[Poll] Character Age/Lifespan

[Mercule]

In theory I use them (voted "yes"), and always have.

The last time they came up, though was in 1989 or so, when one character was brought out of retirement after another campaign had been run and time advanced 20 years. He was a 42ish human ranger.

I've made a couple of changes to elves, though, and I wonder if anyone else has done similarly.

1) I still use the 1E elven lifespan (1750-2000 years, depending on sub-race). I _hope_ I never have to use the aging rules for elves.

2) Elves reach maturity at about 25 years of age. I just don't see viability in a species that stays in diapers for 20+ years, doesn't reach puberty for 75+ years, and isn't fully developed for 100+ years. It'd suck to be an elf (even half-elf) in a human orphanage.

 

[reiella]

Well, myself, I don't think they've come up (which is why I've voted no, I personally don't see myself actively using the rules).

Mental Note: In Future if have similiar question, add third option "Yes, but rarely/never comes up." .

Personally for elves (And other demi-humans) I use the guidelines for starting age (And lifespan, but it never occurs).

Does it generally just get used more often for NPCs? And just wondering how it gets handled when someone's stats drop to zero because of aging? The potential -6 to physical stats and +3 to mental stats can be harsh (of course it does well to represent that the unhardy/unhealthy wouldn't typically make it to venerable).

 

[Silver Griffon]

I use them, but they never come up unless a player wants to start off at an older age and has a justification via a backstory, or when I make an older NPC. A high level druid doesn't need a good Str, Dex, or Con because he'll rarely ever use his own physical stats anyway (wild shape)!

 

[KDLadage]

I voted yes -- plus I borrow a bit from GURPS and I have a set of tables for aging rolls as the character gets older and older. The trable can cause the loss of stats, skills, and even levels.

 

[Ace]

Yes I use them.
No they do not come up. Ever.

Same here

At the pace the PC's keep they are either dead or retired in a few years. D&D kind of reminds me of those Animes where all the lead charcters are 16 and a grizzled burned out veteran warrior is 30, maybe

 

[Olive]

yeah, but i've played in campaigns where there has been significant downtime, which has translated into in campaign time. for example, i went travelling for two months in real life. my sister and another friend kept playing. when i got back two years of in game time had passed... so it works out that some serious aging has gone on.

 

[Roman]

Yes - although it never came up during the campaign I DMed, since the group was completely demihuman, the players later started playing children of the said PCs in a game set 50 years after they retired their original characters and their parents have indeed aged.

 

[seasong]

No. I use my own aging rules, which are more realistic and harsh. Since the PCs are levelling about once every year in-game time (and we take plenty of downtime), I anticipate that the first effects of age will hit sometime around 15th to 20th level.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I use them, but as with everyone else, they rarely come up. I do keep very accurate track of time though, and each character in my campaign must pick a birthdate.

 

[Al]

I do indeed use them, and whilst they have not come up for PCs, they are very useful for determinig NPCs.

You can't honestly tell me that *everyone* is your campaign world is aged between 16 and 34 (or non-human equivalent).