HP after first level (I'll take the opportunity to shill one of my favorite systems, Vitality Points/Wound Points from Unearthed Arcana), then it provides some internal consistency with the rules. You are, after all, arguing that older people are more experienced - and then turning around and saying that they're smarter/wiser/more charismatic.
12-28-2009, 05:47 AM
I'm arguing that it's a POSSIBILITY, not that it's guaranteed.
As opposed to Astro's first post which basically said it DOESN'T happen, I.E. = Not Realistic.
Ashtagon was saying that, to help balance (as in remove venerable druid and other such cheese) that you ought to look more into incorporating the pre-existing ruleset rather than simply handing out bonuses for age. I was looking for something in the middle.
And the giant text screaming at us? Classy. I'm afraid I have to bow out of this thread.
01-02-2010, 07:00 PM
(1e actually had rules for converting gold to xp; this is almost akin to university students spending money on a degree course).
So does 3.5 (1 XP=5 GP), it's just hidden away in the rules.
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.