Relative aging for demi-humans?

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I know a lot of people complain about artificial aging in the game because it's "unfair" to humans. Elves and dwarves, they say, are much less affected by aging. True, although I've never seen the issue as a "problem".

However, I ran across something the other night that may help for those who just hate the idea of aging being more detrimental to humans. On pg. 163 of the 1E DMG, it explains the malevolent effects of artifacts and relics, and the effect that ages the user 3-30 years is explained as follows:

Aging 3-30 years is done by race life expectancy:

1) 3 years for half-orcs
2) 4 years for humans
3) 7 years for halflings
4) 12 years for half-elves
5) 20 years for gnomes
6) 25 years for dwarves
7) 30 years for elves

I think that might be a workable solution applied to the aging done by ghosts, etc. Any thoughts on that?

[Mira]

I never knew about that table I had made some estimates of my own using the ratios (and come up with different numbers) and used that for ghosts. It really pissed one of my players off since he was so unconcerned about a ghost because he was playing an elf! I liked it though, it did put that fear back in. The character ended up reaching old age in no time because of that lack of fear, that meta-gaming attitude wasn't present in future games. (it was a one shot game with pre-rolled characters, so they weren't TOO attached to them, but at least they learned a lesson)

Mira (The gene pool could use a little chlorine)

[garhkal]

Resurrection!!

I've often argued FOR 'pro-rated' aging for demi-humans. IF a human ages 1 yr from XYZ, a dwarf/halfling/gnome (all have approx the same ages) should age 3 yrs(since they all have roughly 3x the life expectancy of humans), half elves, 4 yrs. Full elves 6.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I've never been able to determine which method I like best. It is sort of logical that a long lived race like an elf or a dwarf would not be affected as much by aging as a human or half-elf. On the other hand it makes things like ghosts a lot more serious a threat if you use the scaled aging, which makes them more terrifying to the PCs (especially when you have players like 90% of mine, who loathe artificial aging more than level drain, ability score loss, etc).

Imagine a 115 year old elf (average starting age for an elf adventurer) getting hit by a ghost for 40 years of aging, and then adjusting that relative to humans, so he actually ages 300 years! Ouch!

[garhkal]

Hence why to ME< aging attacks, should be pro-rated.. Aging via spells though, such as drinking a potion of speed or getting a haste, i am not sure would qualify.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

Hence why to ME< aging attacks, should be pro-rated.. Aging via spells though, such as drinking a potion of speed or getting a haste, i am not sure would qualify.

Hmm. That is an interesting question. Should the relative aging apply to potions and spells like haste? I never considered that. My first thoughts on that are - yes, it should apply if for no other reason than consistency. Artificial aging is artificial aging, whether done through potion, the touch or sight of a ghost, being subjected to a haste spell, etc. But I can see the argument that there is a universe of difference between aging due to a temporary boost of the metabolism via a haste spell or potion, and the supernatural aging of a powerful undead ghost.

When you think about it, the artificial aging on a haste spell is more a meta-game tool to prevent overuse which could unbalance the game tremendously. I think a haste spell could just as well be managed simply by requiring a system shock roll without the aging effect. It really doesn't make much sense - logically speaking - to age an entire year due to doubling your metabolism for a few minutes. It does make sense to require a system shock due to the strain on the heart and other organs. So I think you could remove the aging effect from the haste spell and only require the system shock, and it would still be just as effective to prevent abuse.

[garhkal]

When you think about it, the artificial aging on a haste spell is more a meta-game tool to prevent overuse which could unbalance the game tremendously. I think a haste spell could just as well be managed simply by requiring a system shock roll without the aging effect. It really doesn't make much sense - logically speaking - to age an entire year due to doubling your metabolism for a few minutes. It does make sense to require a system shock due to the strain on the heart and other organs. So I think you could remove the aging effect from the haste spell and only require the system shock, and it would still be just as effective to prevent abuse.

One of my prior DM's felt the same. REMOVE the year age for haste/potions of speed, but STILL have him doing a system shock...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

One of my prior DM's felt the same. REMOVE the year age for haste/potions of speed, but STILL have him doing a system shock...

I think I'm going to start doing the same. Even my players who absolutely dreaded artificial aging aren't fazed by the 1 year of aging. So it's not only illogical, it's also not much of a deterrent, and sort of redundant and unnecessary because you can use the system shock without the need for the aging effect. The aging effect is sorta superfluous on this particular spell.