"Halflings have life spans comparable to humans" (PH p 45) so they would start out 18-25.
Page 30 of the PH, number 5: "Most adventurers begin as young adults - say, 18 to 25 for humans." Most races list maturity in the Physical Qualities section of their racial write-up. Tieflings do not have any age information listed, and dragonborn age more quickly (reaching adulthood by age 15). Most other races state they reach adulthood roughly in the same amount of time as a human.
"Halflings have life spans comparable to humans" (PH p 45) so they would start out 18-25.
Thank you! I was looking for something more like the chart in the 3E PHBs and missed that.
Or, if you feel the urge to play a character like Zasalamel, you can even be immortal...
The closest to Zasalamel (as I understand him) would be Devas, who are only generally aware of their past selves, but don't retain full knowledge and memories of their past lives. Full immortality in 4e, RAW-wise, is pretty much only the forte of the epic destinies.
I've taken advantage of this twice, actually. The first was a swordmage in a Spelljammer-esque campaign, where I was a member of a Jedi-like order. My magic kept me youthful. The second is in a single adventure campaign I'm in where I'm playing a Warlord who's pushing 70. The Warlord is level 26, a demigod and based loosely on a cross between Solid Snake and William Adama (actually named David Adama, with only one other person in my group recognizing the "Adama" name. At least some people picked up on the "David" part). It's pretty cool to be an old guy who can beat the **** out of anything.
Full immortality in 4e, RAW-wise, is pretty much only the forte of the epic destinies.
To the best of my knowledge, there are NO rules that say a character HAS to die of old age after a set period. Some of the racial writeups give vague generalizations about the average lifespan, but nothing along the lines of 3e's hard-and-fast age categories and maximum lifespan rolls.
So if I want my human scythe-wielding mystic to be over 8,000 years old, I can, and there's nothing in RAW that explicitly says otherwise
So if I want my human scythe-wielding mystic to be over 8,000 years old, I can, and there's nothing in RAW that explicitly says otherwise
Fable?
Also, since 4e doesn't like stat penalties (which is good because penalties are no fun) age is not an issue. Hmm...also I just noticed that since there are no stat modifiers for age, you cant start out as an old geezer with a +3 to Int, or an old fighter with -6 to all your important stats.
Hmm...also I just noticed that since there are no stat modifiers for age, you cant start out as an old geezer with a +3 to Int, or an old fighter with -6 to all your important stats.
Or a venerable dragonwrought kobold dragonfire adept with +3 to Charisma but no corresponding penalty to Constitution because dragonwrought kobolds don't take age penalties but still get age bonii.
And yes, I do currently have this character. And because I have a 20 Charisma, my venerable age category will last for more than 2/3 of my lifespan (200 years and increasing every time I up Cha... I eventually hope to port this character to 4E Realms)
To the best of my knowledge, there are NO rules that say a character HAS to die of old age after a set period. Some of the racial writeups give vague generalizations about the average lifespan, but nothing along the lines of 3e's hard-and-fast age categories and maximum lifespan rolls.
So if I want my human scythe-wielding mystic to be over 8,000 years old, I can, and there's nothing in RAW that explicitly says otherwise
Does any PC die of old age in D&D anyways?
Yeah, 4e has pretty much ditched the Gygaxian urge to have a chart for every little thing. If you have a cool character concept that involves your character starting out at age 42, then just write that down on your character sheet. It has no real mechanical significance in the game.
Which contributes to the video game feel. Things like this and the complete crap of healing urges don't help a person to feel any connection to the character they create. It promotes the MMORG feel of the game. Hi, my name is Jill I am 65 years old yet I am NO different from your 16 year old character? Right.
Which contributes to the video game feel. Things like this and the complete crap of healing urges don't help a person to feel any connection to the character they create. It promotes the MMORG feel of the game. Hi, my name is Jill I am 65 years old yet I am NO different from your 16 year old character? Right.
It's a god damn fantasy game. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel? There are bad ass warriors in their sixties who are just as strong and fast as they were in their youth.
It has nothing to do with video games. Bad ass old guys are a fantasy staple since ancient times. King Arthur was a badass up until his sixties and Lancelot was even better at the same age. Beowulf fought a dragon with only a squire in his twilight. Aragorn, son of Arathorn, was almost 90 during the Lord of the Rings. Conan kicked ass as an old man too. Donald Morgan, Warden of the White Council in the Dresden Files has fought for over 100 years, and not just with magic. Rupert Giles, middle aged librarian from Buffy, and still able to beat the crap out of damn near anyone. Roland of Gilead, aged anywhere from 45 to centuries old, was still blindingly fast.
That's without getting into magic users (Morgan being the exception). Bad ass old guys are a fantasy staple and we should be able to play them without gimping the crap out of us.
That's without getting into magic users (Morgan being the exception). Bad ass old guys are a fantasy staple and we should be able to play them without gimping the crap out of us.
In addition they finally stopped letting Wizard players powergame by being really old and bumping their stats up to levels the non casters couldn't match. That's another wonderful bit about the system.
Not that I would suggest certain people enjoyed aging "penalties" for that reason.
Which contributes to the video game feel. Things like this and the complete crap of healing urges don't help a person to feel any connection to the character they create. It promotes the MMORG feel of the game. Hi, my name is Jill I am 65 years old yet I am NO different from your 16 year old character? Right.
No fantasy series whether TV, Movie, Book or (yes even) Video Game has ever done this.
I guess it must be an MMO.
It's a god damn fantasy game. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel? There are bad ass warriors in their sixties who are just as strong and fast as they were in their youth.
It has nothing to do with video games. Bad ass old guys are a fantasy staple since ancient times. King Arthur was a badass up until his sixties and Lancelot was even better at the same age. Beowulf fought a dragon with only a squire in his twilight. Aragorn, son of Arathorn, was almost 90 during the Lord of the Rings. Conan kicked ass as an old man too. Donald Morgan, Warden of the White Council in the Dresden Files has fought for over 100 years, and not just with magic. Rupert Giles, middle aged librarian from Buffy, and still able to beat the crap out of damn near anyone. Roland of Gilead, aged anywhere from 45 to centuries old, was still blindingly fast.
That's without getting into magic users (Morgan being the exception). Bad ass old guys are a fantasy staple and we should be able to play them without gimping the crap out of us.
Not buying it. I have NO INCENTIVE to play the iconic stuff. Why should I? There is no advantage and no reason to believe what you say about Arthur. You ever wonder why they can keep up? Not likely given you assume they are just as physically strong as a teenager and ignore the actual reason. Why are you so afraid of a character that is quantifibably more WISE and more INTELLIGENT than a teenager at the cost of PHYSICAL prowress?
They only gimp you because of the player behind the concept and your inability to understand how said player thinks behind the numbers. Fighters are the entry level for RPGers's excuse me if I am not happy that they are rewarded for behind such. And even more unhappy you and yours can't deal with a PLAYER (not character class) that prefer more subtle ways of Roleplay without being "gimped", that was the word you used yes? It is practically the reason why I don't play Martial characters, I have to give the DM and the group I am in a chance to play.
Trust me I can play the best Fighter you have ever seen but they BORE me. They are too straightfoward. So why should I be penalized for not liking that style of play?
Not buying it. I have NO INCENTIVE to play the iconic stuff. Why should I? There is no advantage and no reason to believe what you say about Arthur.
See Improbable Age and Badass Grandpa. In fiction, a character's prowess is almost never explicitly a function of his age. Age is just a cosmetic effect in most works.
And of course in 3e, since perception is a function of your wis stat, you get better at seeing and hearing as you get older. You add age effects to stats and it'll just be one more thing to max/min. So....yeah.
See Improbable Age and Badass Grandpa. In fiction, a character's prowess is almost never explicitly a function of his age. Age is just a cosmetic effect in most works.
And of course in 3e, since perception is a function of your wis stat, you get better at seeing and hearing as you get older. You add age effects to stats and it'll just be one more thing to max/min. So....yeah.
Not in any book I have read. And why should I be required to MIN/MAX MYSELF? Please try harder.
Why are you so afraid of a character that is quantifibably more WISE and more INTELLIGENT than a teenager at the cost of PHYSICAL prowress?
Because it's powergaming pure and simple. "Oh hey I can raise my primary stats at the horrible cost of dumping my dump stats! It's like a free 18!"
The idea that Intelligence and Wisdom increase as you age is pretty poor. Some people get wiser past the age of 30, but just as many become set in their ways and refuse to learn. And most of the 'becoming smarter' is actually 'gaining experience' which already is covered in D&D by experience.
In a similar vein people do get weaker as they get older, but at very different rates. Some people are just as healthy at 50 as they were at 20 and the age limit keeps getting higher with each generation. And in a fantasy world where your strength may very well come from innate magic even that's not a certainty.
It's faux realism used to justify real powergaming.
Not in any book I have read. And why should I be required to MIN/MAX MYSELF? Please try harder.
Did you actually look at the site's examples. Scrolls down pass the anime examples and you'll get to the movie, literature and real live ones.
"You" not as "you", but more "you" as in people in general.
Because it's powergaming pure and simple. "Oh hey I can raise my primary stats at the horrible cost of dumping my dump stats! It's like a free 18!"
The idea that Intelligence and Wisdom increase as you age is pretty poor. Some people get wiser past the age of 30, but just as many become set in their ways and refuse to learn. And most of the 'becoming smarter' is actually 'gaining experience' which already is covered in D&D by experience.
In a similar vein people do get weaker as they get older, but at very different rates. Some people are just as healthy at 50 as they were at 20 and the age limit keeps getting higher with each generation. And in a fantasy world where your strength may very well come from innate magic even that's not a certainty.
It's faux realism used to justify real powergaming.
What? I get 2-3 points of INT/WIS and the cost of near double the minus of DEX/CON? Where is that powergaming? Especially in 4.0 given the HP change among other stat changes and what they actually mean in game? Especially given they removed age from the game between the races all to satisfy 12 year old video gamers. Tell me again why Elves and Dragonborn live no longer than humans?
I would say different it is FAUX videogaming taking over Roleplaying. Because you have no idea how to play a character over 20 at least convincingly.
What? I get 2-3 points of INT/WIS and the cost of near double the minus of DEX/CON? Where is that powergaming? Especially in 4.0 given the HP change among other stat changes and what they actually mean in game?
If you're talking about 4e, it's even worse powergaming than 3.5 if you have age bonus/penalties. Con doesn't do much for hp in 4e so a reduction is nothing and if you're not using dex for primary/secondary stat, it's safely dumpable too since you can just use your int for ref.
What? I get 2-3 points of INT/WIS and the cost of near double the minus of DEX/CON? Where is that powergaming? Especially in 4.0 given the HP change among other stat changes and what they actually mean in game?
It's worse in 4th ED because Dex only affects initiative and Con isn't the God stat anymore. Even in 3rd ED though getting a 20 starting Int is worth the really cheap cost of bringing your Con up to 13.
And the boosts are still unrealistic.
Especially given they removed age from the game between the races all to satisfy 12 year old video gamers.
The 12 year old video gamers like having old races because 'it's cool.' It's the people who care about story who start wondering why elves don't rule the world with their massive number of lvl 20+ adventurers who don't die.
Tell me again why Elves and Dragonborn live no longer than humans?
Because the world makes more sense that way.
Edit:
Because you have no idea how to play a character over 20 at least convincingly.
Heh, so either your wrong and the Int and Wis boosts are unnecessary for roleplaying, or I can't play my own age, which means I'm right about the Int and Wis boosts being unrealistic since I don't have them. I'll take that!
What? I get 2-3 points of INT/WIS and the cost of near double the minus of DEX/CON? Where is that powergaming? Especially in 4.0 given the HP change among other stat changes and what they actually mean in game? Especially given they removed age from the game between the races all to satisfy 12 year old video gamers. Tell me again why Elves and Dragonborn live no longer than humans?
I would say different it is FAUX videogaming taking over Roleplaying. Because you have no idea how to play a character over 20 at least convincingly.
I always hated the huge discrepancies in age. I never understood how the elf character who was 100 and the teenage human were on the same level starting out. It also bothered me as a GM it took some of the mystery out of things. If wanted a campaign were the PCs needed to find out about terrible things that happened 500 years ago, they could just go ask an elf, he was probably there. Do you realize how long 1000 years is? That is way to long for something to be alive, unless it is suppose to super powerful or a highlander or something.
Which contributes to the video game feel. Things like this and the complete crap of healing urges don't help a person to feel any connection to the character they create. It promotes the MMORG feel of the game. Hi, my name is Jill I am 65 years old yet I am NO different from your 16 year old character? Right.
His opponents often underestimate him because of his age, realising too late that a man who does for a living what Cohen does and nevertheless survives to such an age must be very good at it indeed.
See Improbable Age and Badass Grandpa. In fiction, a character's prowess is almost never explicitly a function of his age. Age is just a cosmetic effect in most works.
Plus, old veteran wiping the floor with youngsters? Priceless.
His opponents often underestimate him because of his age, realising too late that a man who does for a living what Cohen does and nevertheless survives to such an age must be very good at it indeed.
I should have never forgotten about Pratchett. The Silver Horde are awesome.
Not buying it. I have NO INCENTIVE to play the iconic stuff. Why should I?
I'm not asking you. I'm saying I shouldn't be gimped for wanting to play the badass old guy. I shouldn't be allowed to play Beowulf or Conan or William Adama?
There is no advantage and no reason to believe what you say about Arthur. You ever wonder why they can keep up?
I'm willing to give you Arthur, since it's possible his stamina is related to the enchanted scabbard of Excalibur.
Of course there's also Lancelot who manages to still be the strongest knight when his son is old enough to be a knight himself. Lancelot never gets any magical help, at least help that will increase his stamina. Oh yeah, and Arthur loses that scabbard doesn't he? And he's still badass enough to get run through with a spear and keep fighting Mordred in at least one tale.
In another more modern story, Guinevere, who's old enough to be a grandmother at this point, becomes a knight after Arthur dies.
Not likely given you assume they are just as physically strong as a teenager and ignore the actual reason. Why are you so afraid of a character that is quantifibably more WISE and more INTELLIGENT than a teenager at the cost of PHYSICAL prowress?
What the hell are you talking about? I assume their just as physically strong in their old age as when they're teenagers because it's fantasy fiction. In fantasy, age is just purely aesthetic. I'm not "afraid" of a character either. I just like playing middle aged bad asses. I always have.
They only gimp you because of the player behind the concept and your inability to understand how said player thinks behind the numbers.
What the hell? Do you even read what you type?
Fighters are the entry level for RPGers's excuse me if I am not happy that they are rewarded for behind such.
Okay, I see your argument now. I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy my Fighter because it's the entry level class. This is all an elitism thing, isn't it? You play Wizards and you think you should be better than anyone else
And even more unhappy you and yours can't deal with a PLAYER (not character class) that prefer more subtle ways of Roleplay without being "gimped", that was the word you used yes?
Uh, what? Seriously, I've read this sentence five times now, it doesn't make any ******* sense. Anyway, I don't recall bringing the "subtly" of roleplaying up. I just said I like to play middle aged characters with swords and I'm glad that the rules don't penalize me for my choice
It is practically the reason why I don't play Martial characters, I have to give the DM and the group I am in a chance to play.
A chance to play what?
Trust me I can play the best Fighter you have ever seen but they BORE me. They are too straightfoward. So why should I be penalized for not liking that style of play?
You're not penalized. No one is penalized under this system. I can play my old man who's just as spry as he was when he was a kid and you can play your older character who gained wisdom through the ages. I don't see how you're penalized at all here.
Like others have said, not having to worry about pluses and minuses from your age allows people more freedom to play the character they want to play. This can only be a good thing.
"Older people should be wiser and weaker" is not an acceptable explanation. It is also not in any way a good explanation given that we can put whatever numbers we want in our stats, which means the only thing an age penalty does is cap the max.
Also, what's with the "teenagers are omg super-healthy" crap? That is the "video game" feel.
Your average private or rookie may be 18, but any bad ass noncom will be in his mid-twenties, and the most elite units in any military will be in their early to mid thirties. (Entry into special ops is early to mid twenties, any experienced special forces member in leadership positions will be late twenties to early thirties.)
The age of 16 used as an example makes me laugh, too, especially given the kids (yes, kids) you see in high school. If anything, the greatest physical shape on average would be college-level athletes (early twenties), but the best at any particular physical activity will be older (be it military or sports).
Only in video games (jRPGs in particular) are there 16 year old badasses, and 20 year old "veteran elite soldiers" complaining about being too old and needing to retire. And the 30 year old "old men" who are retired generals, of course.
Your average private or rookie may be 18, but any bad ass noncom will be in his mid-twenties, and the most elite units in any military will be in their early to mid thirties. (Entry into special ops is early to mid twenties, any experienced special forces member in leadership positions will be late twenties to early thirties.)
Daniel Craig's James Bond is 38 in Casino Royale (the character in the current continuity was born in 1968 to match with the actor) and served in the SAS until he was 30, where he went on to serve with MI-6. 11 years later, he's still active, but he didn't become one of the elite 00 agents until his late thirties.
The age of 16 used as an example makes me laugh, too, especially given the kids (yes, kids) you see in high school. If anything, the greatest physical shape on average would be college-level athletes (early twenties), but the best at any particular physical activity will be older (be it military or sports).
16 actually isn't that odd, especially for the Middle Ages. Even now, people can enter armed services at 17 (although these are generally exceptions and is somewhat rare), so 16 for a beginner isn't so bad, but you're right: early to mid 20's is generally when someone reaches their physical peak.
Can't seem to find them listed anywhere. I know the 3 and 3.5 PHBs had a table for determining starting age but that seems to be missing from 4E. Specifically I'm looking for the starting age for a halfling at the moment. Should I just try to dig up my 3.5 PHB and go with that?
Generally, you are free to make the call on how old your character is. I've had a Warforged who was 400 years old at level 1 (sat in a warehouse doing nothing) and a Deva who was about five months old in my groups.
There is a suggested range, but notice that it says that "most" adventurers start at that age range. It's all about who your character is.
I really don't understand what AGirlWizard is saying. It feels like I'm not even reading English.
If your 80 year old fighter not having -3 to strength is a bad thing, then use the age penalties in your game.
You shouldn't come on here telling people that they're afraid of playing ____ things because they don't use something like age penalties when creating old characters.
Age penalties "can" discourage people from playing older characters. I think it's better without them, removes a limitation on playing older characters.
I really don't understand what AGirlWizard is saying. It feels like I'm not even reading English.
If your 80 year old fighter not having -3 to strength is a bad thing, then use the age penalties in your game.
You shouldn't come on here telling people that they're afraid of playing ____ things because they don't use something like age penalties when creating old characters.
When constructing my post last night, it made me wonder if she's a native English speaker. Her grammar is bad and her syntax is even worse. If she's not a native speaker, it might explain why I had some difficulty with her post.
What I really didn't understand was the concept of being afraid to play a character. I like playing middle aged characters and I don't want to be penalized for it. I don't see fear coming into it at all.
1) Athletes generally improve in long term endurance well into their late 30's and even 40's. For example ultra long distance endurance running and bicycling is dominated by people in their 40's. It is therefor a myth that there is a particular age at which people physically peak.
2) While it does get harder to maintain peak physical condition at an advanced age it is certainly possible. I personally know at least one person who is well into his 80's and can almost certainly beat anyone on this forum in a game of tennis, with ease. He is supremely fit. Charles Atlas is a good example too, he was doing massive dead lifts practically up to the time he died and I believe he was well over 80 at that point.
3) There is no real basis at all in reality for giving an intelligence bonus with age. As with physical fitness older people tend to require more effort to maintain high levels of performance but there is no significant known difference in reasoning power between healthy young adults and older people. In fact it is oft observed that most people do their best academic work at a younger age and thus if anything intelligence declines.
4) Wisdom bonuses are equally problematic. It is reasonable to consider some older people have gained wisdom they didn't have when younger, but this is a function of the kinds of experiences they have had, not age. Nor is it universal. Many older people are just as foolish as they were at age 20.
Thus we can find no consistent realistic justification for age related bonuses or penalties.
I can think of NO game reason why older people should be penalized or get bonuses either. All it is going to do is prevent people from playing certain characters at full effectiveness at some ages. Every wizard will be an old fogey and every fighter will be 20. How does that improve the game?
For NPCs, or PCs for that matter if the player so chooses, just make the old guy with a higher WIS and a lower STR or CON if that's what you want. Most wizards already have low STR in 4e anyway, so really what's unrealistic about a 70 yr old 1st level wizard? It is a role playing choice for the player to make. If they want to be a super fit 70 yr old 1st level fighter, that too is a choice they should be allowed to make.
An RPG is not a simulation of reality. It is a game. Have fun with it. This is the best thing there is about 4e, it has unloaded itself of the pointless baggage of trying to adhere to reality at the expense of playability and fun. You can still make things seem as realistic as you want, but reality is no longer seen as some kind of straightjacket the DM has to wear all the time and impose on the players.
Just have fun and stop worrying about it. If you simply MUST do some kind of age restrictions, then just put caps on certain stats based on age. It degrades the game IMHO but you should be free to play how you want.
Which contributes to the video game feel. Things like this and the complete crap of healing urges don't help a person to feel any connection to the character they create.
Speaking as someone currently in their mid-30's, I feel no connection to the 16-18 year old whipper-snappers that previous editions forced you to start as. I'm supremely greatful my stupid teen years are behind me and have zero desire to relive them through a fantasy character.
At this point in my life I find the 30-40ish veteran of a decades long war who's looking to settle down, but keeps getting called back into service (or more accurately because his conscience won't let him sit by and do nothing when innocents are threatened by evil forces) or the rough-and-tumble decade behind his peers because he spent his early years growing up on the streets of Luskan wizard to be far more interesting concepts to explore as a player (the fact that his poor widowed mother keeps nagging him by sending him letters telling him how well some of the much younger wizards are doing is one of the things which spurs him on to make up lost ground by taking on the most perilous adventures in search of lost magical secrets that will help him pull even with other wizards his age).
Forcing me to start out as someone in the tween-years would drive a ton of interest out of the game for me (my next player is going to be a 40-50ish monk who's never been outside of his home monastary in his entire life).
Which contributes to the video game feel. Things like this and the complete crap of healing urges don't help a person to feel any connection to the character they create. It promotes the MMORG feel of the game. Hi, my name is Jill I am 65 years old yet I am NO different from your 16 year old character? Right.
Having played sports, including wrestling, rugby, football(american), baseball, and soccer, I don't see healing surges as a videogame thing.
I've SPENT healing surges in real life, mostly through second wind.