D&D 5E Character Age

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Replacing a number with a description still doesn't get around the problem. If anything, it makes it even worse.

Intro level 1 dwarf Sir Awesome McAwesomesauce
"a suit of the finest armor, stuffed to bursting with muscles and beard, and laden with no less than a dozen things that could kill someone"

All of that still doesn't mean anything as it's not going to be represented fairly as a level 1 no matter how much fluff and dazzle you put into it. You can make your level 1 character sound like God himself but in the end they're barely above a normal guy, simply because "they're new at adventuring..."

Try it out the other way around; Sir Dwarf McAwesome, purveyor of The Sauce, is that epic super-bad mamma-jamma that he is seen to be at level 20 at level 1, a cut above normal dwarves, and a hero for the ages... you just haven't gotten to that part of his story yet.

Level is a game thing, and it doesn't have to be made into more than that - you don't have to match the narrative to the mechanics of the game so tightly as to say that because this dwarf was brawling goblins in the summer of last year and now he is choking a demon with his axe today that it is because he has made leaps and bounds in his training and is not simply the same guy with the same skill set, albeit with a few more months of having done stuff under his belt.

Because really, if you are going to try and strap the narrative awesomeness of a character to their level, you are going to have to create some sort of system by which the passage of time is mandated in order for level to increase so that you don't have the problem of "he's 30-something and level 1" nor the problem of "she's barely 18 and already level 20."

 

[Mercule]

I usually don't worry about it.

I'm in my 40s, now. I can't remember when it happened, but sometime between 1983 and today, 30 years old went from a seasoned veteran who had to have seen too many things to be only level 1 to being a ridiculously young twit who needs to prove to me that they can wipe their own behind competently (in my work life, as well as gaming).

Kidding aside, here's what I've learned, as a real human being who has passed the age I once thought was old, only to discover that I still feel young* and full of new possibilities: Some folks hit their stride early. Some hit it late. Some never hit it. Whatever age you hit it is the start of your adventuring career. Also, hitting it early doesn't mean that you're going to go further (higher level).

The biggest difference between an 18 year old 1st level adventurer and a 35 year old 1st level adventurer is that the 35 year old has better stories and already knows that the stove is hot. Or not; maybe he's just that stupid. Either way, represent it with stats. The 35 year old probably has a higher Wisdom and Charisma. The 18 year old probably has a higher Strength and Constitution. Or not.

* I do 10-15 hours or karate every week; I can move a 250# target about 4-6" with a good punch, fight for 5 minutes without getting winded (way harder than it sounds), and probably drink most kids half my age under the table. But some of that probably comes from a couple levels of Monk that I've picked up in the last five years. Before I started martial arts, I was a good programmer, but would definitely have been 1st level as an adventurer. For those purposes, I had Expertise in Artisan's tools. Yippee!

 

[iserith]

Replacing a number with a description still doesn't get around the problem. If anything, it makes it even worse.

Intro level 1 dwarf Sir Awesome McAwesomesauce
"a suit of the finest armor, stuffed to bursting with muscles and beard, and laden with no less than a dozen things that could kill someone"

All of that still doesn't mean anything as it's not going to be represented fairly as a level 1 no matter how much fluff and dazzle you put into it. You can make your level 1 character sound like God himself but in the end they're barely above a normal guy, simply because "they're new at adventuring..."

Getting around the "problem" is, as I see it, simply a matter of seeing the statistics as being representative of the character's ability to do adventuring things.

I see no reason why someone couldn't say his or her 1st-level character's appearance is as you describe it and have it make sense. Sir Awesome has all of those traits, but when it comes to being successful at adventuring, the unarmored, waify 3rd-level elf with only a longsword at her side might be a little better.

 

[Istbor]

It has been said, and I concur. Years of experience does not have to equate to experience towards levels.

Soldering while dangerous and will involve a higher potential for armed conflict, does not automatically lead to it. Perhaps the lack of the armed conflict is exactly why the character is starting his career as an adventurer. What's more, most soldiers are trained to fight in a unit, normally following a formation (at least in more earlier periods of time). Conflict in adventuring does not behave the same way as two armies facing off. It is also filled with fighting less mundane enemies, more of the fantastical or mythical beasts that most people stay away from. If this was simply a job for the army, why would the adventurers even come into the picture?

I think it definitely takes some getting used to, thinking in these terms. A green adventurer does not mean a fresh faced lad or lass necessarily.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Who says being low level means you're an "inexperienced scrub"? Being high level just means you're a spectacular badass. You can easily reach the venerable age of 30 without being a spectacular badass. Yes, even if you're a soldier. A 1st-level character has had a pretty mundane life and career so far -- their adventure is just beginning. But nothing says it can't have been a long mundane life and career.

 

[discosoc]

I think your problem isn't with starting age, but with the nature of hit points.

I have the exact opposite issue, though: too many first-level characters are 17-year-olds (or the racial equivalent). Admittedly, 5e has done more to discourage this than previous editions (with Backgrounds) but it's still too common for my tastes. I want diversity of backstories, with middle-aged heroes alongside whippersnappers, actually reflecting the diversity of the society that produces them.

Agreed, especially about the HP thing. A lot of people assume higher HP somehow means you are able to physically withstand more stabbings or something, and that's where it can be weird to conceive of a 20 year old with 180 HP. Instead, I always recommend looking at HP as something like experience used to stay alive that you've collected over the years (or months or however long). So if you are "hit" by some guy with a battle ax for 33 damage, it doesn't mean you suddenly have a cleave in your chest; rather you managed to turn an otherwise fatal strike into a graze or something. It's not until you start getting really low in HP (probably around the 1-10 range that actual damage should be assumed.

As for age and stats, I generally divorce the two concepts entirely. I know some older editions had modifiers for age categories but it just seemed pointless to me unless you were trying to game the stats a bit to get a higher INT or WIS. Even at level 1, be as young or old as you want, and whatever your stats and hp are will simply be a reflection of your character at that moment in time.

I even had one group years ago that sort of played the same characters over different campaigns. So we'd go from 1-20 and wrap up a story, then if someone wanted to play that character again in the next campaign they'd still start over at 1. We usually just assumed it was something like having to relearn old skills after years of retirement or something, without really getting focused on the whole "how did he lose 150 HP?" type issues. It was still fun because the character wasn't mind-wiped or anything, and they still had knowledge and connections and stuff.

 

[kirkdent]

You can also look at starting as an "experienced" 1st level character as being WAY out of practice with your talents. For example, you can act as though you were once a 5th level Battle Master Fighter, and you've had that 18 STR, 43 HP, 100 GP and +4 Intimidate rank before, but have gotten soft in the last few years. Now you're a 16 STR, 12 HP 1st fighter who's burned through all his years of adventuring money and is too doughy to be so frightening, now only a +3 Intimidate with your proficiency. Advancement through the first few levels goes pretty quickly anyway, so it only takes a few encounters to get "back up to speed," as it were.

If you think of HP as discosoc mentioned above, it's essentially just another skill (not "Skill" proper) that you improve as you gain experience, not the result of any actual improved physical resilience. As such, it is explainable as part of your backstory to "lose" HP or any other numerical ranking (proficiency bonus, ability improvements, class features) from a higher level.

That said, it kinda works best if you don't make your backstory self a 15th level juggernaut, but keep it down to single digit levels. After that, the fluff of how you fell from your great stature is all up to your imagination. Are you a fallen cleric, who must prove herself again to her god? Were you imprisoned for arcane spellcraft, and now after years of solitude must resharpen your mind and begin your spellbook anew? Your rogue won't maintain those quick (3rd level) lockpicking skills without practice, but how's he supposed to do that when every waking hour for months on end has been spent caring for his dying mother?

 

[Minigiant]

My issue with Age is not HP and level but with proficiency.

You can be a 200 year old elf and a 20 year old half-orc at level 1 fighter and they have the same amount of proficiency (unless the elf is high then in a whole one more).

There's only so much of the whole "elves under age 100 are treated as children" that can stretch here.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My issue with Age is not HP and level but with proficiency.

You can be a 200 year old elf and a 20 year old half-orc at level 1 fighter and they have the same amount of proficiency (unless the elf is high then in a whole one more).

There's only so much of the whole "elves under age 100 are treated as children" that can stretch here.

That sounds like a failure to utilize the (I admit, expensive to the point of being a bit goofy) downtime training system - that 200 year old elf can certainly find far more time, since they have so much of it, to learn a few more languages, to play the guitar, and paint than said 20 year old half-orc that has a short enough life to seem, in comparison, scheduled down to the minute from birth to death.

As for the treating of elves under age 100 as children... I tend to like taking an approach I find a bit more believable: All the races progress through physical stages of life at basically the same rate so that by age 20, regardless of race, you are physically adult and mentally pretty close too - but the longer lived races are also proportionately more inclined to allow for the "young adults" to stay around home and not really get out there and "live properly."

Like how a couple decades ago living with your parents at age 30 meant that something had gone seriously wrong with the "plan", but more and more these days you see adults living with their parents and it is considered normal (or at least more so than it used to be) for various reasons - humans and shorter lived races equate to those parents that rushed their kids out of the house at age 18 (or earlier) so they could get jobs and pay their own bills, and elves and other long-lived races equate to those parents who don't care when their kids finally leave home "there's no rush, dear, you can do that whenever you are ready." and, just like real young adults being told they don't have to go be an adult for real, the young adult elves milk that chance to not be responsible for a century, give or take.

 

[Sunseeker]

My issue with Age is not HP and level but with proficiency.

You can be a 200 year old elf and a 20 year old half-orc at level 1 fighter and they have the same amount of proficiency (unless the elf is high then in a whole one more).

There's only so much of the whole "elves under age 100 are treated as children" that can stretch here.

I don't recall what edition it was, but one of them stated something along the lines that elves are perfectionists, so they spend more time fussing over details and sweating the small stuff, but when they finally reach that +1 proficiency it's the best darn +1 proficiency anyone has ever seen! Still, it seems like a stretch.

I think someone said it earlier and I can't remember who but I liked their depiction of becoming an adventurer being something like a mid-life crisis.