12
\$\begingroup\$

The Time Ravage spell (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, p. 189) states:

The target [takes] 10d12 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. If the save fails, the target also ages to the point where it has only 30 days left before it dies of old age. In this aged state, the target has disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws, [...]

In most normal situations this is quite self-explanatory, but what about creatures that age differently (or don't age)? Explicitly:

  • How would that spell work on creatures that become stronger with passing time, not weaker, or that grow indefinitely? Would a young dragon be transformed into its ancient version, just at the limit of its lifespan, hence the disadvantage on the rolls? What about aboleths, warforged, or others that do not deteriorate with passing time at all? Are they even affected by anything but the damage of the spell? And what about chuul, which are also immortal and grow all their lives?

  • How would that spell work on creatures that do not age at all? Most planar creatures are impervious to passing time; fiends and celestials and many others do not change at all in regard to passing of time by itself. How would that spell work with them?

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I’ve trimmed the quote, we should generally avoid quoting entire non-SRD spell descriptions when the question is really only about one sentence of it. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 18, 2023 at 10:57
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ There is a related question about ghosts and dragons aging that you may want to review \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 18, 2023 at 12:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I've partially re-expanded the quote. While I agree about non-SRD content, the question specifically references damage, aging, and disadvantage, so all of these seem relevant to quote. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 14:57
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I don't agree. The quotation both makes it more clear exactly what the question refers to, and also lets people answer if they happen to have access to all 5e materials except the source in question. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 18, 2023 at 16:09
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov Someone without access to the full text should not be answering, but permitting the querent to cite the specific text they are asking about permits everyone else, including those without access to the source, to decide whether a given answer is useful and thereby up- or down-vote it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 17:15

1 Answer 1

14
\$\begingroup\$

Based off of my own experience with playing an Echo Knight, features and spells and what-not from Wildemount often lack specificity on certain interactions. I think the best answer here is discuss it with your DM. If you're the DM, make something up.


After some brief research and looking over the question KorvinStarmast linked, here's how I would handle the interaction as a DM.

For creatures that have yet to grow through additional life phases, this spell would not induce those changes. This is a case of aging without growing.

For immortal beings, I defer to the warforged race. Under their suggested age we have

...so far, warforged have shown no signs of deterioration due to age. You are immune to magical aging effects.

This information explicitly states that aging effects do not affect warforged, and I would include damage caused by forced aging. I would also apply that to other immortal beings and creatures that grow indefinitely in the same manner.

EDIT: Even among immortal beings, there isn't anything that would actually prevent the damage. Spells do what they say and Time Ravage says

...make a Constitution saving throw, taking 10d12 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Still, I interpret this as a "magical aging affect" and stand by my original statement above.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Warforged don't age - but I believe they can spend HD to repair damage. Could you consider the direct damage from the spell to be a sudden accumulation of differed maintenance which can later be healed, even if it does not bring them closer to any kind of age limit? \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 17:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt That seems like the natural reading to me. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael W.
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 20:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt RAW, it seems that there is nothing that would actually prevent damage. "Aging damage" isn't a thing in DnD, but I stand by the ruling I would make. \$\endgroup\$
    – Shadomew
    Commented May 19, 2023 at 12:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ A creature may not age but it has metabolism. When catabolic and metabolic processes are not in balance, there is the necrotic damage coming from. They may later recover of course given enough time. Aging doesn't mean growing. We grow when processes in the body work properly. Artificially forcing one part of the process cannot bring all the benefits of time well lived. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 19, 2023 at 22:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .