Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nom 05-19-06, 03:42 AM	PH pg 109 suggests that each age category over adulthood adds +1 to Int, Wis and Cha (and a penalty to the physical scores). I'm not convinced this is actually a sensible model. Certainly, older characters are more experienced, but this is better represented in game by levels and skill points. I don't see any justification for a model that older characters are any more inherently intelligent or charismatic than younger characters. For example, it is often suggested that most "intelligent" people do their best and most novel work in their 20s. As they age, they lose some of that freshness. Certainly, older people can be more skilled than younger, more vibrant people, but again that is experience, not raw talent. Similarly, I see no reason to assert that people become naturally more charismatic as they age. Again, some people become better at dealing with people through practice, but again "raw charisma" is most evident at a younger age. Wisdom is perhaps debatable. However, given that the progression is clearly inappropriate for both Int and Cha it seems sensible to err on the side of caution and assume that apparent improvements in Wis are also due to experience and not some natural improvement due to age. Note also that D&D allows the improvement of raw talent through experience. Characters gain +1 to an ability score every 4 levels. However, if anything age in and of itself should slightly decrease the mental scores rather than boost them.
Araciel 05-19-06, 04:39 AM	it doesn't matter so much to me anyway, the boosts to stats arent so great, and i never use them as most older npcs in my world aren't statted out in the traditional sense. you could argue, for the charisma stat at least, on the other side, not just personal magnetism and ability with people, but general confidence and knowledge of self.... wisdom can go either way, wise in the ways of the world and people in general, yes...wise and perceptive of one's environment, probably not.
Bulletproof_Condom 05-19-06, 04:48 AM	Okay well, if you don't like it, change it. Nobody's stopping you. Note that hearing and vision loss and senility are technically health problems that an adventurer, with access to things that diminish aging, wouldn't necessarily get. For everyone else, you could just impose certain flaws to counteract the small bonuses.
Seeker95 05-19-06, 07:31 AM	Of course the model doesn't "fit". It is a broad rule. If age modifiers actually affect your game, and these don't seem to work, then change them. Any change you might make for your game is immaterial. You shouldn't get any real objections (except from those of us who like to object ;)). In 28 years of playing D&D, I have had age modifiers "take effect" once. It just isn't that big a deal. If you're asking for "realistic" age modifiers, there aren't any. This is a swords & sorcery role playing game where the players (through their PCs) have access to magic, money, power and even the gods. Whatever system you (or anyone else) presents will inherently be too simplistic, with exceptions abounding.
KJW 05-19-06, 08:24 AM	Well if you want realistic, then there should be a wisdom penalty (at least -2) for humans up to 21 when adult thinking finally kicks in. Young kids should get a large plus to charisma (maybe +6), or people have to make a DC 15 Will save or find them cute, parents of the kids are automatically immune to this effect and gain +10 to their sense motive checks against the kids, but they are susceptible to the effect from other kids. Teenagers usually get a minus to charisma from the perspective of the rest of society, and so on, clearly it is probably good we don't have a realistic system. As for the whole most genius takes place in one's early 20s, its true and not true. When your younger you are more flexible, thus you are able to conceptualize things better. You could say that in your 20s you are allowed to take 20 on int checks, then you get more set in your ways, so you can only take 10 on int checks, because you can no longer conceptualize as broadly. Though to be honest, you need to know the basics, at least in science most of the 'great' discoverers were very conservative in their thinking, until they found some problem that threw the previous system in question. If you look at most of these 'great' minds, yeah, they did their groundbreaking ideas young, though there are many exceptions, but most of them did brilliant work as they got older, work they could not have duplicated when they were young. Also if you switch fields you can often duplicate your flexibility, for example Newton wrote far more about alchemy and biblical studies then his 'scientific' work and that was when he was older, but history values that work far less. Also take many great works of fiction like the LOTR, that were not written by young people. Having passed 30, I can say I am not as ravenous for information I was when I was younger, but I am far wiser and quite a bit more intelligent now then I was in college and way farther ahead then I was in high school. As for charisma, as you get older you get more confident and that always helps with charisma. I have no problem with the aging penalties they seem logical enough, are simple (big selling point), and I use them for NPCs all the time, are they accurate, not at all, I know people whose wisdom, intelligence, and charisma drop as they have gotten older, but usually those are the exception.
jasper 05-19-06, 09:40 AM	I with seeker again. In 27 years of gaming the age rules have only came into play 5 times. 4 times with unnatural ageing. (Yea! ghost finally scared at person to death by old age. we firgure 1 month over his death date). And once when a pc aged a year in game. (Note imc all your pcs have your birthday unless you write it down on your sheet. This was book keeping rule since we would forget to age our pcs even if 3+ years passed in campaign).
AkaKageWarrior 05-19-06, 10:07 AM	I'd say people don't get more intelligent or charismatic. some simply have higher diplomacy/sense motive/knowledge ranks when older. wisdom is another thing, but I never understood what wisdom really means anyway... :blush: AKW
Armorlord 05-19-06, 10:20 AM	While we're on the topic of age modifiers, does anyone recall what the ones for being under adult were? I know I've seen it in one of my WotC books but I've been unable to figure out which it was. Personally, in a D&D setting, I tend to think of the age modifier bonuses as a person's accumulated knowledge, life experience, and understanding of people; and its a lot easier to put that in terms of a stat bonus than say "+Blah to Blah and Blah, and +Blah to blah skill, at blah.. etc, etc". This mainly comes into play with NPCs really, that 90 year old 3rd level expert that they have to ask about History: So Obscure the Players Never Thought to Take it, or the ancient seasoned wizard who whoops up on them even is his level is lower. Though I have yet to see a player complain about their old age modifiers (of which there has been one to reach that point). As for any arguement that older people in really life don't acure similar bonuses, I'd tend to disagree. I've met and known many older persons who were sharp as a tack, knew more than me (and I of course know everything!) about something, and were excellent with people. Even the cranky and onery ones could be said to have a cha bonus- they just use it on intimidate checks! :P If you wanted to have your players' characters develop disorders of the mind as they get older I suppose you could have the roll a percentile and/or a save against it, but remember the common conceit of the adventurer: They are above average. So even if you say the average person runs a risk of serious deterioration, one could reason that the above average PCs don't have to worry about thier character's minds turning to mush- something they likely wouldn't enjoy. On the otherhand, Elminster developing a deterioation disorder or two would be hilarious, running around trying to cast 10th level spells against someone he's mistaken the houseplant for.. :rofl:
celtredleg 05-19-06, 10:35 AM	I believe it goes back to the very start of DnD when old wizards and clerics where supposed to be very nasty. The extra stats where just one more way of showing that. While fighters and thiefs got weaker, casters got stronger. It has never been a facter in my games. As others have said, I have never had anyone reach old age. Everybody has either died, or retired years before the changes came into play. Alsdo, in old DnD, different classes had different starting ages, with Magic users being the oldest. That may have also added into the system.
Varia 05-19-06, 10:59 AM	I with seeker again. In 27 years of gaming the age rules have only came into play 5 times. 4 times with unnatural ageing. (Yea! ghost finally scared at person to death by old age. we firgure 1 month over his death date). And once when a pc aged a year in game. (Note imc all your pcs have your birthday unless you write it down on your sheet. This was book keeping rule since we would forget to age our pcs even if 3+ years passed in campaign). Thats all, in 27 years? Wierd. Aging usually comes into play in my games, or nearly, since they usually span 20-30 years of campaign time, which is long enough for most of the humans to start becoming interested in where their longevity potions are. Armorlord- the modifiers for young adult (up to and including age 20 for a human) were +1 con, -1 wis back in the 1.0 days. Dunno what anything since then has said. *Hugs* Varia
OravennasBrother 05-19-06, 11:37 AM	The Aging modifiers are designed to make Older Spellcasters more capable while making older warriors less capable. The mental modifiers are not designed to be realistic in any way.
Bruunwald 05-19-06, 01:50 PM	Somehow I can't help but to think that the OP is, himself, a young guy. Young Guy: 1. You do get wiser and smarter and even more likeable with age. I know. I am wiser, more intelligent, and even I like me more now than I did back in the day. Experience caused this. Experience is to your brain what lifting weights is to your muscles. 2. Most people's bodies do break down before their minds. 3. Talent is inherent. You are born with it, you die with it. Your body may age, you may lose skill from dissuse. You may even become jaded and not care anymore and seem boring. But you never lose the talent you were born with. It's there if you want it again. 4. Some younger people have "fresh" ideas. Some older people have "fresh" ideas. Some people create their best work in their youth. Some create their best work in advanced age. Most people of any age are just recycling the same ideas over and over again (especially young people, who do not have the experience to know that their ideas have already been used). Our culture embraces youth (because our culture is horny for young girls). This should not be confused with the notion that youth knows better or is somehow superior. 5. Little kids are likeable because we are genetically programmed to love big eyes and tiny bodies. Plus, they are figuring things out and that's fun to watch. Teenagers and early twenty-somethings are definitely pretty (when they aren't covered with zits or in some awkward, gangly period), but they are also largely ignorant, arrogant, ageist, self-obsessed and reactionary. What among those things is charismatic? I mean, have you ever watched The Real World? Did you go to high school? Those people are ugly inside. We all were. Cha 18 is not the youth I remember. 6. Extreme old age reduces faculties. Extreme old age, in someone suffering from senility, for instance, yes, will reduce those scores. But are you really telling us that a person peaks in wisdom at the age of 22, then steadily declines over the rest of his life, with his experience only giving the impression that he is becoming wise? Experience informs wisdom (see #1). There is a looooong stretch of your life when your mental faculties are at their peak, and I can tell you with every confidence, it is NOT IN YOUR TWENTIES. 7. Those rules are meant for a medieval world, where life expectancy is shorter, life is harder, there is no MTV, and no pop radio to enforce the misguided and wrongheaded notion that youth makes right. 8. I am slapping money down right now. A thousand bucks says your ideas on this change in ten years.
Tzor 05-19-06, 02:38 PM	Remember, the aging rules come almost unmodified from 1E. In first edition AD&D there were neither skill points nor were there ability adjustments for high levels. In addition, there were more ways to age unnaturally. Even then it never came into play except for the long term campaigns. (It also depended on the DM and how often undead were thrown at the party.) There is an old D&D joke, which I once saw in an Order of the Stick comic, that mentioned how in D&D vision improves as you get older. (Vision is based on wisdom right?) We all know it's a joke and we all can laugh at it, but with one exception it's actually true. Disease is the only cause of poor vision in old people (glaucoma, immaculate degeneration to name two leading causes). People acutally get more far sighted as they age, and a mildly nearsighted person may no longer require glasses when he or she gets older. Without the plethora of unnatural aging in 3E the aging system is not really needed. But since it appears to do no harm, it's kept for old times sake.
Rolof 05-19-06, 05:11 PM	*Chuckle* I was going to post on this thread, but I don't think I can add anything to what Bruunwald said. Kudos. Got a good laugh at this line as well, by Armorlord: "Even the cranky and onery ones could be said to have a cha bonus- they just use it on intimidate checks!"
Araciel 05-19-06, 06:40 PM	all three mental attributes govern two sets of faculties which can help the argument of old vs young either way...
Nom 05-19-06, 07:56 PM	Somehow I can't help but to think that the OP is, himself, a young guy.Define "young guy". And since we're analysing posters, not just content, declare your age as well. FWIW, I certainly don't feel that I'm wiser, more intelligent or more charismatic than when I was 20 or 25. More knowledgeable and experienced, certainly, but that's different.
Verelor 05-19-06, 08:10 PM	That's why I've come up with a house rule that, while certainly it does not totally fix the problem, at least helps. The Wisdom bonus shouldn't apply to Spot and Listen checks. That's just plain common logic. Who in the world gets better eyesight and hearing as they become old men or women? :) Tell me if this is a decent house rule.
a_psh 05-19-06, 08:53 PM	That's why I've come up with a house rule that, while certainly it does not totally fix the problem, at least helps. The Wisdom bonus shouldn't apply to Spot and Listen checks. That's just plain common logic. Who in the world gets better eyesight and hearing as they become old men or women? :) Tell me if this is a decent house rule.No, it is not a decent house rule. Why? It breaks one of the core mechanics in favor of a trivial flavor change, and sets the precedent for all kinds of stuff like "maybe Charisma penalties shouldn't count for Intimidate if your Strength is 16 or higher". You're creating a really annoying exception to a standard mechanic (the skill check) in an attempt to preserve a level of realism that D&D doesn't really support in the first place. A better solution is to just scrap aging modifiers altogether or institute physical penalties without mental bonuses.
Gilean 05-20-06, 07:10 AM	The rules are not supposed to be realistic (nor sword&sorcery). Twisting them to that direction takes a LOT of work for little benefit. The aging rules are, anyway, all but irrelevant. Could as well not be there, for most games.