Why no life extending magic???

I think the main reason aging and immortality magic was left out was that it was not something they wanted the PC's to easily accomplish, even if they gain high levels. Actual life extension (as opposed to cheap substitutes like lichdom and reincarnation) is clearly an "epic level" ability, so I expect the Epic Handbook to have more details about such things.

Or they wanted to make sure DM's thought about the matter enough to invent their own rules rather than mindlessly accepting whatever the book says on the matter. In my campaign, I'm thinking of removing the negative level system and substituting 1 year of aging per level lost, with an immediate Fortitude save to resist the effect. That also avoids all that "Resistance spell at midnight" nonesense! I'm not sure how to judge Enervation and Energy Drain spells... my current thought is that Energy Drain ages and Enervation just grants temporary combat penalties.

In my campaign, the mechanism for youth magic is use of Wish spells. For unnatural aging, one Wish can remove it all (and a Limited Wish can remove 1 year). For natural aging, a Wish can halt aging for 1 year, or 2 Wishes cast successively can "turn back the clock" 1 year (Limited Wishes cannot act on natural aging). Then at least the mage has to trade in some XP to keep his life going... some evil guys would rather avoid all that nonesense and become a lich.

Then again, maybe those who use Wishes to extend their life become liches anyway, and just LOOK normal! I haven't decided if that's true yet, but it would be an interesting story element!
 

log in or register to remove this ad




At the risk of giving away my alternate ID from the other boards, I'm responsible for the Pass the Years spell in Relics & Rituals. I had sent a few others along for the first open call, but I'll admit the mechanics for handling reversing age beyond a age category was too clunky.

But I digress.

I guess WotC took out the aging effects because very few characters every actually face getting too old. It just takes out an unnecessary bookkeeping aspect and page count.
 



Squire James said:
Or they wanted to make sure DM's thought about the matter enough to invent their own rules rather than mindlessly accepting whatever the book says on the matter. In my campaign, I'm thinking of removing the negative level system and substituting 1 year of aging per level lost, with an immediate Fortitude save to resist the effect.

This gives a _huge_ advantage to elves and other long-lived races, and conversely puts half-orcs and humans behind. 1 year is nothing if you live 1000 years, but a lot if you live 50 or 100 years. This is undoubtedly why aging was removed as a damage type in 3E.
 

Wolfspider said:
I assume there will be some information about this in the Epic Level Handbook. After all, it doesn't take that long in character years for someone to go from 1st to 20th level. Epic Level Characters, however, tend to be much older, I think....
I'd assume your going to be right. :)

Darkness said:
Relics & Rituals 2, yeah, don't feel bad, I think people should only shorten WotC book names.
Even if lots of people have the book, there are to many 3rd party d20 products to keep track of.
 


Remove ads

Top