Tieflings with a lvl of True Fiend: can they gain mental bon

[Judging__Eagle]

Now, I'm not sure if this works, but I was looking at the True Fiend class out of Tome of Fiends, and based on what I had just realized with the human vampire summoner who was 221 years old that was written up for my game; I want to make sure that something similar can or can't occur.

Since, the mentioned vampire has 21 Cha before gear, and about 23 with a cloak of cha.

So could a Tiefling Wizard lose a caster level to take a level of True Fiend and get Immortality (from age at least) and +3 to all mental stats? (reaching 20 int with a 15 base, +2 racial mod and +3 age mod) and Fiendish traits of their choice?

The upsides are somewhat competetive save DCs and bonus spells further along your progression.

Bonus Spells: (1= spell level; +1 = bonus spells) 1 +2
2 +2
3 +1
4 +1
5 +1
6 +1

[Catharz]

They don't loose a caster level.

[Judging__Eagle]

Wtf? How?

I'm reading the True Fiend class and there's nothing there that I can see about retaining spell caster level progression; and tiefling only has true fiend as a favoured class.

I'm missing something else, right?

[Brobdingnagian]

More importantly, aging doesn't necessarily work the way it should. Any creature that is effectively immortal (most outsiders, contructs, undead, w/e) should never get a bonus from aging, because they can't get a penalty because their bodies never get weaker. So it has to be assumed if a character is immortal, they start off as smart as they're ever going to get, or else we're upsetting game balance.

[Judging__Eagle]

Okay, you answered my question in a manner I was expecting. Poll closed.

[MrWaeseL]

I hear WotC handles rules questions with polls as well.

[Judging__Eagle]

Actually, it was more of an wierd thing that I noticed that vampires can be affected by aging bonuses given enough time.

The tiefling could technically accrue age penalty/bonuses (as per the Planar Handbook's entry p. 18 they get their middle, old and venerable at 45 68 and 90 years old), but could negate the penalties by 'living forever' due to the True Fiend's 1st lvl ability.

So, I am actually, still at a bit of a loss.

Tieflings can die of old age, but they could take a lvl of true fiend to negate those same agin penalties.

It's like becoming a vampire, except you lose a progression level in casting, gain hp, bab, saves, gain normal immortality (from age at least) and some minor fiendish traits.

So, would they gain their bonuses if they took lvls in true fiend and enough time passes, or what?

[erik]

1175706645[/unixtime]].... should never get a bonus from aging, because they can't get a penalty because their bodies never get weaker.

Coincidens Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, eh?. Penalties don't cause bonuses.
You're offering rule zero rationalizations, not rules, for what tis worth.


Well really none of the aging bonuses make much sense, but I'm gonna ignore that since they're there. They're pretty much never going to come up unless someone forces them to do so. So use them as an optional rule or not.

If you do decide to use them, then you're pretty much only using them on the players who decide to make their characters use them. So be prepared for attempted abuse, since that's all they're effectively there for.

For what it is worth there is definitely precedent for this sort of abuse, monks and other classes who get something similar to the Timeless Body ability continue to accumulate the bonuses but not penalties of aging.

If for some reason you decide to use the aging rules, then the tiefling True Fiend example totally works. It's exactly what the ability is supposed to do.


Those are answers for the game at large, but obviously this is for a single game in question, and for that you will rule zero as you please. If you wish to whip out the rule zero then you can have it however you like it.

There are good reasons to disallow aging modifiers for *some* immortal critters on other grounds. Constructs don't really get any more aware, nor does your toaster. You are free to rule that undead are stuck in a perpetual haze where they don't really improve their minds (except that they can take class levels and do so...). Outsiders are kind of in the same boat. They're weird aspects and ideals to which the rational may not always apply. Dragons already have their modifiers tied to age, heck, they're all about their aging modifiers.


[edit: forgive my shitty latin]

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, vampires gain wisdom, intellect and charisma as they age.

Anyway, for what it's worth, the tiefling wizard who does take the level of True Fiend has lost their spot on the level appropriate abilities train.

So, whatever, they have more skills per level and their spells DCs are slightly better than the same wizard didn't take the TF level and who is using SoDs one level higher (3rd lvl spell with venerable tiefling Int is 10 + 3 + 5 = DC 18 (Int: 15 + 2 + 3 is 20 +5 mod), a 4rd lvl spell by a normal teifling is 10 + 4 + 3 is DC 17 (Int 15 + 2 is 17).

Really, it's a toss-up both flavour and power-wise.

Lose your most current spells possible and cast as a core sorcerer with a caster lvl 1 lower, but have more bonus spells, skill points and higher spell DCs.

On the other hand, most true outsiders have some sort of weird hierarchy where when you get powerful enough, you turn into a more powerful version of your type. If not, we'd never have background where a pit fiend gets turned into an imp by a more powerful pit fiend.

[Fwib]

3.x's ageing rules are stupid anyway, even for PHB races. I say age should penalise all stats, physical and mental, or be ignored entirely.

[Brobdingnagian]

Well, yes, it was rule zero, and for that, I apologise. But the fact remains that aging rules are stupid, primarily because the bonuses/penalties are unbalanced, but also because of ways to subvert the rules so as to gain the bonuses and not the penalties (tieflings or aasimar with a level of True Fiend) that unbalance things even more. Not to mention the part where, for some reason, halflings become smart quicker than dwarves and elves. The rules state that dwarves and elves live much longer, are able to learn much more in that time if they have a mind to do so, and somehow are only as smart or capable as a human who spent a year playing with sharp metal sticks or reading a couple books.

[Judging__Eagle]

Hmm, simply give out int bonuses for time passed?

[Fwib]

D&D already has a better mechanism which represents the way more experienced people are better than less experienced people - going up levels.

The only problem with that is that it means when you hire the greatest cook in the world, he can automatically beat up your militia.

[Judging__Eagle]

Expert lvls aren't that good though...

Still, dumb, but w/e.


Wait!

What if he's like, Steven Segal in Under Siege?

He was, like an amazing cook, right?

[as well as being an ex- special forces; I think they said green berets, bu what they meant was seals or rangers]

[Endovior]

Amazing Cook + Ex-Special Forces = Spent some of his skill points from his Special Forces levels on Profession (Cooking).

In any event, anyone who's paying attention should read any 'doesn't take age penalties' ability as '+3 to all mental stats', because the two are functionally equivalent. After all, if you're not aging a character with such a power... why not? Because you're totally wasting the power if you don't.

[Catharz]

Have you ever noticed that all kids are dumb, but if somebody is dumb much past puberty they're probably dumb for the rest of their lives? I've been getting more experienced, but I haven't gotten any smarter.

In D&D, an average really old person is as smart as a bright 20 year old even if they've done nothing except eat nachos.

[Brobdingnagian]

It is true that your ability to learn and comprehend new ideas actually becomes less as you age, but it is also true that your ability to understand that which you have learned in the past becomes greater.

Aging should be, "- INT, + WIS".

I have no idea where the bonus to Charisma came from. I mean, seriously, have you ever listened to an old man talk about his days of work back in the mill? Boring.

[Fwib]

Understanding the stuff you learned in the past better is just practice over the years - skill ranks/bonuses - if you don't continue to put any effort in, skills will tend to decline.

Perhaps, along with penalties to all stats, ageing ought to give out bonuses to skills? That way, the older people get frail and do not become geniuses, but are still actually good at the skills they have practised all their lives without needing a pile of HD to support them?

[Endovior]

I note that we should focus the discussion, here. Are we talking "Is this possible, under the current rules as written?", "Should this be possible, considering the spirit of the rules?", or "What do you think should happen under these circumstances, regardless of what the rules say?" Because these are three different discussions, and the thread title indicates the first.

Of course, this is complicated, because the wording of the RAW is vague. Apparently immortality means that you 'only get worse with age'. This would suggest that you only get penalties from aging, but not bonuses. The spirit of the rules, however, suggests that it's 'worse with age' in an evil sense, not a statistically bad sense... granting bonuses but not penalties. House rules is an open question, that I won't touch.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, I know what the actual meaning of "getting worse with age" part meant; you become more bad-ass, evil, vile, whatever as time passes.

I just noticed that there's a potential combo with Teifling, True Fiend, Age bonuses and then being a spell caster.

Having (roughly) more spells per day and a higher DC than the same wizard who's 1 level higher than you seemed odd, but it's really not that big of a deal. What they gain in stats, they lose in delayed spell access (and gaining spell levels at the same rate as a sorcerer does).

[Crissa]

Don't the age stat changes require, I dunno, time to pass in game?

If you were old to begin with, I can't imagine a level of anything undoing the damage of time.

-Crissa

[Judging__Eagle]

The PCs start at lvl 6, and one of them is a human vampire with 221 years under her shade parasol.

I can't go vetoing stuff like that now.

In any case, it's a non-issue.

Either he gets new spells and won't get +3 to all mental stats, or he get's +3 and loses a caster level.

Both choices are good since both have an actual cost.

[RandomCasualty]

1175732201[/unixtime]]3.x's ageing rules are stupid anyway, even for PHB races. I say age should penalise all stats, physical and mental, or be ignored entirely.

Yeah, you're telling me. Aging should be just a big penalty for the most part. Stuff that's immune to aging should just be immune to those penalties.

We don't really need benefits for an ancient vampire, it can just be higher in level.

[Crissa]

1175991650[/unixtime]]The PCs start at lvl 6, and one of them is a human vampire with 221 years under her shade parasol.

That's okay, he's a vampire.

Either he gets new spells and won't get +3 to all mental stats, or he get's +3 and loses a caster level.

That makes no sense. He is a Fiend now - he hasn't spent 221 years as a fiend. No bonuses.

Or do you let people experience all the frost damage they took in the last adventure when they take off their frost resistant cloak?

-Crissa

[Fwib]

1175792979[/unixtime]]Expert lvls aren't that good though...

True, but I meant the situation where you want a really great cook for your castle, so you hire one with 10+ skill ranks (or more) so that automatically comes with 7+ levels of expert (or even a better class) and that makes the cook better in melee than your 1-2HD guard-mooks

Wait!

What if he's like, Steven Segal in Under Siege?

He was, like an amazing cook, right?

I wish I'd said 'woodworker' or something innocuous.