Should potions of longevity be put back in the game?

[Terath Ninir]

Interesting thoughts. And, yes, the elixir of youth was much better -- you just had to find more of them to keep yourself young.

Frankly, I don't see how any kingdom in a D&D world would *not* be run by a semi-immortal, ungodly powerful being, with potions of longevity or without. If you get powerful enough, you'll find a way not to pass on -- even if it's through undeath or bribing an evil druid to bring you back.

 

[Dr. Harry]

...


As for Potions of Longevity, I think they should be back, but only as a Minor Artifact. It's one of those magic items that is part of the D&D legacy, and a staple of fantasy, that belongs in D&D.

If you make them producable at will however, then you have to account for that in the campaign world. Wealthy high-level heroes (and villains) will be very long lived without need for strange templates. Kings and Emperors will live for centuries (or until assassinated) and reigns can last for centuries, instead of years or decades.

Heirs who really want to get to the throne before they die of old age, secret societies out to avenge those who cheat death (didn't Planescape have one of these?) ...

Personally, what I liked out the potion of longevity was the risky drawback. I'd always make sure to have some risk of ultimate reversal risk, or have the effect produce an additional vulnerability to the user, or something to account for the societal risks you mention.

 

[rgard]

One of the stranger changes in 3e is that they cut out all magic that can extend a character's lifespan. Even things that have no conceivable reason to stop working -- like Timeless Body -- still click off when you hit the end of your lifespan.

This is strange for a number of reasons. I've never heard any of the designers comment on it -- and, while I can't read everything, I *have* looked for any commentary on this. It seems odd that one can be chopped up, digested, and then have the remains disintegrated, and be brought back without a scratch -- but magic can't do anything about the fact that you have grown "too old".

The biggest odd thing about it, though, is that I've never played in a campaign that had more than 20 years of game time pass -- and it's usually far less than that. Magic that staves off old age would theoretically be nice -- you can imagine your character living on for centuries -- but, practically speaking, it has little to no game power. A spell or item that reduced your age by 10 years -- like the old potion of longevity -- doesn't really have the game value of a raise dead spell.

You can come up with ways that a potion of longevity would be a useful plot device, such as putting in a needed but very old NPC, but you can do that with anything. If you really look at how the game is played, and how long a campaign is really going to last, it's hard to see why anti-aging magic should be banned. Following my logic with raise dead from above, an anti-agin spell should be *at most* a 5th level spell. It might be the ultimate dream here in the real world but, in D&D game worlds, it's more interesting than it is important.

So I say, bring on the potions of longevity! What say y'all?

Probably not going to play 4e so I decided not to vote.

 

[was]

sure, it would open all sorts of interesting options for potion quirks

 

[Kaodi]

D&D has never been completely internally consistent, so why throw away a perfectly good plot hook like longevity, which most people agree has little effect on the actual game? If you want it to be rare, the logical source already exists: The Philosopher's Stone. Just create an alternate formula for youth instead of true resurrection.

In any case, the aging system in D&D needs help, badly. Maybe it should look something more like -3 strength, -3 dexterity, -6 constitution, +0 intelligence, +2 wisdom, +1 charisma.

Adult -normal-
Middle Aged -1 str, -1 dex, -1 con, +1 wisdom
Old -1 str, -1 dex, -2 con, +1 wisdom
Venerable -1 str, -1 dex, -3 con, +1 charisma

 

[The Human Target]

From a pc perspective, it doesn't matter. From a world perspective it matters a lot.

If high level character can become effectively immortal they will. That means the world will start filling up with these immortal high level characters. I mean, what's to stop them otherwise?

NPCs don't gain levels like PCs.

They could be a thousand somehow, and only be 6th level.

Thats how.

 

[The Human Target]

Oh, and I'd like some form of life extending (but not tranformative) means to exist. Doesn't have to be a spell or potion per se.

Its just such a common thing in fantasy.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

As Cyberzombie noted, I too haven't ever seen any designer commentary or anything explaining the rationale behind their removal. It is baffling to me.

For my own part, I can see why- given the removal of aging effects, etc.- they were removed. With the addition of ability drain/damage, the aging effects were seemingly not needed (and possibly overpowered, as they would affect 3 ability scores in one shot!). Additionally, there is (and always was, IMO) the problem of ability score affects- if I'm aged to Old Age, I take the Physical Stat damage (Str, Con, Dex), but do I get the Mental Stat bonuses? Seemingly not, as they are supposed to be (I think) the accrual of experience, but it is sort of complicated when you add in Potions of Longevity, which will remove the damage to the physical stats (or will it?), but would it likewise affect the mental ones?

The biggest problem with the removal, IMO, is not the items themselves, but the aging system. Frankly, as others have commented, the aging effects rarely if ever come into play during the course of a campaign- really, who has PCs that play for 40+ years? And, if they do, they are unfairly biased against humans (and similar low-age races). That's not terribly game-balancing (and 3E has made major strides to try and balance choices as much as possible).

There's the additional factor of NPCs in existing products not really following the aging rules themselves, despite the seeming fiat against PCs having to do so. How many NPCs look like their statistics really reflect their age? Do they all get some kind of exposure to wishes and other permanent stat boosters to offset the aging penalties?

As for the problem of uber-high level characters never dying if potions are allowed, I don't really see this as a problem myself- has the removal of them from 3E really affected the landscape of high-level/ancient NPCs in the published campaign settings at all? They seem pretty much the same to me.

I'm all for revamping the aging system, or just booting it wholesale. It doesn't really seem to be a factor to me.

 

[hawkwing2k5]

NO with definition

I said no because then the spells all need to be reworked as well in the older versions of D&D many of the high level spells had aging effects on them as well. If you balance the longevity potions with this balance then bring them back but if you only want the longevity potion then make a house rule... I think either 1st ed or 2nd also had requirements for the components of the spell....find some 2nd ed forgotten realms books I think Blackstaff and his wife used them untill they were changed.

Elm aside from a staple toon I think they fudge his age cause at one point he was a shard of the god mysteria....thats a stab in the dark though its been over 10 years since I played 2nd ed so dont bother flaming me if Im wrong cause I did it first

 

[Psion]

D&D has never been completely internally consistent, so why throw away a perfectly good plot hook like longevity, which most people agree has little effect on the actual game? If you want it to be rare, the logical source already exists: The Philosopher's Stone. Just create an alternate formula for youth instead of true resurrection.

FWIW, Bastion's/Dragonwing's Alchemy & Herbalism had a take on an expensive "elixir of life" that would work to maintain youth, but was expensive and random.

The old Arcanum book (D&D spinoff by bards game) also had an elixir of life, but relied on exotic components (a phoenix feather, as I recall). O think back in the days of exotic components, people made fewer assumptions about availability.

Finally, I pulled a Palladium book called Mystic China into my game which had an array of "false" and true paths to immortality, most of which had some really cool plot potential. This is the sort of thing that gets trampled on by a comparatively high availability magic item. (Of course, it wasn't all that high available in 2e, but in 3e, there seems to be an assumption that anyone with right feat could and would make anything for anyone who asks.) So I think to keep it appropriately rare, you should make it some sort of minor artifact.