D&D 5E Aging and the 5E PC

[Grazzt]

I like things like that in principle, but in practice it does create some strange balance issues between the races. Your half-orc barbarian probably gets healed a lot, so he'll die young (so to speak), while your elven wizard has an even bigger advantage in expected lifespan than he already did.

Have the thing (magic, monster, whatever) age the victim based on a percentage instead of a flat number. Cause- you're right. Aging a half-orc 2d6 years for example, hurts a lot more than aging an elf the same amount.

 

[Mark CMG]

Have the thing (magic, monster, whatever) age the victim based on a percentage instead of a flat number. Cause- you're right. Aging a half-orc 2d6 years for example, hurts a lot more than aging an elf the same amount.

Yeah, I'm looking at a scaled thing, though still in flat years and I even think it is worth taking a bit of the piss out of non-human species while I'm at it, since in the long run it still won't even the scales. For my purposes, if someone receives magical healing within any 24 hour period that accounts for half or more of their HP, then they get a dose of accelerated aging. While such healing could conceivably happen numerous times during that same period, the aging is only applied one time in that period.


In my own game, under such circumstances, Humans would age one year (they reach maturity in their late teens but have a life expectancy of roughly 70), Halflings would gain two years (they reach maturity in their early thirties but have a life expectancy of roughly 120), Gnomes would gain three years (they reach maturity in their late thirties but have a life expectancy of roughly 150), Dwarves would gain four years (they reach maturity in their late forties but have a life expectancy of roughly 200), and Elves would gain five years (they reach maturity in their late fifties but have a life expectancy of roughly 400).


I like what that attempts to do to the balancing of the player character species choices and to the potential pacing of the game. I considered having Dwarves gain five years and Elves ten, and might still change it, but is that excessive? Would it really make any difference in the long run?

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, I'm looking at a scaled thing, though still in flat years and I even think it is worth taking a bit of the piss out of non-human species while I'm at it, since in the long run it still won't even the scales. For my purposes, if someone receives magical healing within any 24 hour period that accounts for half or more of their HP, then they get a dose of accelerated aging. While such healing could conceivably happen numerous times during that same period, the aging is only applied one time in that period.


In my own game, under such circumstances, Humans would age one year (they reach maturity in their late teens but have a life expectancy of roughly 70), Halflings would gain two years (they reach maturity in their early thirties but have a life expectancy of roughly 120), Gnomes would gain three years (they reach maturity in their late thirties but have a life expectancy of roughly 150), Dwarves would gain four years (they reach maturity in their late forties but have a life expectancy of roughly 200), and Elves would gain five years (they reach maturity in their late fifties but have a life expectancy of roughly 400).


I like what that attempts to do to the balancing of the player character species choices and to the potential pacing of the game. I considered having Dwarves gain five years and Elves ten, and might still change it, but is that excessive? Would it really make any difference in the long run?

I would say your biggest trick is balancing how much combat, and how difficult it is. In many of my games, the entire party would come out of a single encounter at half-health or less, often at least one person would drop(though rarely die permanently).

If every other night your characters are aging 1% of their maximum health, then your party will be old and wizened within a month. If combat is sparse and you only seriously harm the party on rare occasions, then it shouldn't be too problematic.

 

[Mark CMG]

I would say your biggest trick is balancing how much combat, and how difficult it is. In many of my games, the entire party would come out of a single encounter at half-health or less, often at least one person would drop(though rarely die permanently).

If every other night your characters are aging 1% of their maximum health, then your party will be old and wizened within a month. If combat is sparse and you only seriously harm the party on rare occasions, then it shouldn't be too problematic.

I'm talking about my game as in the one I am designing, not as in the specific campaign I am running. I agree that "how much combat" is a campaign issue for the GM but in terms of how the rules work to balance and "potentially" help game pacing, I'm feeling this is a good way to go for a game that is meant to help emulate a genre and not a specific setting.


Not getting stabbed constantly seems like a good plan and being wounded should mean something for a game of this genre. I think nicks and scrapes from travel and some bruises and cuts from brawls are part of the genre and shouldn't be too big a deal. But a couple/few dozen near death experiences in a lifetime seem like more than enough for any adventurer of legend. I think having most characters near death in each and every combat, and several times a day, cheapens the actual impact fo what that experience should mean. Some games try to keep it meaningful by always having the threat looming over the players with relatively few HP even at mid-levels compared to the challenges they face. Other games throw bigger and bigger creatures who do more and more damage at the player characters, in essence given them tons of HP but making the HP relatively meaningless, as if simply having bigger numbers lasts long as more than false excitement. I'm good with a middle ground on both those scores but having the HP become actually precious enough that the players don't want to constantly be losing them and replacing them again and again.


There's also a long term clock mentality that might not feel like a lot of pressure early in the career of an adventurer but as battles are fought and time moves along the conflict between becoming more familiar with a character and becoming more aware that the character cannot last forever grows stronger. This is a genre conceit we get from series of books where we get to know the protagonist over several books but sooner or later they get older or even pass on. It's pathos for the fagility of life that exists in even the strongest of heroes.

 

[Kynn]

Yeah, I'm looking at a scaled thing, though still in flat years and I even think it is worth taking a bit of the piss out of non-human species while I'm at it, since in the long run it still won't even the scales. For my purposes, if someone receives magical healing within any 24 hour period that accounts for half or more of their HP, then they get a dose of accelerated aging. While such healing could conceivably happen numerous times during that same period, the aging is only applied one time in that period.


In my own game, under such circumstances, Humans would age one year (they reach maturity in their late teens but have a life expectancy of roughly 70), Halflings would gain two years (they reach maturity in their early thirties but have a life expectancy of roughly 120), Gnomes would gain three years (they reach maturity in their late thirties but have a life expectancy of roughly 150), Dwarves would gain four years (they reach maturity in their late forties but have a life expectancy of roughly 200), and Elves would gain five years (they reach maturity in their late fifties but have a life expectancy of roughly 400).


I like what that attempts to do to the balancing of the player character species choices and to the potential pacing of the game. I considered having Dwarves gain five years and Elves ten, and might still change it, but is that excessive? Would it really make any difference in the long run?

What would the purpose be of this whole system? I'm not sure what, as a game designer, you're trying to do here.

What makes this more fun to play or to run? What kind of fantasy novels or movies are you emulating? How often would this become important enough to keep tracking? How often do you want your PCs to die of old age?

I don't see where you're going so I don't know how to respond to your proposal. It seems to be a system with zero beneficial effects on the game, and a lot of potentially bad effects.

 

[Mark CMG]

What would the purpose be of this whole system? I'm not sure what, as a game designer, you're trying to do here.

What makes this more fun to play or to run? What kind of fantasy novels or movies are you emulating? How often would this become important enough to keep tracking? How often do you want your PCs to die of old age?

I don't see where you're going so I don't know how to respond to your proposal. It seems to be a system with zero beneficial effects on the game, and a lot of potentially bad effects.

It speaks toward the genre in how it makes life more precious, beyond the moment of a single battle and over the course of time, bringing into play the mortality of player characters over the long haul of an adventuring career. It's makes choosing to be reckless in battle more meaningful with long term consequences rather than simply a matter of managing magical healing resources. How many fantasy novels or series of novels are paced in ways that have characters able to squeeze their entire adventuring careers into a few weeks or a month by virtue of access to magical healing? That sort of battling and healing then battling again day after day while leveling up isn't a construct taken from fantasy literature but from elsewhere. I think this sort of system nicely curtails artificially rapid advancement (relative to the genre) and makes a "lifetime" a tangible resource to be managed in ways that are in many games too easily ignored.

 

[Kynn]

It speaks toward the genre in how it makes life more precious, beyond the moment of a single battle and over the course of time, bringing into play the mortality of player characters over the long haul of an adventuring career. It's makes choosing to be reckless in battle more meaningful with long term consequences rather than simply a matter of managing magical healing resources. How many fantasy novels or series of novels are paced in ways that have characters able to squeeze their entire adventuring careers into a few weeks or a month by virtue of access to magical healing? That sort of battling and healing then battling again day after day while leveling up isn't a construct taken from fantasy literature but from elsewhere. I think this sort of system nicely curtails artificially rapid advancement (relative to the genre) and makes a "lifetime" a tangible resource to be managed in ways that are in many games too easily ignored.

If the problem is magical healing, why not reduce magical healing instead of shortening someone's life by 1% every time they're healed?

Cuz, to be honest, the aging thing seems like it would be a great incentive for someone to only adventure for, at most, a few weeks before retiring. If I know that by being an adventurer for the next two years means I am taking 20 years off my life even if I live, I am not likely to try it.

In most source materials, the reason that adventuring careers are longer and more spaced out has nothing to do with aging or even with the availability of healing magic: it's travel time, from place to place.

I think the rules you are trying to implement are counter to your goals (e.g., by making shorter adventuring careers even more attractive), so you might want to reconsider the rules, and go back to whatever you think the big problem is.

If the big problem is magic healing, then address that instead of trying to force the aging system to do that.

(That said, since we're not talking about 5e now, but for some reason about your own game system instead, this probably isn't the place for this conversation, is it?)

 

[Mark CMG]

If the problem is magical healing, why not reduce magical healing instead of shortening someone's life by 1% every time they're healed?

Cuz, to be honest, the aging thing seems like it would be a great incentive for someone to only adventure for, at most, a few weeks before retiring. If I know that by being an adventurer for the next two years means I am taking 20 years off my life even if I live, I am not likely to try it.

In most source materials, the reason that adventuring careers are longer and more spaced out has nothing to do with aging or even with the availability of healing magic: it's travel time, from place to place.

I think the rules you are trying to implement are counter to your goals (e.g., by making shorter adventuring careers even more attractive), so you might want to reconsider the rules, and go back to whatever you think the big problem is.

If the big problem is magic healing, then address that instead of trying to force the aging system to do that.

(That said, since we're not talking about 5e now, but for some reason about your own game system instead, this probably isn't the place for this conversation, is it?)

Since the game I am releasing will be released under the OGL, and the mechanics OGC, then it certainly is something I hope an OGLed 5E might consider adding to the game. Nevertheless, as an optional rule, it allows for a way of curtailing the overuse of magical healing without removing magical healing from the game. The point is to try and keep the elements that are traditional to the game but find ways to allow individual game masters or groups to dial up or dial down how large a part of those elements play in any single campaign, and to do this in a way that is in keeping with the genre, which seems to be precisely what the 5E designers are saying is how they wish to approach 5E design.

 

[Kynn]

Since the game I am releasing will be released under the OGL, and the mechanics OGC, then it certainly is something I hope an OGLed 5E might consider adding to the game.

Is this thread an ad for your forthcoming game or something?

In any case, I think you need to reconsider your proposed system, as it doesn't seem to actually solve the real problems. Unless you want adventurers dying of old age in their early 20s, for some reason. (What a strange game world that would be.) There are probably better ways to limit magical healing.

 

[Mark CMG]

Is this thread an ad for your forthcoming game or something?

Whether it is a house rule, a bit of OGC already released, or something on the horizon seems irrelevant. That it will be released as OGC just makes it easier for WotC to consider it as something to add in as an optional rule if they choose to go with the OGL for 5E.

In any case, I think you need to reconsider your proposed system, as it doesn't seem to actually solve the real problems. Unless you want adventurers dying of old age in their early 20s, for some reason. (What a strange game world that would be.) There are probably better ways to limit magical healing.

I'd guess that the majority of non-PC (and maybe PC) adventurers die fairly young. It wouldn't be a very challenging game or cleave close to the genre if it wasn't a dangerous world regardless of the particular setting. I like the idea that strong magic, and in this case healing magic that brings adventurers back from the brink of death, comes with a high cost. It's in keeping with the genre and seeks to resolve a problematic side effect of rampant magical healing that seems to get its fair share of complaints, from healing surges to inexpensive potions to wands of healing to resurrection, raise dead, and their ilk.

What would be your own solutions to the magical healing conundrum? How, if at all, would you suggest more readily addressing aging in an RPG if you were trying to more closely emulate the fantasy literature genre in campaign games?