Wishing for Immortality (Unaging actually)?

[gerroditus]

My last 3e campaign everyone was multiclass and everyone was at least a combined 65 levels between two or more classes - not usual for you certainly, but at least 40 years game time occurred over the course of 4 years of play. Those of us who could cast Wish, could so quite a while ago. The Aging Effects had affected all the characters in the party, except the Deva, but then he was a Deva - my character was undead, so he could careless about aging, but most of the others were human.

Is it an issue from everyone, certainly not, but its an issue for some.

GP

Respectfully, D&D was never set up for that level of game play. It works best, by design, without DM rewriting the rules right left and sideways, at 7th-13th levels and better at lower levels than a higher ones outside of that range, again by the conscious design of the people who made it.

Even so, with THAT many levels and that level of powers how could aging mean much of anything?


Isshia

 

[gamerprinter]

Granted we never played Epic levels until that last long campaign, but I've never stopped a PC until at least 18th level in 30 years of gaming and at no time was there a need to rewrite rules, the rules are there in the books, no rewriting necessary, and that's with 1e, AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5 and now Pathfinder RPG. Where are these rules that need rewritten?

No conscious designer, said, "hey, you're doing it wrong, you're supposed to stop at 13th" - that's not written anywhere in the books, I've never got a notification from the publisher to imply such a thing. I know on lots of forums this kind of thinking is believed by lots of people - but I've never had such a belief or felt that the games were so broken as to not be able to handle that.

Every edition has PC generation tables going to 20th level, is that a mistake, should they have only gotten to 13th and stopped?

You play what you think is normal and leave us guys who actually go by the book (and not rewriting the book) to play whatever the game allows. It allows at least 20th level, and though only available in the 3.0 version, there is an Epic Handbook - no matter how broken you think it is.

Personally once my character is at 20th, I don't really want to keep going, but I am one in a party of six players, so if they want to keep going, I keep going. One of our players is a Psionicist/Monk 43rd/42nd (that's 85 levels) though not my preference, it is for our group.

I'm glad you have an inside on what the designer's really intended, because I've never seen such nonsense in any of the books, nor heard a designer make this official claim on any forum/website. I think someone has been telling you "stories."

GP

PS: except for the fact that we use D20's for initiative, we don't even have "house rules", we go by the book on everything.

PPS: how age affects all these high levels, you ask. All these levels take time to acquire, and if you're nolonger taking age effects, especially for martial classes you are breaking the game. Age effects come into play in our high level game - how would it not?

 

[Sigurd]

I'll happily listen to people talk from their experiences and trust they know what they're talking about.


I think its obvious that with a few exceptions for most of us the storyline stops long before the aging becomes onerous. No one ever talks of the short lifespan of the half orc as a detriment to game play. Many of my games are intense storylines pushed into very short spans of time.

I have wanted immortal characters entirely for flavour. Joe's rich and powerful but I shall drink coffee and tell stories at his funeral etc etc.... I've never had the nerve to really use immortality.

"We leave the castle and return in 40 years, what has happened?"

There are ways of exploiting the ability but most players don't want to give up the web of setting and the issues they are struggling with right now.


I disagree categorically that wish can't do it. Wishing for immortality is too big a storyline. I think you're smarter to wish to become an immortal form you are familiar with that might please you but a benevolent wish can make you ageless in my world. A treacherous wish might make you regret it - perhaps letting you rot in a body that won't die.

I don't think it is significant what else is done by other people to combat aging. Other solutions don't work as well but there are probably many solutions you have never heard about. Furthermore, this is one person's story - if they wanted to bottle and sell the stuff I'd have a different answer. DM's can do a disservice of enforcing the universal average on exceptional players.

I really don't think this has to affect the game at all. It certainly hasn't affected the games I've been in.

Sigurd

 

[jefgorbach]

Would it be beyond the scope of Wish to gain unaging? I don't mean like full immortality hard to kill etc, just stop aging.

I'd allow it. It seems reasonable for a Wish spell to bestow a single feat regardless of whether you have the necessary prereq(s). In this instance, you'd gain the psychic Immortality feat - locking you physically at the mid-point of your species's Adult age-bracket, incurring no further age-related changes (pro or con) to your stats. (note: the sentence regarding immunity to poisons and diseases was removed IMC making this feat purely an anti-aging feat.).

Idea #2: I dont have Dragon Magazine #243 at-hand but if memory serves the crossbreeding mage described therein had a spell for transferring traits/abilities between two creatures - so "simply" capture a suitable unaging creature and transfer its unaging trait.

Idea #3: Research a short-term spell duplicating the unaging ability/trait of some undying creature in-game then permanently endow yourself with THAT spell.



Immortality [Psychic]
Prerequisite: Purge Metabolism , Vitality
Benefit: You are immune to poisons and diseases. Furthermore, your power continually purges your body of the harmful physical effects of age. You do not physically age beyond the midpoint of the "adult" age category for your race (Halfway between reaching adulthood and the onset of middle age: for humans, this corresponds to an age of 25 years). If subjected to unnatural aging (And if you survive it), or if you're older when you gain this power, you will return to your natural age (or the midpoint of "adult", whichever is lower) at the rate of one year of age for each day that passes.
-- http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Immortality_(3.5e_Feat)

 

[jefgorbach]

Correction: It was Dragon #237.
Teratism1 is a 3rd level spell allowing for interesting minor skin/color/sound effects, and Teratism2 (5th level) for adding/altering limbs, imbuing upto 2nd level spells, etc however I would think to render the subject Unaging would require Teratism3 since locking the subject to a specific age-bracket would be similar to the complex biological alterations needed to add a head or imbue a 4th level spell effect.

Teratism III
(Alteration)
Level: 7
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: Permanent
Casting Time: 1 round
Area of Effect: 1 animal
Saving Throw: None
This is the most powerful version of the teratism spell to date. The traits listed below are only some of the possible transformations that can be induced in an animal. The DM has the final say in what other traits can be bestowed.

* An additional head can be created. This would allow for an additional bite attack, perhaps increased senses that would make surprising the creature near impossible, and so forth.

* Greater special abilities can be imbued. The merlane can grant the teratism a special trait equal to any spell of 4th level or below. Again the merlane must cast the spell within one round of the teratism casting. Thus he can have lizard’s eyes burn with such brilliance equal to that of a fire charm spell, so that hapless victims will approach and be enthralled by the blaze until within reach of the creature’s jaws.

* Speech can be given to an animal, but it will only be as capable of language as its intelligence allows. The usual means of granting greater intelligence is usually through enhance trait, though some have used teratism; the results of the latter are not always to be trusted, as insanity has occurred occasionally.

* Unnatural hide can be given to the beast. The skin can be radically changed to such materials as stone or metal. Some merlanes have even hinted that they have created dangerous raptors with feathers of silk but claws of glass. Such reports have yet to be substantiated. The teratism can benefit by an increase of up to 6 levels to its AC.


Or if you feel this is still insufficient to render the subject Unaging, extend the progression further with a 9th level variant capable of upto 6th level effects or even an 11th level variant for 8th level effects.

Although the article and its associated spells were geared towards modifying base animals into magical breeds (as explanation for their existence, the same reasoning could be applied towards humanoids/etc)

 

[gerroditus]

*snip* I'm glad you have an inside on what the designer's really intended, because I've never seen such nonsense in any of the books, nor heard a designer make this official claim on any forum/website.

Skip Williams used to talk about it on the WotC Boards, Monte Cook has talked about it on his site. You know the two primary designers (along with Jonathan Tweet) who wrote the 3.5DMG & the 3.5 PHB? I've never seen Mr Tweet say anything about it one way or the other, but Williams and Cook? Often.

Look, design and possibility are two very different things. A car isn't designed to run people over...but they can do a jim-dandy job of it. Monte Cook used to talk quite a lot about the "sweet spot" in relation to the powers of the various ELs and how they related to what the game was best at...and how this related to the design issues. Skip Williams has done the same, but from a slightly different perspective.

No one stated that there was a "wrong way" to play D&D, least of all me. The game works well at any of the non Epic levels, stumbles badly in Epic rules, but stays on it's feet, and is usable at any level of play. Then again, you can use a spoon to eviscerate someone. It's not the ideal tool, but...


Isshia

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't disagree that there's truth in that, and that the designers probably have said something to this affect, however, I've played the game at high levels for many years. I never needed to rethink rules, add rules or remove them to make it work - I use it as is. Perhaps I need to have a conversation with Skip and company, to correct their "incorrect" thinking, as D&D works just fine at 20th level.

Epic rules in my opinion, in many ways are broken, especially Epic Spell creation and the like, but our group never needed to cobble together house rules to make it work. Sticking by the book works fairly well and doesn't really feel much different than low level play.

One thing we did, was to keep the saves best on your primary class, rather than combining saves of two classes to create overwhelmingly high saving throws - the like that your opponent needs to roll a 20 or not beat your save. This might be a house rule...

I'm really more thinking that Skip just doesn't know how to play his designed game, since I see his thinking as inherently wrong. D&D works fine at least up to 20th level. It has never stumbled at all in our games. Perhaps he was playing with the wrong group...

GP