Extended Lifespan and Unaging

[Stormcrow]

In GURPS Vikings, the alvar have both Extended Lifespan 2 and Unaging. From what I can tell, in the fourth edition, it is pointless to have Extended Lifespan if you have Unaging, since you never make any aging rolls with Unaging.

Were the definitions of Extended Lifespan and Unaging different in the third edition? (I'm not sure what book or books they come from.) Or is this just an error in the alvar template?

P.S.: The template also includes a Dependency. I don't know what third-edition book this comes from either. If the cost of Dependency includes aging as a consequence of failing to meet the Dependency, this might explain having both Extended Lifespan and Unaging, but I can't tell without seeing the definition of Dependency for the third edition.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Were the definitions of Extended Lifespan and Unaging different in the third edition? (I'm not sure what book or books they come from.) Or is this just an error in the alvar template?

It's just an error. There are no significant differences between Extended Lifespan and Unaging in GURPS 3E & 4E.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

P.S.: The template also includes a Dependency. I don't know what third-edition book this comes from either. If the cost of Dependency includes aging as a consequence of failing to meet the Dependency, this might explain having both Extended Lifespan and Unaging, but I can't tell without seeing the definition of Dependency for the third edition.

I'm not sure what book Dependency first appeared in but Compendium I would have had the definitive 3E version. It's virtually identical to the 4E version, except that it lacks the Seasonal and Yearly options. The Aging enhancement is in both editions.

It seems like the 2nd edition of GURPS Vikings (I've only got the 1st Edition) added a bunch of templates that weren't playtested, because these are easy errors to catch.

There is errata for the 2nd edition and for the Alvar template (Ally should be Ally Group, Cost of Dependency is wrong, Dying Race shouldn't apply to pre-Christian Alvar) but it doesn't catch this mistake.

I'm guessing that the author's intent was that Alvar are very long-lived and remain young right up to the moment they die, but can age prematurely due to failure to meet their Dependency. In that case, they're stuck at their more advanced age for the rest of their existence. They can potentially die of old age, but they really have to work at it.

In GURPS 4E terms, I'd call that Extended Lifespan 2 (Enhancement: Cosmic (No Aging Rolls), +50%) [5] and Dependency (Enhancement: Aging).

[Stormcrow]

Oh, the cost of Dependency is wrong! That changes things. With Common and Constantly, that equals -25, and the cost is supposed to be -25, so there's no unnatural aging meant to be there (which would have made it -35), and that shows that Extended Lifespan and Unaging can't be meant to be together, since without aging their effects are contradictory.

Thanks for pointing out the errata.

The first edition suggests basing mound alvar on ellyllyon or kobolds from GURPS Fantasy Folk. And what's strange is that the racial template for mound alvar in the second edition looks nothing like either of these. The second edition, after the template, suggests basing mound alvar on the Spirit of Place or the Physical Faeries templates from GURPS Spirits. The alvar template looks nothing like the Spirit of Place template, but Physical Faeries does have Unaging, as well as Morph (which the alvar also have).

I have a feeling that a simple Unaging is really what was intended.

[Varyon]

Arguably, the proper way to do a character in 4e who is unaging so long as they are regularly exposed to/consume a certain substance, and who ages slowly if they lack access to it, is to give them the appropriate level of Extended Lifespan to match how they age without that special substance, and then give them Unaging with a Limitation to account for it only working when they have access to that substance (I'd subtract the value of a comparable Mitigator from -100% - so a daily treatment is -60% as a Mitigator and -40% here; I think PU8 has rules to this effect but I may be misremembering) - but reduce the base cost of Unaging by the points spent on Extended Lifespan (essentially, we're treating Unaging as further levels of Extended Lifespan). So, you'd be looking at something like Extended Lifespan 2 [4] + Unaging (Requires daily treatments -40%) [6.6] (base cost is reduced to [11]), for a total cost of [10.6] - which would round up to [11].

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Arguably, the proper way to do a character in 4e who is unaging so long as they are regularly exposed to/consume a certain substance, and who ages slowly if they lack access to it, is to give them the appropriate level of Extended Lifespan to match how they age without that special substance, and then give them Unaging with a Limitation to account for it only working when they have access to that substance

This works far better than my idea of Extended Lifespan with the Cosmic enhancement, although tweaking might be needed to make sure that the costs are equal either way.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

This works far better than my idea of Extended Lifespan with the Cosmic enhancement, although tweaking might be needed to make sure that the costs are equal either way.

The construct should always cost more than having Unaging with the appropriate Limitation alone, but should always (with the exception of characters who age slowly enough they might as well have Unaging) cost less than Unaging without that Limitation. Granted, Unaging should probably cost something like [5] (Immunity to a Rare phenomenon - Aging Attacks) and Extended Lifespan should probably be more like a leveled Perk at +3 SSR per level (x3, x10, x30, x100, x300); again, its primary game effect being that Aging Attacks are less effective on you - adding a year to the age of a character who doesn't start suffering aging effects until they're 500 (Extended Lifespan 2 [2] in my suggested progression) isn't anywhere near as impactful as doing the same to a character who starts suffering such at 50.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The construct should always cost more than having Unaging with the appropriate Limitation alone, but should always (with the exception of characters who age slowly enough they might as well have Unaging) cost less than Unaging without that Limitation. Granted, Unaging should probably cost something like [5] (Immunity to a Rare phenomenon - Aging Attacks) and Extended Lifespan should probably be more like a leveled Perk at +3 SSR per level (x3, x10, x30, x100, x300); again, its primary game effect being that Aging Attacks are less effective on you - adding a year to the age of a character who doesn't start suffering aging effects until they're 500 (Extended Lifespan 2 [2] in my suggested progression) isn't anywhere near as impactful as doing the same to a character who starts suffering such at 50.

Unaging is a more than just an immunity to aging attacks -it's immunity to aging outright, without taking an equivalent trait such as 'wear out'. However, it is probably a 'rare' thing, being a specific thing that's narrower than 'disease', and about the same as 'acceleration', etc.

Longevity at 2 points is roughly comparable to Resistant to Aging +8, which would also cost 2 points (as we're told to drop fractions, unlike normal practice).

Extended Lifespan doesn't fit well into the 'Resistant' framework, as it delays having to make checks, rather than making them easier to pass. I'd probably price it at +1/level, so five levels isn't worth taking (close enough to the current 8+ levels). I'd stick with the doubling, rather than a log progression, or if using the SSR table have it step up one step per level, starting with x2 (so x2, x3, x5, x7, x10/buy Unaging).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Unaging is a more than just an immunity to aging attacks -it's immunity to aging outright, without taking an equivalent trait such as 'wear out'. However, it is probably a 'rare' thing, being a specific thing that's narrower than 'disease', and about the same as 'acceleration', etc.

Campaigns where the characters naturally aging is actually a concern for the players are few and far between, which is why I think it primarily has the function of making you immune to supernatural aging effects. But just considering Aging as Rare full-stop would also work.

[Tyneras]

Personally I put both Longevity and Extended Lifespan as 1 point perks. Longevity will double or more your lifespan, depending on your tech level, and Extended Lifespan is species flavor and can really be any value, no need for it to be leveled.

Ageless, as in you don't age but have no particular immunity to aging attacks, is basically Longevity with with Cosmic: No Roll Required at 2 points.

And Unaging at good old 5 points for giving you total immunity to natural and unnatural aging.

The reason for this is, as stated, the campaign lasting long enough/having big enough time skips for it to matter is something you sign up for (usually). So resisting or being immune to that is on the level of a Rules Exemption.

Aging attacks, on the other hand, are just that, an attack. Rare, but it can show up in just about any game with magic/psionic or other supernatural threats and far more common than very long campaign timelines in my experience.

Edit: Though getting further off topic, this does illustrate the difference between something's value to the players vs in game value to NPCs and characters. To the players an Amulet of Agelessness would just be an extra 2 cp in gadget form, barely worth its carry weight. While to the NPCs multiple wars would likely be fought over it's possession.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

Personally I put both Longevity and Extended Lifespan as 1 point perks. Longevity will double or more your lifespan, depending on your tech level, and Extended Lifespan is species flavor and can really be any value, no need for it to be leveled.

Longevity is largely TL independant, as it's unlikely to matter unless you're at TL8+ for healthy PCs and TL9+ for most people. As you only fail on 17-18 at worst, it's a lot better than doubling in most cases, as there's no accelerating 'death spiral' once your HT starts dropping. Thus Longevity is better than Extended Lifespan in almost all cases.

I think that, were Unaging actually worth the 15 points it costs in the RAW, Longevity should probably cost 5 points, not the current 2.

Aging attacks, on the other hand, are just that, an attack. Rare, but it can show up in just about any game with magic/psionic or other supernatural threats and far more common than very long campaign timelines in my experience.

Whereas I don't think I've ever actually seen one in actual play.