Curse of Tithonos: Unaging (You age but it doesn't kill you)

[JCurwen3]

How much should it be of a limitation on Unaging if you still had to make aging checks, but didn't die upon hitting 0 in any or all of them? Essentially being immune to death directly from aging but not from the wasting and decline of the aging process itself?

I figure it as -80% (so worth [3]). Is that reasonable? Or maybe it's even only a perk?

[sir_pudding]

It's either a Perk or a Feature. I am not sure it's actually worth anything at all. You can always just make a new character. Of course I think Unaging should only be [5] so YMMV.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

How much should it be of a limitation on Unaging if you still had to make aging checks, but didn't die upon hitting 0 in any or all of them? Essentially being immune to death directly from aging but not from the wasting and decline of the aging process itself?

I figure it as -80% (so worth [3]). Is that reasonable? Or maybe it's even only a perk?

I see any extended lifespan or unaging as a perk. Of the hundreds of RPGs I have participated, I've only once seen a campaign cover enough in-game time that it even came up.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I see any extended lifespan or unaging as a perk. Of the hundreds of RPGs I have participated, I've only once seen a campaign cover enough in-game time that it even came up.

Both paranormal and superscience aging attacks exist in one of my games, including a primitive form of time travel that ages you as you go forward (and "de-ages" you if you go backward). This campaign has been going on for 10 years real time, 25 years campaign time, with two older starting PCs and several prominent NPCs showing their ages (if one PC hadn't earned Unaging in play he may already have lost a few attribute points). Two of these "older" PCs started play as a species that lives to max of maybe 30 something, so really by human standards they're young, with one near his first aging check and the other near the "90 year old third threshold" mark of aging checks.

So I kind of hit all the "Unaging and similar traits are worth their weight in gold" conditions, which I know isn't the norm for the vast majority of campaigns.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

Both paranormal and superscience aging attacks exist in one of my games, including a primitive form of time travel that ages you as you go forward (and "de-ages" you if you go backward.

The Curse of Tithonis means that you aren't immune to aging attacks, you just can't be aged to death. You can be aged to an invalid vegetable, however, which from a player's perspective is nearly the same.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

How much should it be of a limitation on Unaging if you still had to make aging checks, but didn't die upon hitting 0 in any or all of them? Essentially being immune to death directly from aging but not from the wasting and decline of the aging process itself?

I don't think this is a job for Unaging, since you still age. However, an unfulfilled Destiny can make this happen. Also, since a 0 attribute makes you largely helpless, physically or mentally, you might consider it a limitation on Unkillable (only vs old age, comes back still decrepit).

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The Curse of Tithonis means that you aren't immune to aging attacks, you just can't be aged to death. You can be aged to an invalid vegetable, however, which from a player's perspective is nearly the same.

It might be worth something, you'd be sort of like the old lovers in THE HUNGER and lay around in a box on a shelf until something that causes a temporary attribute bonus rouses you to shamble or offer a few words of advice, or they infuse you with werewolf blood or something.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

How much should it be of a limitation on Unaging if you still had to make aging checks, but didn't die upon hitting 0 in any or all of them? Essentially being immune to death directly from aging but not from the wasting and decline of the aging process itself?

I figure it as -80% (so worth [3]). Is that reasonable? Or maybe it's even only a perk?

Originally Posted by FAQ

3.1.5 What do attribute levels of zero mean? (ST 0, DX 0, IQ 0, HT 0)

What does ST 0, exactly, mean in game terms?

ST 0 means you have Basic Lift 0 and can pick up nothing. If you have any encumbrance at all, even a gum wrapper, you collapse under its weight. You also have 0 damage, and can't even shove a door open or push aside a cobweb. However, you can walk and act, as long as your walking and acting doesn't involve doing anything other than moving your own body weight from A to B. Thus, air and fire elementals (p. B262) can have ST 0 without being immobilized, but can also be kept out by any barrier they can't penetrate by seeping around or burning. Note that overcoming air resistance, under normal circumstances, is considered negligible for game balance purposes.

What does DX 0, exactly, mean in game terms?

DX 0 mostly means that you have no useful ability to do anything DX-based at which you're not a dyed-in-the-wool, committed-to-muscle-memory master. At DX 0, even the most routine tasks that require DX rolls at +10 are a coin toss – 10 or less – so things that the GM normally waives rolls for now require rolls and fail half the time. Thus, the implied shove attack vs. a door or grapple attack vs. a doorknob, at +10 for utter simplicity and normally ignored, is now a 10 or less roll. You have a 50/50 chance of missing the door and fumbling around for a turn! Hurling yourself at the broad side of a barn has a 50% chance of failure, too, with a miss meaning you probably fell down trying to do it.
Default skill use is doomed. Your default level – not penalty, but level! – is -4 (E), -5 (A), or -6 (H) with DX-based skills. Under stress, you fail. Even in perfect circumstances with a +10, you have 6, 5, or 4, fail most of the time, and critically fail on 16+, 15+, or 14+. (Remember, you only get to try to roll a 3 or 4 on a defense!) This has important implications for people using, say, Driving by default, or recreationally shooting at their Guns default.

What does IQ 0, exactly, mean in game terms?

IQ 0 means you're a rutabaga. Per p. B15, at IQ 0, you're mindless and unable to act without somebody possessing you and operating you via remote control. You need at least IQ 1 to have a self and be able to perceive and act at all, which includes grunting and making gestures. You need at least IQ 6 to use tools and language – that is, to talk, wield weapons, etc. A human hit with -10 to IQ (making him IQ 0) is essentially a mindless clone body waiting to be possessed.

What does HT 0, exactly, mean in game terms?

What HT 0 means is that your HT roll is against 0. Almost all crippling injuries will be "lasting," and about half will be "permanent"; any major wound in combat is likely to knock you out (failing "0 or less" by five or more is about 98% likely); almost any lethal wound in combat will kill you (unless you roll 3-6, see the other FAQ entry); and afflictions, diseases, poisons, etc., will have their way with you. If you're at HT 0 for a long time, failed HT rolls to recover HP and resist the ravages of aging will kill you eventually. However, HT 0 doesn't mean instant death or even an instant coma . . . it just means inevitable infirmity, illness, decrepitude, and death unless you live in a bubble.
Also, mostly on machines: Numerous rules say, "Roll vs. HT or bust!" If a machine suffers enough damage to break down (p. B483) or fall apart (p. B484), is exposed to harsh conditions that could foul it (p. B485), is cinematically redlined (the "extra effort" option on p. 160 of Powers), is Fragile (esp. combustible, explosive, or flammable, p. B136) and exposed to damage that can trigger special injury effects, is Electrical and receives a dose of radiation (p. B436) or an electrical surge (p. 102 of Powers), is a vehicle that suffers a severe body hit that can cause power failure (p. B554), or needs to make a "structural integrity check" for any reason (to see if a rope snaps, a seal holds, etc.), then HT 0 means that, except by blind luck (a roll of 3-4), it is doomed to fail and come apart like a cheap toy.

Its a feature, once your stats get low enough you're not long for this world anyway. ST 0? Any damage will kill you. DX 0? Make a DX+10 roll to get out of bed, fail, and you take damage, killing you. HT 0? You will catch nearly every disease you are exposed to, thus taking damage and dying.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Its a feature, once your stats get low enough you're not long for this world anyway. ST 0? Any damage will kill you. DX 0? Make a DX+10 roll to get out of bed, fail, and you take damage, killing you. HT 0? You will catch nearly every disease you are exposed to, thus taking damage and dying.

It doesn't say that ST 0 means any damage will kill you, just that you can't carry anything or do damage yourself. ST 0 doesn't mean HP 0, and aging doesn't lower HP along with ST as far as I'm aware. In fact, it specifically mentions functional air and fire elementals as having ST 0.

The HT 0 thing is a lot more damning, but if you avoid serious injury and thus the need for death checks (or you have a high level of Hard to Kill, or even Unkillable 1+), you might get away with living in a bubble, or else avoiding disease via paranormal or technological means (assuming you don't have Immunity to Disease).

For me, one you didn't mention, IQ 0, is most damning, because despite there being a technically "live" character, it's been mostly unplayable since it's lost its sapience to aging, and now has all the mind and playability of a bowl of jello. Still, this is arguably better than death because your friends and allies might find ways to restore those IQ points, if such ways exist (although why you all waited until you were braindead is a question!).

This does raise for me another question: what if one wanted Immunity to the Effects of Aging on One Attribute? Like Unaging (IQ only)? Since Unaging is priced like a Common Immunity, it seems like it makes sense to just call one attribute an Occasional, at [10], but that feels a bit expensive. Also, what if you wanted Unaging (2 attributes only), or for 3 attributes? And Unaging (HT only) seems like it's worth more than the others as it's the HT roll that determines if (and the rate at which) you lose the others. Unaging (IQ only) would even be a realistic trait; many people never suffer age-related cognitive decline, and stay sharp until death.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

It doesn't say that ST 0 means any damage will kill you

HP 0 means any damage will kill you.

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

aging doesn't lower HP along with ST as far as I'm aware.

Wrong:

Originally Posted by Aging Rules

When you lose an attribute level to age, reduce your point value accordingly. Reduce all secondary characteristics and skills based on that attribute to reflect its new level.

HP is a secondary characteristic of ST.

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

In fact, it specifically mentions functional air and fire elementals as having ST 0.

Those elementals weren't reduced to ST 0 from aging.

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

This does raise for me another question: what if one wanted Immunity to the Effects of Aging on One Attribute? Like Unaging (IQ only)? Since Unaging is priced like a Common Immunity, it seems like it makes sense to just call one attribute an Occasional, at [10], but that feels a bit expensive. Also, what if you wanted Unaging (2 attributes only), or for 3 attributes? And Unaging (HT only) seems like it's worth more than the others as it's the HT roll that determines if (and the rate at which) you lose the others. Unaging (IQ only) would even be a realistic trait; many people never suffer age-related cognitive decline, and stay sharp until death.

I would charge:

Imunity to Aging for ST, DX or IQ [3]
Imunity to Aging for HT [6]