Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bg2soatob 01-16-05, 07:37 AM	In a thread on houserules, Kursk suggested the idea of female PCs having -2 STR, +1 DEX, +1 CON. While I don't like those particular figures, I am in favor of giving females slight adjustments (yes, probably including a -2 to strength). Perhaps this could vary according to race or class, perhaps not. Note: Try to keep gender prejudices ("females should get -999 to all abilities!") off the thread.
Gilean 01-16-05, 08:47 AM	These are, to the best of my knowledge, facts. Generally, men think more logically and women more emotionally. Differences in ont, wis or cha, perhaps? Men are stronger, but other factors are harder. Realistic might be the following: + str, int to men, - wis, cha, dex or some of them. Modifiers can be revised and applied to women.
BigRedRod 01-16-05, 01:35 PM	This has been discussed to death and no good can come from yet another thread about it. In general here is what happens : 1) People point out that men tend to be stronger than women 2) People point out women have babies 3) Some try to use 1 and 2 as a way of balancing the sexes, with women getting -2str but they can give birth 4) It is pointed out that this is stupid 5) Someone suggests differing int, wis and cha for the sexes 6) No one can agree quite how the male and female mind differ, nor can they attach this to stats or skill bonuses/penalties 7) Everyone goes for ice-cream and lives happily ever after It may be possible to replace point 7 with 7a 7a) The thread survives despite the best efforts of the intelligent community members to kill it. Eventually it devolves in to two geeks (with occasional quips from their lackeys) arguing without much style or finese. It is a rare occasion that either of these geeks has ever spoken to a girl outside their own family
HyperVyperBeam 01-16-05, 01:50 PM	You missed the best point of all, which is the point where I say women should be 25% immune to criticals and sneak attacks because women can't get racked in the Johnson. Seriously, all these threads are stupid excerises in misrepresenting both research on the sexes and how stat modifiers in D&D work. Why not argue that Asians should have lower Con and Blacks lower Intellegence while you are at it. I'm sure you can find research to back it up. And if you can misrepresent research, it must be true!
Razoreface 01-16-05, 01:53 PM	7a) The thread survives despite the best efforts of the intelligent community members to kill it. Eventually it devolves in to two geeks (with occasional quips from their lackeys) arguing without much style or finese. It is a rare occasion that either of these geeks has ever spoken to a girl outside their own family Why not argue that Asians should have lower Con and Blacks lower Intellegence while you are at it. I'm sure you can find research to back it up. And if you can misrepresent research, it must be true! For emphasis. For my part.. welcome to the post-1970's. Physically, you can't really give any kind of adjustments to either sex, because without variance, you're always going to be saying that no woman can ever be as strong as any guy.. and that's really just not true. Mentally, men and women don't really think or act any better or worse. They do it in slightly different ways, but not any better or worse. Most of the differences are so minor that they can't really be reflected in something as coarse as an RPG system. But for every physical or mental example of where a man/woman is superior to a woman/man, there will always be literally dozens of cases to contradict it. And then you'll also have to narrow a time frame.. you can't argue men or women are better or worse in D&D, by basing it on modern examples, because a lot of modern men and women have problems lifting more than their own body weight. Something that wasn't always true. Average people are weaker and unhealthier than ever before. :) You missed the best point of all, which is the point where I say women should be 25% immune to criticals and sneak attacks because women can't get racked in the Johnson. Ask a girl what it feels like to get booted in the bonch. I saw a girl fall forward off the seat of a bike once, and that was just about as un-pretty as when a guy does it. :D
bg2soatob 01-16-05, 01:57 PM	Physically, you can't really give any kind of adjustments to either sex, because without variance, you're always going to be saying that no woman can ever be as strong as any guy.. and that's really just not true. Not so, if a woman gets a -2 to strength, that just means she is less likely to be as strong as a man. She might still roll an 18 (for 16 STR) vs. a man rolling a quadruple 1 (for 3 STR). It's just that on average, men will be (are) stronger. Unfortunately, something is needed to balance that.
satyrgrrrrl 01-16-05, 01:58 PM	Ok, I saw this thread topic from the list in the D&D Boards section, and I had to see what was here. Don't give different genders different ability score adjustments. It's a BAD idea. First off, we're the same race. In general, we're the same. Most men out there have 10 Str, as do most women. In fact, most people have 10's in all their ability scores. Athletes are obvious exceptions... and there are very strong women out there as well as men. Then, you'd have to change around elves, dwarves, halflings, half-orcs, and every other race out there as well. Would women from those races recieve the same bonuses/penalties as human women? If so, why? What basis would you have to say that women of all races are weaker? If not, why not? The ability score adjustments are for races other than human. This is to show the basic difference of elves/dwarves/etc. from humans. And now, some thoughts on women from a woman: Women DO NOT have a bonus to Cha. Note: In the following, "attractive" denotes "Pleasing to the eye or mind; charming", from dictionary.com. Heterosexual men are attracted to women, which means they find women more attractive than men. As a woman, I find men more attractive than women. I do not find most woman I meet more charming than most men. The very notion that women are more attractive than men is a heterosexual concept, and based in only the male view. Women DO NOT have a bonus to Wis. They are not wiser than men. I've met some pretty unwise women in my time, and most people (men and women) would have 10's. (Ok, some thoughts on men, too... but not any worse than my thoughts on women) Men DO NOT have a bonus to Str. Most men are not any stronger than a woman. I know a few guys who I could beat up and/or beat in a "how much can you carry" contest, and I certainly don't bench-press on a regular basis. It's not a matter of "natural" development that gets you a higher Str as a human, but through training, which either sex can accomplish. Men DO NOT have a bonus to Int. It was once thought that, because men's brains were bigger, that they were naturally smarter than women. Obviously, that has been proven false. Men are not more logical than women, nor are women more emotional than men. Some men are more logical, and some women are more emotional. But it is not true across the board. Using ability score adjustments makes sweeping generalizations about the human race which just aren't true. The average human, regardless of gender, has 10's in all their stats. Most men and women are equally strong, dextrous, resiliant, smart, observant, and attractive. :angel: EDIT: I have to reiterate HyperVyperBeam's statement: Why not argue that Asians should have lower Con and Blacks lower Intellegence while you are at it. I'm sure you can find research to back it up. And if you can misrepresent research, it must be true!
evangelion1010 01-16-05, 02:08 PM	As far as stat modifiers, physically i don't think i want to go there. Yes, men are stronger than women, in general. This is displayed quite often in nearly every species on this planet, and makes logical sense. In humans, males have higher average strengths and higher maximum strengths. It doesn't, however make easy balance sense, which is why it should be thrown out, for the same reason that weight doesn't affect strength checks, when its obvious that someone who weighs 50 pounds more than you is almost certainly stronger than you. In real life, i can bench 195, and weigh 160. A kid who isn't nearly as fit as i am who weighs 240 or so can bench 220. He also has a higher con score than i would, at least as far as HP goes. As far as mental penalties/bonuses, the two genders average the same, but females are more consistent, where as men tend towards extremes - either stupid or smart. Representing that in game terms basically means roll a % if you're male, add +2 to a stat if you roll above this, -2 if you roll below this. Not very good balance wise. If you must do mental things, i believe females tend to do better with verbal aspects, and men with more math/science aspects. A bonus language or bonus to knowledge or alchemy perhaps. Or dropping the subject all together, as suggested.
HyperVyperBeam 01-16-05, 02:12 PM	Ask a girl what it feels like to get booted in the bonch. I saw a girl fall forward off the seat of a bike once, and that was just about as un-pretty as when a guy does it. :D Considering I am a girl and have never heard of a "bonch" I'll have to take your word for it. However, if we are talking about the crotch, there is no comparison. I'm sure your girl falling off the bike seat was hurt bad. Maybe the bike rolled a critical. However, the threat range for the guy is just plain bigger. Like, the bike would have had the improved critical feat versus the guy for free. Plus, it was a joke and extremely funny. Trying to apply reality to it just ruins it. Thanks.
Jayr 01-16-05, 02:24 PM	Yes, I agree that on average males are stronger and females have higher constitution, but I don't thing it's a large enough difference to translate in to stat points. For mental stats, it's been proven that most women and men use different types of intelligence, but since both types fall under Int, who cares? The only reason I could think for small ability adjustments (maybe -1 Str +1 Con to women) would be to encourage min/maxxer spellcasters and rogues to play female. If you want to do that, by all means go ahead, it's your game.
steenan 01-16-05, 02:57 PM	I, generaly, like the idea of sex-dependent modifiers. You even do not have to guess how big should they be - for most atributes they may be computed from easy to obtain statistical data. But there is no place for such modifiers in D&D. There are so many powergamers among D&D players, that giving, for example, +1 Dex and Wis, -1 Str and Int to women (and opposite to men) we would end with nearly no female barbarians or male clerics. Even worse, we would end with many boys playing female clerics and many girls playing male barbarians...
Nani? 01-16-05, 03:41 PM	One thing that I've noticed, is that players assign stats on thier own in a sex based fashion during character creation. Therefore, I don't see the need for enforced stat changes. I've notice that most players I know, for example, making a barbarian and had an 18 and two 16's to assign would probably assign it Str 18 Dex 16 Con 16 if the character is male and would be more likely to put the 18 in Dex or Con if the character was female. I think the same theory hold for most builds. All the Best, Nani?
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-16-05, 04:11 PM	I think sex dependent variables are just too much of a hassle to deal with. The only reason that I think your "average" male is going to be stronger than your "average" female is that the average male is larger. I don't doubt that two people of equal size, regardless of sex, have the potential to be equally strong. So.... what? Strength should be modified based on height? Weight? An average human woman in DnD will be shorter and weigh less than an average human male (same in real life, as far as I know)... so if strength could be modified based on height or weight... wouldn't it just be easier to assign a straight modifier to women in DnD? Ehhhhhh. Neither of those solutions are very good. Check out the strength related skills: Jump, Climb, Swim. These skills involve moving your own mass. If I am smaller than someone, then it'll take less strength to move my mass the same distance as a larger person, right? So, one wouldn't need to be as strong as a larger person to jump just as far. This isn't represented in DnD, though. Jump and such are based purely on skill ranks and strength mod. So, a lighter, weaker person who should be able to jump as far as a heavier, stronger person can't in DnD. Size-based mods are no good. You start applying sex modifiers and it'll get worse. A woman PC can't jump as far as a man of the same height and weight and with the same base stats just because she's a woman? Lame. Lame, lame, laaaaaaame. How to remedy this? I think any system created is going to be too convoluted compared to the gain derived from it. I could see creating some sort of more in-depth carrying capacity multiplier based on size, but then, mechanically, it's better to be tall? Where's the balance? I've heard that the taller you are the more likely you are to have a heart attack... gotta pump all of that blood through a larger body. So, then negative modifiers to fort checks? But wait! What if you're a really skinny tall person, with less body mass than a heavier, equally tall person???? Bonuses to fort for less weight? Bonuses to con? OHMYGAWD!!! But what if your character has a genetic heart condition and a predisposition towards delicious yet saturated fat laden foods?!?!?!? MORE MODIFIERS!!!!! Yeah. Simplicity, baby. Simplicity. That, and fairness. I don't think either of those are going to be achieved if we start playing around with sex-based stat mods. Gah. I really need to learn how to write shorter posts... -mike the amazing muskrat
Razoreface 01-16-05, 05:27 PM	I could see creating some sort of more in-depth carrying capacity multiplier based on size, but then, mechanically, it's better to be tall? Where's the balance? I've heard that the taller you are the more likely you are to have a heart attack... gotta pump all of that blood through a larger body. So, then negative modifiers to fort checks? But wait! What if you're a really skinny tall person, with less body mass than a heavier, equally tall person???? Bonuses to fort for less weight? Bonuses to con? OHMYGAWD!!! But what if your character has a genetic heart condition and a predisposition towards delicious yet saturated fat laden foods?!?!?!? MORE MODIFIERS!!!!! BoVD tries to do things like this with a couple feats, overweight and such, and it can make such a mess of things it made me want to smack the writers when I saw a character that was making an abuse of them, which was the only time I'd ever seen them used. :)
Lord_Anthrax 01-16-05, 05:34 PM	I really don't suggest you do this. With that said, it's your game, you run it how you like, I only suggest you make mods on both sides of the gender line for all playable races or don't make any at all. Fair is fair, after all.
HailSpork 01-18-05, 01:22 AM	Here's my take on it. If you want to play a woman that is weaker and more charismatic or what-not, just assign her one of your lower rolls for STR (or maybe not the highest) and assign a higher stat roll for charisma. I've got to say, I also don't find a point in doing this. I'm running a female changeling in my eberron game with an STR of 18 and a CHA of 10. The biggest proof of CHA != beauty is the fact that my changeling can walk around in the most beautiful form possible. Doing so does not affect CHA, it only affects role playing. I could possibly see giving lower str's to NPC females; generally, in most worlds, most NPC's are going to have certain gender roles and such. Men are going to be encouraged to be stronger and play with swords, work in the fields, help daddy raid a villiage, etc. Adventurers are special and are much less likely to fit any of society's gender roles. And as for wis/int modifiers, I've seen what I consider solid proof that both men and women have the capacity to be complete idiots or geniuses, and sometimes both at the same time.
Keoki 01-18-05, 04:33 AM	Physically, you can't really give any kind of adjustments to either sex, because without variance, you're always going to be saying that no woman can ever be as strong as any guy.. and that's really just not true. Mentally, men and women don't really think or act any better or worse. No woman weightlifter has even come close to beating the men's record. Your case just isn't backed up by the facts. Women almost invariably score higher on emotional intelligence tests than men, but this may just be a case of upbringing.
Keoki 01-18-05, 04:37 AM	In a thread on houserules, Kursk suggested the idea of female PCs having -2 STR, +1 DEX, +1 CON. While I don't like those particular figures, I am in favor of giving females slight adjustments (yes, probably including a -2 to strength). Perhaps this could vary according to race or class, perhaps not. A more-or-less accurate representation of our reality for human women could be -2 Str, +2 Cha, and a +4 bonus to Fortitude saves against pain. However, this introduces too many complications, particularly whether females of other races are analogous. Probably not worth the hassle.
bg2soatob 01-18-05, 04:42 AM	Perhaps -2 STR, +4 CHA?
BigRedRod 01-18-05, 05:18 AM	As much as I don't like keeping this thread alive, I'm deeply curious as to why there seems consensus about giving females a charisma bonus
bg2soatob 01-18-05, 05:45 AM	Because females have a tendancy to do better socially.
Keoki 01-18-05, 07:46 AM	Women DO NOT have a bonus to Cha. Note: In the following, "attractive" denotes "Pleasing to the eye or mind; charming", from dictionary.com. Heterosexual men are attracted to women, which means they find women more attractive than men. As a woman, I find men more attractive than women. I do not find most woman I meet more charming than most men. The very notion that women are more attractive than men is a heterosexual concept, and based in only the male view. If you put the dictionary down and crack open the Player's Handbook, you'll see that Charisma as a D&D term has very little to do with physical appearance and practically nothing to do with sexual attractiveness. It's about dealing with other people, and in most modern societies, women dominate professions that hinge on this. Men DO NOT have a bonus to Str. Most men are not any stronger than a woman. I know a few guys who I could beat up and/or beat in a "how much can you carry" contest, and I certainly don't bench-press on a regular basis. It's not a matter of "natural" development that gets you a higher Str as a human, but through training, which either sex can accomplish. In the real world, physical strength is based on muscle mass and bone leverage. On average, most human males do have more muscle mass than women, which does translate to greater physical strength, since their bone leverage is the same. This is not to say that all men are stronger than all women - that's what the 3d6 (or 4d6) are for. But they have an obvious tendency to be so. That said, for a fantasy game, their stats are probably best left alone.
Keoki 01-18-05, 07:52 AM	I really don't suggest you do this. With that said, it's your game, you run it how you like, I only suggest you make mods on both sides of the gender line for all playable races or don't make any at all. Fair is fair, after all. By that logic, you should also make mods for humans in general, instead of using them as the standard. Not to mention awkward words such as (s)he, he/she, sheit, etc. This just complicates things. If you're going to do gender mods, though I advise against it, it's easier to just choose one gender and use it as the standard. I wish Wizards would decide on a gender when writing their books, too - she or he, I really don't care, as long as it's bloody consistent! :)
starfire311 01-18-05, 09:29 AM	here is why sex based modifiers don't work... it is becasue the difference between a male and female would be less than a +1 just compare and average human to an average halfling the difference is only 2 points and the halfling is less that half the size of a human. Those that suggest women get a -2 strength, are saying that women have about the same average strength of a halfling.
Gort32 01-18-05, 10:49 AM	Simple: the average man might be stronger than the average woman. D&D adventurers are not "average." You *might* be able to apply modifiers to commoners, but adventurers are extrordinary individuals, almost to the point of being freaks, mentally and physically.
Razoreface 01-18-05, 09:17 PM	No woman weightlifter has even come close to beating the men's record. Your case just isn't backed up by the facts. And? Weight lifters have an incredibly large body frame, and women generally don't. They also tend to have slightly less motivation to do things like impress people by lifting heavy crap. Even world weightlifting competitions recognize that body mass and breadth play a major part in it.. their weight categories start based on the lifter's body weight, not a fixed number. D&D just fails to attach that 5'0" +2d10" and 5'5" +2d10" to the physical attributes of a person, so you can get stupid results. And why? Because if they did, they'd get sued for discrimination. And the reason people want to give women a charisma bonus, is that males are answering.
jagggar 01-18-05, 09:35 PM	Because females have a tendancy to do better socially. :rofl: X :invasion: ^ :invasion: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. . . Tell that to the female who hardly leaves her room due to the existance of the computer, and wears as bulky clothes as possible so as to avoid attention. Not to hard, I'm sittin' right here. Not until half-way though the year did I start feeling like a part of the community, had any real friends outside of my dormroom on a campus of 500 (when my graduating class size was 525). Personally, I'd be okay with -2 STR, +2 CON. For a comedic sterotypical touch, once every month for 1d4 days female characters get a bonus to attack rolls against anyone who fails a social interaction skill check when in the female's presence. Anyone who wants it can have it.
Darion Fenix 01-18-05, 09:51 PM	Nothing sexist about it. The strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman (just flip check out the Olympic records), an average man is stronger than the average woman. Ergo men tend to be stronger than women. I did competitive lifting in high school and I worked out with the girl who took the number 2 spot in the entire state of Texas. She was only as strong as an average male athlete. If you compare statistics with the maximum lifting tables in the PHB you can figure that a male Olympic level lifter would come in at 21 Strength and while a woman might make 18. -2 Strength sounds completely fair to me...of course if I was going to give women -2 Strength I'd give men -2 Wisdom and -2 Charisma. But honestly I wouldn't screw with the system at all. Characters that become "adventurers" are already exceptional. So the fighter with 16 strength is either a fit and well trained man or a VERY strong woman. Fighters are as strong as fighters, doesn't matter what sex they are.
Ongorth 01-18-05, 09:53 PM	If you put the dictionary down and crack open the Player's Handbook, you'll see that Charisma as a D&D term has very little to do with physical appearance and practically nothing to do with sexual attractiveness. It's about dealing with other people, and in most modern societies, women dominate professions that hinge on this. I didn't realize women dominate professions that rely upon dealing with people like politics and business. You know, the two professions that completely revolve around dealing with people. Or how about expressive dealing with people. Female actors and musicians are better than male actors and musicians? Bonuses for either sex make no sense. Sex is just one in a million factors that can possibly change one's ability scores. Unless you make modifiers for every possible physical, mental or environmental trait, it makes no sense to pick one at random and only have modifiers for that. I guess sex is just an obvious trait because people divide just about EVERYTHING by sex.
iluvdnd47 01-18-05, 10:08 PM	Here's my two cents. Apologies if anyone already suggested this. D&D, of course, exists in a fantasy world. There is no reason why women and men could not have evolved to be equal in all of the categories defined by their ability scores. The rules do reflect height and weight differences, but this could be explained if women had evolved with more compact and efficient (therefore lighter) muscle. And that's all I have to say about that.
The Simbul 01-18-05, 10:41 PM	Humans in D&D are not the same as Humans in the Real World, because the D&D world is not the same as the Real World. Whatever real-world social and scientific theories exist about any gender dependent mental or physical superiority are non-existant and irrelevant to a D&D setting, since the social setting and scientific make up of D&D worlds do not resemble that of the real world by a long shot. If you can point to any scientifically backed real-world example of people casting Timestop, hurling Meteor Swarms, or walking across different planes of existance, then maybe the scientific discoveries and theories of our universe might apply, but they dont. For all intents and purposes, the Gods of the D&D world(s) could have made all of the races equal in terms of gender, or the cultural aspects of the D&D world (unlike the real world) caused women of all races to engage in the exact same activities as men did during ancient times, which in turn would cause any evolutionary traits (assuming evolution exists in your D&D campaign) in terms of muscle mass, brain cells, etc to be the same. The only differences between male and female characters in D&D are those of an aesthetic (appearence, height, weight), roleplaying, or cultural nature (drow society encouraging women and men to pursue different career paths), anything else is simply interjecting sexist disposition into the game setting, and creating the context for selecting a charactere you dont wish to play for fear of having an unwanted penalty to your stats. Assigning penalties and bonuses based off your gender simply creates the precedent for other off-the-wall means to min-max and inhbit character creation, example: -Should I get a bonus to Hide checks for being 5-9 instead of 6'1? -Should having long hair cause you to have a penalty to attack rolls compared to someone who has short hair? -Should people with Blue eyes be able to see farther in the dark then people with more pigmentation? -Should pale people suffer more non-lethal damage from the sun when traveling through the desert?? None of the above effects should have any bearing on D&D stats, yet by the precedent set by arbitraily assigning gender based bonuses and penalties you make the above questions no less legitimate. All of the above add needless variables to the campaign, which in turn will inhibit or encourage people to play a certain gender/ haircolor/ height/ weight/ skincolor/ etc soley for the purpose of attaining a bonus or avoiding a penalty, rather than selecting those aesthetic elements for roleplaying purposes. P.S. giving a -2 STR, +1 DEX, +1 CON adjustment makes an inferior race, since all ability score adjustments must be given in even numbers (2,4,6,8,etc) in order to ensure that the character will always recieve a bonus to their stat modifier.
Kyaran 01-19-05, 12:37 AM	Please, please... stabby death for thread. In order to facilitate the stabbing, I'll quote a dozen people. • 7) Everyone goes for ice-cream and lives happily ever after • Seriously, all these threads are stupid excerises • Physically, you can't really give any kind of adjustments to either sex • Don't give different genders different ability score adjustments. It's a BAD idea. • Or dropping the subject all together, as suggested. • Simplicity, baby. Simplicity. That, and fairness. • I really don't suggest you do this. • just assign her one of your lower rolls for STR (or maybe not the highest) and assign a higher stat roll for charisma • And the reason people want to give women a charisma bonus, is that males are answering. • I wouldn't screw with the system at all. • Bonuses for either sex make no sense. • anything else is simply interjecting sexist disposition into the game setting • 7) Everyone goes for ice-cream and lives happily ever after Fin. Disclaimer: other people said other things in support of this idea. There were fewer of them, and I don't agree, so I choose not to quote them. :P
Kem 01-19-05, 12:51 AM	I care less about the difference between male and female, and more about the difference between HUMAN, and NON-HUMAN. The differences are larger, more apparent, and easier to determine.
Kursk 01-19-05, 02:13 AM	It's nice to throw a little realism into a FRPG, every once in a while. :tiphat:
MadBlue 01-19-05, 03:47 AM	I care less about the difference between male and female, and more about the difference between HUMAN, and NON-HUMAN.You hit the nail on the head. While there are differences between genders IRL, the rules for ability score adjustments were written to make a distinction between humans and non-humans, not distinctions between gender. If it isn't realistic that in D&D the average female human has the same Strength as the average male human, is it more realistic to "fix" it so that the average female human has the same Strength as the average male Halfling? Even in a d20 game more set in reality, such as d20 Modern, making that kind of distinction between gender isn't necessary. After all, even if female PCs don't have a lower strength on average than male PCs by default, the DM determines the stats of the remaining 3 billion female humans on the planet. :D Basically, what it comes down to is that the d20 system doesn't have a suitable mechanic (such as a "Size" stat) by which to make distinctions between gender. MadBlue
Keoki 01-19-05, 04:25 AM	Please, please... stabby death for thread. In order to facilitate the stabbing, I'll quote a dozen people. If you don't find it interesting, no one's forcing you to read the thread and post on it. You could just go find another thread to read. There are several.
Keoki 01-19-05, 04:34 AM	I didn't realize women dominate professions that rely upon dealing with people like politics and business. You know, the two professions that completely revolve around dealing with people. Politics and business require dealing with organizations and businesses. That's why a lot of politicans and businesspeople aren't actually very charismatic. Professions that require dealing with people include social work, teaching, nursing, counseling, etc. Rudeness in these professions is unacceptable. Or how about expressive dealing with people. Female actors and musicians are better than male actors and musicians? I couldn't say. But this problem is inherent in the D&D rules, which make such skills based on Charisma. Lots of talented actors and musicians don't deal well with people. That's why it's just a game. [/QUOTE]Bonuses for either sex make no sense. Sex is just one in a million factors that can possibly change one's ability scores. Unless you make modifiers for every possible physical, mental or environmental trait, it makes no sense to pick one at random and only have modifiers for that. I guess sex is just an obvious trait because people divide just about EVERYTHING by sex.[/QUOTE] I don't use such modifiers in my game. However, if you take a look at the beginning of this thread, you'll see that the topic is what modifiers to use if you do choose to use them.
Keoki 01-19-05, 04:41 AM	As far as stat modifiers, physically i don't think i want to go there. Yes, men are stronger than women, in general. This is displayed quite often in nearly every species on this planet, and makes logical sense. Unfortunately, biology doesn't agree with you. You're forgetting that over 90% of the animal species on Earth are insects, and female insects are typically stronger. That's why in D&D, which has loads of weird creatures that are nothing like humans, I advocate no modifiers for gender.
Keoki 01-19-05, 04:51 AM	Weight lifters have an incredibly large body frame, and women generally don't. Exactly. Which is one reason why they generally can't lift as much. And the reason people want to give women a charisma bonus, is that males are answering. I noticed at least two other posters here besides myself are women, or at least claim to be. Personally, I just suggested the Cha bonus for those that want gender modifiers as something based on actual research. I used to work in anthropology, and one subject I always found interesting was gender relations. D&D being a fantasy world, however, I don't recommend any modifiers for gender.
Keoki 01-19-05, 05:00 AM	Tell that to the female who hardly leaves her room due to the existance of the computer, and wears as bulky clothes as possible so as to avoid attention. Not to hard, I'm sittin' right here. Not until half-way though the year did I start feeling like a part of the community, had any real friends outside of my dormroom on a campus of 500 (when my graduating class size was 525). That's what the 3d6 (4d6) are for. I don't consider myself particularly charismatic either, but statistically we do score higher in emotional intelligence.
Keoki 01-19-05, 05:05 AM	This has been discussed to death and no good can come from yet another thread about it. Strange... apparently it's more interesting to you than any other thread at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be here. 7a) The thread survives despite the best efforts of the intelligent community members to kill it. Eventually it devolves in to two geeks (with occasional quips from their lackeys) arguing without much style or finese. It is a rare occasion that either of these geeks has ever spoken to a girl outside their own family Don't forget the prick that has nothing better to do with his time than visit threads he claims to despise, instead of going out and talking to girls.
Ongorth 01-19-05, 08:12 AM	Politics and business require dealing with organizations and businesses. That's why a lot of politicans and businesspeople aren't actually very charismatic. Professions that require dealing with people include social work, teaching, nursing, counseling, etc. Rudeness in these professions is unacceptable. However, they do not need to require a high charisma. I work in a school and teachers are about the LEAST charismatic group of people I have ever met. I know a lot of nurses (a lot) and I wouldn't say that rudeness is unacceptable, its often par for the course. Perhaps people with higher charismatic females are drawn to these proffessions like charismatic males are drawn to bussiness, politics and such, which do require immense charisma to excel in.
Kursk 01-19-05, 10:31 AM	The gender adjustment was in the game for years and there was no problem. The only reason it was dropped was because the company wanted to be politically correct. End of story.
Nani? 01-19-05, 10:43 AM	The gender adjustment was in the game for years and there was no problem. The only reason it was dropped was because the company wanted to be politically correct. End of story. But even then I seem to remember arguements against in Dragon magazines and "solutions" for balance (at the time it was only a female maximum strength and hence had no balancing factor). It was dropped because, yes, it was un-PC, but also it also limited RP concepts and dropping it encouraged more female gamers. I think that's a good thing :cheer: . All the best, Nani?
Zyphus 01-19-05, 10:56 AM	While I agree its a waste of a thread, I also have seen that most female players value Int, Dex, and Cha while most male players value Str, Con, and Dex. Now and then there is a female that wants to play a berserker-fighter with an 18 Str, but they often get bored with it and retire or change the character, while a male usually sticks with it until his character's grisly death. Women that take an 18 Str often put their attribute points in other stats at higher levels to be more balanced, while the men in my group just keep upping Strength to ridiculous amounts. Women also seem to like rolling dice a little less - unless they are brand new and sparkly, but everyone likes rolling brand new pretty dice. Overall they play differently and help keep being a DM more enjoyable and a challenge. I have yet to meet a female powergamer. End result - the player's view of the character often modifies the attributes far better than a standardized rule.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-19-05, 12:56 PM	It's nice to throw a little realism into a FRPG, every once in a while. :tiphat: Yeah, sure, but then halflings and gnomes should have a lot more than -2 str. If one wants to achieve realism, or at least a more realistic model, then one is going to have to overhaul far more than just sex based modifiers. That's my biggest problem with assigned modifiers, actually. If it were just humans we were comparing, then it might be easier. However, the modifiers in relationship to other races change perspective a lot. -2 strength for someone half my size, and -2 strength for a female human just doesn't seem accurate. Oh sure, we could make up some things... halflings and gnomes have muscles of steel, the wee folk have magic to aid them, whatever, but that seems kinda ridiculous to do just for stat mods based on sex. However, if one absolutely insisted upon implementing them within the current system, then I'd say go with +1 con, -1 strength for women (or +1 strength, -1 con for men... Yeah. Make 'em sickly!). Now, as someone pointed out, "You can't do that in 3.0! Modifiers need to be even!" Yeah, sure, but that's for races. Despite what one of my friends keeps insisting, men and women aren't different races. And besides, say it with me now... 5' 4" WOMEN ARE STRONGER THAN 3'3" HALFLINGS! Very good. Well sung. -mike the amazing muskrat
Andrew_980 01-19-05, 01:04 PM	:twocents: No woman weightlifter has even come close to beating the men's record. Your case just isn't backed up by the facts. except D+D has no suppliments, drug, extreme workout programs. size+hard labor=strength. a big farm girl will be stronger than a city merchant almost every time. a male pushing 7' and not crippled should have a very high str, but so should a dwarven female smith who works adamant every day stupid arguments should take the worlds in question into account, not just quote facts from reality
Drachasor 01-19-05, 01:38 PM	Things should be the same between the D&D sexes for three reasons: 1. It really adds nothing positive to the game. 2. It cuts down the differences between races. 3. So many people here have very misguided views on how men and women are "different," and half of these people say their point of view is "proven," even when it isn't. Fact is, men and women are largely the same (in most significant ways), and most of the differences that do exist quite possibly come almost entirely from culture. Certainly I'd say this is true as far as stats should matter. Oh, there's a 4th reason: 4. Stat differences cut down on character possibilities. If you make women less able fighters (as many of the pro-difference people want), then it hurts people that want to play a female fighter for personal/aesthetic reasons. The game is about having fun and this seems to take away from that. Afterall, there are plenty of buff, strong female warriors in the fantasy genre. -Drachasor
HailSpork 01-19-05, 07:14 PM	The gender adjustment was in the game for years and there was no problem. The only reason it was dropped was because the company wanted to be politically correct. End of story. I don't recall any actual modifications on core races in DnD/ADnD, except perhaps the charts that have the attribute ranges per race in 2nd ed and before (my groups never paid any attention to the chart in the first place, let alone the differences in gender). Actually, there still is some. I believe that the excerpt in the Monsters Manual for the drow has different stat mods for different genders. But there's the thing: stat mods for gender differences would vary greatly based on species. On humans, I would call it barely noticible (so much so that people are having a near impossible time trying to pinpoint it). On dwarves, it would probably be non-existant; I'm sorry, but if their women have beards (depending on what source you look at), there's a good bet that their hormones just aren't the same as humans. I would also argue that the differences in weightlifters is more a matter of carrying capacity than strength. If this were 2nd ed, perhaps it might mean a difference in the exceptional strength, but I don't think those differences justify a whole ability point. At this point in the thread, is anybody still arguing for stat mods on women, or are we basicly just rewording all our old posts with a few new nuggets of info every so often? 7a) The thread survives despite the best efforts of the intelligent community members to kill it. It seems to me that the intelligent community members are the very ones keeping the thread alive.
jagggar 01-19-05, 07:37 PM	Yeah, sure, but then halflings and gnomes should have a lot more than -2 str. If one wants to achieve realism, or at least a more realistic model, then one is going to have to overhaul far more than just sex based modifiers. That's my biggest problem with assigned modifiers, actually. If it were just humans we were comparing, then it might be easier. However, the modifiers in relationship to other races change perspective a lot. -2 strength for someone half my size, and -2 strength for a female human just doesn't seem accurate. Oh sure, we could make up some things... halflings and gnomes have muscles of steel, the wee folk have magic to aid them, whatever, but that seems kinda ridiculous to do just for stat mods based on sex. However, if one absolutely insisted upon implementing them within the current system, then I'd say go with +1 con, -1 strength for women (or +1 strength, -1 con for men... Yeah. Make 'em sickly!). Now, as someone pointed out, "You can't do that in 3.0! Modifiers need to be even!" Yeah, sure, but that's for races. Despite what one of my friends keeps insisting, men and women aren't different races. And besides, say it with me now... 5' 4" WOMEN ARE STRONGER THAN 3'3" HALFLINGS! Very good. Well sung. -mike the amazing muskrat Well actually. . . Take your basic human and make it small. Then we start looking like this: Ability Bonus* Race STR DEX CON STR DEX CON Human 10 10 10 Small**+ 6 12 8 Gnome+ 8 10 12 +2 -2 +4 Halfling+ 8 12 10 +2 +0 +2 *Bonus when compared to the average small specimen. **Scores for a Small creature were taken by putting a 10 in each stat and then applying ability adjustments for size increase in reverse. +Also gets +1 to AC and attack for being Small. Rather than saying halflings or gnomes are the standard for Small beings, how about we actually look at the standard adjustments for Small beings? Wonder though, why not both so that: Average Score Human STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA Male 11 10 9 10 10 10 Female 9 10 11 10 10 10 Hermaphrodite 10 10 10 10 10 10 I know I've used all 10s as opposed to three 10s and three 11s as the actual average array should be.
Darion Fenix 01-19-05, 09:05 PM	Human women are weaker (on average!) than men. No big deal, this is true with all the primates. But a woman isn't going to become a fighter unless she's really strong! So there may be many more male fighters than female fighters, but those women who do become fighters are just as strong as the male fighters. Ability modifiers do two things, they decrease the maximum score and decrease the probability of good scores. Women are certainly not incapable of possessing a strength score of 18 and an ability modifier would make it impossible for her to be that strong. Even if 1 out of 500 men is has a Strength of 16 and 1 out of 5,000 women has the same strength only those individuals are going to become adventurers in the first place. So yeah the average woman may be weaker than the average man...but adventurers aren't average. Of course your average female half orc barbarian could put your average NFL linebacker to shame!
Razoreface 01-19-05, 09:21 PM	I know I've used all 10s as opposed to three 10s and three 11s as the actual average array should be. Trouble is when you start using the 11's on there, you'll mostly lose the ability to tell which went where, unless you make all average males have 12 strength... the ability modifiers don't actually mean anything until you get to the heroic extremes, which will mess up a lot of people's character concepts. People will be less able to make a real hitpoint tank of a barbarian, because their guy's 18 Con just got knocked away.
psetzer 01-19-05, 10:56 PM	The system chomped my first reply, so here's a shortened version. There are differences. The world record for a male weightlifter can be estimated to about Str 23, and for a female, around Str 19. Both of these are higher than any normal human will have, so just let them roll whatever they want. Really, these aren't average people, and you can just assume that the women are just getting closer to their extremes. Considering how people approach gender roles, it's likely that you won't see female adventurers ever made with ability scores even approaching that, simply because most players don't want to think about a female character that could lift the player over her head.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-19-05, 11:34 PM	hey, dUde. Where are you getting 19 and 23 from? -mike the amazing muskrat
Keoki 01-20-05, 06:32 AM	Perhaps people with higher charismatic females are drawn to these proffessions like charismatic males are drawn to bussiness, politics and such, which do require immense charisma to excel in. I have only one thing to say to that: George W. Bush. An amazingly successful politician, as he admitted lying in order to start a "war," yet still got elected for a second term. Now, I don't want to start a political thread here, but I don't think many people would call him charismatic. Of course, maybe he got re-elected due to the low Charisma of his opponent:).
Keoki 01-20-05, 06:38 AM	except D+D has no suppliments, drug, extreme workout programs. Which both male and female weightlifters use. Your point? size+hard labor=strength. a big farm girl will be stronger than a city merchant almost every time. a male pushing 7' and not crippled should have a very high str, but so should a dwarven female smith who works adamant every day People are different. That's what the 3d6 (4d6) are for. stupid arguments should take the worlds in question into account, not just quote facts from reality If you take the time to read the posts you respond to, you'll notice I happened to be discussing men and women in real life (welcome back to it!). Reading before responding can be very helpful in avoiding embarrassment.
Cold Napalm 01-20-05, 06:51 AM	Okay some combat basics to throw into the mix... 1) men and women have different bone structure and hence different leverage/center of gravity. This is basic biology and NO women has anything similar to a man's bone structure. Just doesn't happen (don't go into hermis...they don't count and you all know it). 2) For combat damage potentional, how a woman fights will differ significantly from a man. Women's shoulder ligiment for instance is much shorter then a man's so she can produce less torque then a man's arm swing. Before you think this makes a woman swing a sword blow weaker then a man's the power of a sword blow comes from the hip motion and not the arm except for a few cases. A woman's hip has on average 2x the length of ligiment then a man and hence she can produce more torque then a man. So what does this mean? From a combat stand point...i.e. damage, a woman has MORE strength then a man for sword blow. A woman who knows how to fight can hit harder and faster then a man with a sword.
Keoki 01-20-05, 08:30 AM	So what does this mean? From a combat stand point...i.e. damage, a woman has MORE strength then a man for sword blow. A woman who knows how to fight can hit harder and faster then a man with a sword. That's interesting. So in game terms that could mean that women could take a -2 modifier to Str for checks and a +2 bonus to same for damage. Too bloody complicated, in my humble opinion. Maybe we should just say they cancel each other out and for simplicity's sake go with my initial suggestion, one that's been echoed by several others in this thread, and ditch gender modifiers. :)
Andrew_980 01-20-05, 09:18 AM	If you take the time to read the posts you respond to, you'll notice I happened to be discussing men and women in real life (welcome back to it!). Reading before responding can be very helpful in avoiding embarrassment. THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING IT ON A D+D SITE, o thats right you make no piont. dont argue game rules and then get pissy when it is pionted out that it is the game in discussion not our world, and thanks for the sarcasm it beats intelligence every time doesn't it? i would say more but my honest thoughts of you at this time would get me banned
psetzer 01-20-05, 09:38 AM	I got my numbers through a fairly simple process. Since the PHB states that your maximum encumberance is equal to the maximum amount you can lift over your head, that's about equivalent to a jerk, which is what you see on the Olympics. It gets calves, quads, glutes, lower back, upper back, shoulders, biceps and triceps, so it's very indicitave of overall strength. I just went and looked up the most recent records I could find, and did a few conversions, since competition barbells are metric. The top male weight was about 262.5 kg, or 583 pounds. It was most of the way to a 23 (17 pounds short), so I counted it as such. The top female weight was 155.5 kg, or 342 pounds, which is eight pounds short of an exact 19. As far as records go, the women's unlimited class (+75 kg) had lower record numbers than the men's lowest (56 kg) class. Men are stronger than women in the most extreme cases, but those extremes are beyond what starting stats include.
Keoki 01-20-05, 10:38 AM	THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING IT ON A D+D SITE, o thats right you make no piont. dont argue game rules and then get pissy when it is pionted out that it is the game in discussion not our world, Um... I didn't. You're the one using all capitals. and thanks for the sarcasm it beats intelligence every time doesn't it? i would say more but my honest thoughts of you at this time would get me banned Yeah, half-witted, spittle-emitting raving wins every time. I bow low to your superior fury! Thanks for making it fun.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-20-05, 11:36 AM	The top male weight was about 262.5 kg, or 583 pounds... Huh. I thought I had read it was around 800lbs for men, 550lbs for women. That's why I asked about your numbers. Maybe I'm thinking of bench presses. Anyway, thanks for the response. -mike the amazing muskrat
rockfall22 01-20-05, 11:40 AM	Well, that's fairly sexist. Women and men are, for the most part, equal. I don't think there should be any statistical difference. I mean, Ms. Bodybuilding USA could probably benchpress Mr. Bodybuilding USA, and vice versa. I have also met a great number of women who could drink men under the table, and a number of men who are far wiser than some women. I think it's more in the way you roleplay your character than in any numbers or statistics. That's my two cents.
Ongorth 01-20-05, 12:12 PM	I have only one thing to say to that: George W. Bush. An amazingly successful politician, as he admitted lying in order to start a "war," yet still got elected for a second term. Now, I don't want to start a political thread here, but I don't think many people would call him charismatic. Of course, maybe he got re-elected due to the low Charisma of his opponent:). While doing my best to hide my political thoughts which aren't relevant, George W. Bush is an extremely charismatic person. Many people find him despicable, that is true, but for reasons that have little to do with charisma traits. I think one thing (somewhat unrelated to the above point) that people look at incorrectly is that charisma is likability. Likability isn't even a factor in the discussion. Force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead and physical attractiveness, those are the elements of charisma (by the PHB). A person can be loathed, villianized and completely rude and heartless, but if they can get people to listen and follow them, if they can command attention, they are charismatic. George Bush is certainly no Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton in terms of charisma, but he isn't shabby either.
Gilean 01-20-05, 12:29 PM	Well, men and women are different. I was responding to the question: What modifiers to give them? Personally, I don't use gender modifiers. D&D does not support them, as shown by the halfling example. This, of course, is from modern viewpoint. In medieval times, there was no such things as female fighters in Europa. I don't know of other continents.
Keoki 01-20-05, 04:33 PM	While doing my best to hide my political thoughts which aren't relevant, George W. Bush is an extremely charismatic person. Many people find him despicable, that is true, but for reasons that have little to do with charisma traits. I think one thing (somewhat unrelated to the above point) that people look at incorrectly is that charisma is likability. Likability isn't even a factor in the discussion. Force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead and physical attractiveness, those are the elements of charisma (by the PHB). A person can be loathed, villianized and completely rude and heartless, but if they can get people to listen and follow them, if they can command attention, they are charismatic. George Bush is certainly no Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton in terms of charisma, but he isn't shabby either. To each his own, I guess. Personally, I think Bush has all the presence and articulateness of a syphilitic toad, but that's just my opinion, except for the articulateness, which is the opinion of most native English speakers I know. As for getting people to follow him, I guess it's a bad example, since so much of any modern politician's popularity is based on speechwriters, imagemakers, campaign managers, etc. I suppose we can agree to disagree. :)
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-20-05, 07:30 PM	Well, that's fairly sexist. Who to the what now? dUde. There's like 60 posts or something here. To what are you referring? -mike the amazing muskrat
SeraphimJMF 01-20-05, 08:20 PM	First off, we're the same race. In general, we're the same. Most men out there have 10 Str, as do most women. In fact, most people have 10's in all their ability scores. Athletes are obvious exceptions... and there are very strong women out there as well as men... Men DO NOT have a bonus to Str. Most men are not any stronger than a woman. I know a few guys who I could beat up and/or beat in a "how much can you carry" contest, and I certainly don't bench-press on a regular basis. It's not a matter of "natural" development that gets you a higher Str as a human, but through training, which either sex can accomplish. Using ability score adjustments makes sweeping generalizations about the human race which just aren't true. The average human, regardless of gender, has 10's in all their stats. Most men and women are equally strong, dextrous, resiliant, smart, observant, and attractive. First of all, most woman have nothing close to 10 str. The vast majority of healthy, young, fit women cannot benchpress 135 pounds. (Which is understandable considering it would be ridiculous for them to benchpress more than their weight) Whereas the average, healthy young male can benchpress close to his weight or more (150+ pounds) I'm sure you know a few out of shape men or men who are just not very strong, but that's why strength would still be random. It is a matter of natural development- male hormones trigger muscle growth. Women have them to, but unless a male has health problems with his glands he's going to have more of them. Additionally, a lean male has more muscle per pound than a lean female of equal BMI because of their build. Of course there are exceptions, but to state that a healthy woman is as strong as a healthy man is pretty ridiculous. The weight difference alone makes this apparent- there are reason weight classes exist in sports like wrestling. If you put a 130 pound man up against a 189 pound man, he is going to get creamed. Despite this, DnD doesn't need to be realistic- it's a fantasy role playing game, and most players use common sense when creating their characters. If you wanted to be fair and still use modifiers for gender, you wouldn't want to take off points- it would probably be better to set a maximum base score, otherwise when you used something like point buy it would be very unfairly and unrealistically skewed in favor of male PCs.
jagggar 01-20-05, 09:18 PM	The halfling shouldn't be considered a completely valid point because both small PC races get +2 STR compared to the standard small modifiers. Well, that's fairly sexist. Women and men are, for the most part, equal. I don't think there should be any statistical difference. I mean, Ms. Bodybuilding USA could probably benchpress Mr. Bodybuilding USA, and vice versa. I have also met a great number of women who could drink men under the table, and a number of men who are far wiser than some women. I think it's more in the way you roleplay your character than in any numbers or statistics. That's my two cents. Equal? Trust me, men and women are not equal in all ways. Be a woman, have bad stuff happen, stuff of the nature of the mature boards (not even to you, just to your close friends and have it be in close proximity to you). You start realizing, "Oh, crap, there's a lot of guys here." There's a presence you can start sensing, and it's kinda creepy, honestly. I know that if a man attacked me and really wanted to hurt me in some way, he most likely could if I don't get enough adrenaline pumping. Philosophically, as in the value of human life? Yes, I'll agree that males and females are equal (with a few deserved individual exceptions). But just because that part is/should be equal, doesn't mean everything else is equal.
mycroft65536 01-21-05, 12:50 AM	Umm how about skill mods, the only one i can think of is that women should get -2 to intimidate. Real world justification, female cops use there firearms more often then male cops because crooks don't take women seriously. This penelty could be removed after a female character gets 4 ranks in intimidate, or when she does a str based intimidate. Or leave the penelty and give women a +2 to perform checks to determine income(NOT bardic abilities) because women are hot and men like to give them money :D . Assume that the game is based on a male human being standerd so they should get no inherint bonuses or penelties. As to women being weaker, while that is true statisticly that is no reason why a female can't have an 18 str, just that most 18str characters are male. Remind the player of this at char creation and have people be suprised at her awsome str.
Kem 01-21-05, 01:04 AM	The gender adjustment was in the game for years and there was no problem. The only reason it was dropped was because the company wanted to be politically correct. End of story. Actually there never was, this is a rather common misconception. There was caps on strength for male/female and based on race. This is also where the Dwarf "Dex Penalty" was in that they where not allowed to have the highest values for dexterity, despite not having an actual penalty. These "Penalties" where taken out for 2nd ed. I never bothered with em based on sex at all. They came into effect so rarely anyways.
ryanroyce 01-22-05, 02:32 AM	The common creatures of a given campaign world have three 11s and three 10s for stats. If you want to represent gender differences in terms of strength, give common males an 11 and common females a 10. 'Nuff said. Thus, the average male is stronger than the average female without penalizing the uncommon exceptions (i.e., the PCs). Ryan
IceFractal 01-22-05, 02:45 AM	I've said it before and I'll say it again: most adventurers are not the norm. That's why you can have old, short, monks who can flip people across the room with one hand, for instance. Adventurers can be much stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than the norm. You can have Halflings with the strength of giants! The fact that this thread is specifically titled "Female PCs" is part of what makes it ridiculous. If even a single woman can achieve 18 strength, then the PC can be that woman. Duh. If the PCs were average their stats would be rolled as 1d3+8. Also, magic! Maybe the entire human race, has, at some point in the past, been the recipients of magic that "optimizes" their genes, giving everyone the potential to achieve great strength/agility/whatever. Finally, arg! How many times must this thread happen? This is like the fifth time! Give it up already, and let me give you a little hint: You're not going to ever agree, its not one of those arguments that can be "won", people will just keep going back and forth on it! :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:
Reinhardt_Wyrd 01-22-05, 10:44 AM	Umm how about skill mods, the only one i can think of is that women should get -2 to intimidate. Real world justification, female cops use there firearms more often then male cops because crooks don't take women seriously. This penelty could be removed after a female character gets 4 ranks in intimidate, or when she does a str based intimidate. Or leave the penelty and give women a +2 to perform checks to determine income(NOT bardic abilities) because women are hot and men like to give them money :D . Assume that the game is based on a male human being standerd so they should get no inherint bonuses or penelties. Hmmm... In a world that has long tradition of patriarchy, and male-hunter/fighter archetype, where women have only recently started to appear in 'violent' (cops, soldiers) proffesions, in short: in our world this is definitely true. However, it doesn't have to be like that in a world where you are as likely to meet male or female cutthroat/figther, in a world where both genders have same chances of development and usually earn *same* respect (in short: politically correct DnD worlds). I just want to say that 'intimidation thing' is rather cultural in my opinion than 'genetical'. Disadvantages of introducing gender modifiers: - it is silly o give a human female -2 to strength just as halfling. By the way human female is about as big as a male elf. So maybe decrease elves' S too? - I will have a lot more powergamers playing the other sex (and roleplaying it horribly) just because it has a + to important stat for their class. - It will not be politically correct - it's hard to agree on the exact changes to stats (should women have higher Dex? or Con? or Wis?) - This may (if done uncarefully) disencourage some women from gaming (bad bad BAD thing) - We would have to develop different modifiers to all races, thinking about their culture and biology ( Drow females are bigger than males) And what we have in exchange? advantage: -slightly more realism (in a game where you can track people in air if you have a skill high enough....) That's why I do not consider gender modifiers. I don't need them. They add nothing. But if anyone else thinks another way, then he can house-rule it. I don't care.
Green 01-22-05, 04:10 PM	I would also argue that the differences in weightlifters is more a matter of carrying capacity than strength. If this were 2nd ed, perhaps it might mean a difference in the exceptional strength, but I don't think those differences justify a whole ability point. If you want to represent gender differences in terms of strength, give common males an 11 and common females a 10. 'Nuff said. Thus, the average male is stronger than the average female without penalizing the uncommon exceptions (i.e., the PCs). This is precisely what I had in mind. The problem with topics like this lies not in the fact that people want gender-based mechanics, but in the assumptions that they are based upon. Namely, designating the male as the average and the female as the other. So, what you get is a bunch of people clamoring for female PCs to get penalties instead of male PCs to get bonuses. For all the talk about realism, this is a decidedly skewed perspective that results in serving only the interests and perspectives of male gamers.
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-22-05, 06:32 PM	OK I will add my two cents. This is utterly stupid, a total waste of time. Women (human anyway) tend to be weaker in physical strength, more agile, more able of enduring pain blah blah blah WHO CARES? As it has been said about 300 times here already there are hundreds of modifiers to take into consideration. Generally it should be left up to the player how the PC shapes up and up to the DM how NPCs shape up (as said before 3 10s and 3 11s r used...stick to those). In my setting I am giving dark elven women +2 STR besides being 10 lbs lighter than males. Why? Lighter and more powerful muscle structure. Males will receive a CHA bonus as they are more adept at chanelling sorcery. That is it. No more gender modifiers. Why? They make no sense, there are too many complications and as the previous poster said they entail too many disadvantages. Nor should height or weight be allowed to give bonuses. Why? Then they would disproportionately affect their dependent skills in an unrealistic way. Strength means many things. It can mean the strength to perform athletic feats etc. In which case body mass is irrelevant. DON'T COMPLICATE THINGS!
nick012000 01-24-05, 05:02 AM	Personally here is what I'd give the different sexes: Men: +1 to Knowledge and Craft checks (including Spell/Psicraft) (their more analytic and spatial minds grant them an edge in this area) +2 to Str for purposes of carrying capacity Women: +1 to all social skills (women's minds make them better at social interaction) +4 to fort saves vs. Pain (women's pain threshold is higher than men)
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-24-05, 09:46 AM	Avoid any form of differentiation in terms of gender as said before. Those adjustments you mentioned are simple enough yet its still too complicated an issue and there is no proof that this stuff applies for women of other races etc. BTW women excel at certain crafts...so the skill check should apply to women too. Don't get into it. Leave things as are regarding genders.
StormKnight 01-27-05, 10:26 AM	I can't help wondering WHY in the world people keep posting about gender based stat modifiers (which almost always amounts to a -STR for women). I just can't think of much explanation other than some bizarre insecurity complex that can't deal with women unless they are 'inferior' in some way. I mean, if you what you want is more "realism" in your campaign, why aren't you busy making rules for, say... Combat modifiers based directly on height and weight? After all, a larger person is a larger target for missile attacks, but a few inches more reach can be very useful in a swordfight. How about modifiers based on background? I mean, someone who was raised as a peasant hauling around a plow by hand because the family couldn't afford a horse will have a higher STR than a noble who has never had to lift a finger or do work. These are all valid "realistic" options that probably don't offend anyone, why not come up with them? So, sorry, I can't see anything here besides an exercise it sexism. The gender adjustment was in the game for years and there was no problem. Back when I was a kid, and really didn't know anything about sexism or anything like that, I saw that in my AD&D rulebook and thought "Wow...that's dumb. I'll never use that rule". By high school I wouldn't have even considered trying to bring AD&D to our gaming group because of what people would think of that, and the negative influence strongly contributed to my never even trying second edition D&D. By now and being an adult if I picked up an RPG that had gender modifiers in it like it would go straight back to the store.
Kursk 01-27-05, 10:33 AM	One of the great things about growing up is once your are you really don't care what other people think (being PC) and say what you think is right. You'll get there eventually. :eek:
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-27-05, 10:35 AM	Agreed with Stormknight on every single point :)
StormKnight 01-27-05, 04:49 PM	One of the great things about growing up is once your are you really don't care what other people think (being PC) and say what you think is right. You'll get there eventually. :eek: Interesting. So my pointedly stating what I think is right means I'm not willing to say what I think is right? Pardon me while I go try to wrap my brain around that. :D
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-27-05, 05:30 PM	Obviously he had nothing useful to say so he thought he'd say something utterly lacking in sense. :rolleyes: I still think you made very good points Stormknight ;)
Ascian 01-27-05, 05:41 PM	God, with the search function down I'm seeing a lot more of the old flamewar crap getting dredged up than usual. It's like Night of the Living Thread. Yeah, there are differences between men and women. I don't think they're notable enough to actually stat them out, though. Minus to strength, plus to con? So women are gnomes? Oy. Forget it. I would like to see some races that work this way, though, where sex isn't just a pointless variable. The Drow society allows for this to an extent with favoured class, but I'm talking about different stats/abilities for males/females of a species. That could be neat.
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-27-05, 05:52 PM	I am making my dark elves like that. Females are naturally stronger (powerful light compact muscle structure) whilst males are more gifted in the arcane Art. This translates to +2 STR for females, +2 CHA for males. In addition, females have an FC of Fighter, males of Warlock.
Andrew_980 01-27-05, 07:09 PM	oh, and while we are at it give the black characters a hide bonus in the dark, and asian pc get an int bonus, and midgets are humans with halfling stat modifiers,ect. there are a million "provable" differances in the various human ethnic groups lets give them all modifiers too so they can be just like the elves. its all dumb, leave the machanics of the game alone unless you are really up to taking into account every differance, and aviod making stupid stereotypes part of the game
Daybreaker 01-28-05, 02:48 PM	As much as I don't like keeping this thread alive, I'm deeply curious as to why there seems consensus about giving females a charisma bonus Well, I think I understand the logic, and I can't say that I really disagree with it. If a woman goes up and asks a stranger of either gender for help, she's more likely to get it than a man. And I think everyone can agree that they smell better, too. :D
Daybreaker 01-28-05, 03:00 PM	My own feelings on the matter: If you really wanted to be uber-realistic about it, I suppose it would be appropriate to give women a negative to strength. Men are, on average, about twice as strong as women. That's just the reality of it. Men are bigger and have more muscle-building hormones, generally speaking. And when you're talking about stat adjustments, you aren't supposed to be attempting to account for every variable individual. Of course there are some women who are stronger than some men, but if you walk down the street right now and grab the first man and the first woman you see, we all know that the odds are excellent that the man is going to be stronger than the woman. There are those who would say that this is cultural, not biological, but I don't think biologists would agree. :) If I were going to assign stat modifiers based on gender, I would give women -2 strength, +2 dexterity and +2 charisma. I might include a +2 wisdom for women as well, but I think that's more arguable and gives women even more advantages, so not being certain, I'd probably just err on the side of game balance. Now, having said that, I wouldn't use such stat adjustments. I was just speaking hypothetically. Why wouldn't I? Because I think players can and do decide these things for themselves. If they want to say that their female PC comes from some Amazon tribe that, through some quirk of magic or evolution, has a lot of women running around that are as strong as male olympic weightlifters, I don't have a problem with that. Because, y'know, I'd really like the world to be that way. I dig strong chicks. And maybe if we aren't so busy crushing the fantasy, someone will figure out how to make it more of a reality.
Aminar 01-28-05, 03:27 PM	I didn't read most of the thread but my opinion is that women get a -1 to str while men get a -1 to wisdom or int( so you don't kill the idead of a male speelcaster.) I have always found women to be much more logical than men. My girlfriend usually is but she won't talk to me right now. :weep:
Daybreaker 01-28-05, 03:56 PM	To each his own, I guess. Personally, I think Bush has all the presence and articulateness of a syphilitic toad, but that's just my opinion, except for the articulateness, which is the opinion of most native English speakers I know. As for getting people to follow him, I guess it's a bad example, since so much of any modern politician's popularity is based on speechwriters, imagemakers, campaign managers, etc. I suppose we can agree to disagree. :) It is odd how those of us who hate him really hate him. I mean, he's the most hated man on the planet right now. I don't know if that means his charisma is high or low.
Daybreaker 01-28-05, 04:42 PM	Another thought that occurs to me is that just because you make adjustments for humans wouldn't mean that you'd have to make adjustments for all of the other races, or that they would have to be the same adjustments. Gender is a fun thing to screw with when it comes to nonhuman races. For example, I've created campaigns where all Elves were female and all Dwarves were male. But say you have a race like Elves where there aren't any marked differences in muscle or anything else between the genders. That would mean that the tendency of low-tech cultures to be dominated by men wouldn't exist for the Elves, and they would have a greater degree of gender equality. Or at least, they could. Or imagine a race where females are larger and stronger than males. I once included a tribe of humans that were like that in a D&D game.
hiryuu 01-28-05, 06:02 PM	But say you have a race like Elves where there aren't any marked differences in muscle or anything else between the genders. That would mean that the tendency of low-tech cultures to be dominated by men wouldn't exist for the Elves, and they would have a greater degree of gender equality. Or at least, they could. You know there are tribes in Africa who have a completely reversed social order (men cook, raise children, stay at home and watch the fort while women go hunting and manange war) for precisely the reason that men are typically bigger and stronger.
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-28-05, 06:09 PM	Oh you mean like drow? In the older editions the average female used to get all the bonuses, including the DEX and INT bonus. There is nothing to say they won't evolve further to get a STR bonus. Drow women are extremely dominant, at least socially. Currently, although larger than their men they aren't that much bigger to warrant a STR bonus. On the other hand, a female spider could be 20 times the size of her mate (but also some spider queens are 100 times the size of other females). Though I don't think the designers want to make something that ridiculous. As for that tribe in Africa, its possible that that applies because females are more athletic. It has been said that in less than 100 years women will outrun men in the Olympics. This is because women were stuck in homes for the past few tens of centuries. Their emancipation has meant their physique is changing fast...they are getting taller and stronger built. In a D&D world women may have never been opressed anyway, so they may be stronger built anyway (though not necessarily as strong as men on average). They were definitely healthier. Add to that that women tend to be agile, flexible and good at balancing, and they are skilled fightresses. So its possible that they would take on such a role in a tribe. Women don't really need men...look at spiders...men are wholly disposable. Its frightening, but if women were to be completely dominant like spiders men would be but reproductive tools. Human women are larger than most mammals in proportion to men (mammal females are 2/3 of male size...humans 4/5), so the whole theory that we follow animal patterns is rubbish. Which animal patterns? Female pythons are larger than males, spider females are larger than males...lionesses and tigresses are smaller than males yet equally talented huntresses. Don't bother with stat adjustments based on gender, ESPECIALLY IN A FANTASY WORLD. :rolleyes: Only introduce them in cases like the drow. In any case I continue to agree that no further modifications are needed in terms of gender or height / weight. The solution? DON'T let appearance dictate stats. Rather, let the player assign their char's weight/ height and make them give a reason for it. If I give a female char 18 Str and 16 DEX I could say she is strong of body and lean and muscular, perhaps being 6ft and 150 lbs. Adjustments based on height/ weight are idiotic for the simple matter that the issue is so complicated, as said before. Let the DM ensure that player choices are logical and there should be no problem...otherwise the game becomes overly realistic without really being realistic...currently its vagueness in some ways allows for creativity and realism. Also, as said before, if you want the average NPC to show a stat diff simply differentiate their allocation of 10s and 11s. Thas my say for now :)
Daybreaker 01-28-05, 06:12 PM	You know there are tribes in Africa who have a completely reversed social order (men cook, raise children, stay at home and watch the fort while women go hunting and manange war) for precisely the reason that men are typically bigger and stronger. That's a good point. Really, anything is possible, and should be even moreso in D&D. I'm just arguing hypotheticals is all. :)
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-28-05, 06:33 PM	Yeh they seem to operate almost like a lion society, where lionesses hunt and lions protect the other lions. Anyway, as I said current vagueness allows room for more creativity.
hiryuu 01-29-05, 01:37 AM	That's a good point. Really, anything is possible, and should be even moreso in D&D. I'm just arguing hypotheticals is all. :) Yeah, true. Any stat-based argument is hypothetical anyway, I just tend to shrug and let it go, there's no reason to have gender based stat-adjustments other than engender controversy as to which ones to put in and to kill some character concepts in the bud, so why put 'em in? Besides, I'm of the opinion (look out, hypothesis coming through!) that the stereotype of women being more "emotional" or "nurturing" than men and vice-versa is more of a cultural artifact than anything else. I guess that's what I was trying to point out. So that idea throws more confusion into the loop.
Mjollnir88 01-29-05, 01:49 AM	...It has been said that in less than 100 years women will outrun men in the Olympics. This is because women were stuck in homes for the past few tens of centuries. Their emancipation has meant their physique is changing fast...they are getting taller and stronger built. :rofl: :rofl: Motherhood is slavery? :rofl: :rofl: Women don't really need men...look at spiders... :uh-huh: :looloo: Don't bother with stat adjustments based on gender, ESPECIALLY IN A FANTASY WORLD. :rolleyes: Only introduce them in cases like the drow. Because only that would be P.C. :P
Keoki 01-29-05, 02:45 AM	It is odd how those of us who hate him really hate him. I mean, he's the most hated man on the planet right now. I don't know if that means his charisma is high or low. I don't hate him, but I do think he comes off in public as pretty vile.
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-29-05, 08:36 AM	:rofl: :rofl: Motherhood is slavery? :rofl: :rofl: :uh-huh: :looloo: Because only that would be P.C. :P Yeah umm if you haven't realised it women were second class citizens. Wake up. They weren't really allowed to take up many jobs, they weren't treated as equals etc Mainly they were stuck in houses the whole day. Victorian England is a perfect example, as women then had to be prim and perfect, extremely delicate creatures. I don't know how much you know about how women were treated, but there is a reason movements like feminism came about you know. They've never had it easy (and those of you who think motherhood, which is perhaps the least of tasks a women had in the old days, is easy go get a clue). Therefore they weren't encouraged to develop athletically or anything. Even in cases such as farmholds were women did hard labour (like in Germany...the height gap between men and women is smaller her, and the women are generally well built) women often had little say in household matters as the male was the patriarch. Even today women have to deal with a lot of nonsense when trying to develop physically (or even intellectually), like braindead dolts giving them a hard time. In a D&D world there is no rule that says women were similarly opressed. Drow societies, for instance, are an example of matriarchies. Many other possibilities may arise. Ergo, it is idiotic to impose any stat modifications, based on inconclusive research, which will not even be a succesful representation of real life. Umm...what are you on about? They are one type of creature where gynarchy is absolute. Males are nothing but reproductive tools. That is as far as they are necessary. Spider females handle raising the young spiders and are self sufficient. And yes, spiders are an excellent paradigm in the case of D&D since the Drow are heavily modelled on them. Beyond that, science (or magic in the case of D&D ) could render males perfectly useless in such absolute matriarchies were they are seen as lesser creatures. Many movies have been made on such possibilities. What is your point? As far as I know stat modifiers apply to NPCs as well. An average drow would have 10 STR, 8 CON, 12 DEX, 12 INT, 10 WIS and 12 CHA with 3 points to distribute. In the old systems female frow got all the bonuses. Now I don't think that applies any more. Yet it is one way of applying gender based stat modifiers. Drow women benefitted from the best of training and thus realised their potential. Males got less. Yet in the case of NPCs the DM is responsible, why not leave such things up to the DM instead of imposing idiotic rule variations to the system which will only ineffectively complicate it with little benefit in return?
Mjollnir88 01-29-05, 07:33 PM	I know alot of women "in the workplace", they are not there because it is "fulfilling" or "liberating", rather they are foced to work outside the home due to economic necessity (same as with men). "Working women" have to do twice as much as a "housewife", not only do they have to do do the 9to5 drudgery, but household chores still need to be done. Meals don't fix themselves, the house doesn't clean itself, ect. Even single women still have to do their own laundry, and few women will stay single their entire lives. At least under the "oppressive" traditional model the labor is divided between both partners, making it easier on everyone. Sorry I didn't pay attention in "Post-Modern Gender Roles 101", but I was busy dealing with reality. BTW spiders are a very different species from humans, what is normal for spiders is not normal for humans.
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-29-05, 08:02 PM	Men and women should share the upbringing of children. I am sorry, I don't believe the duty of doing this falls on a woman alone. To believe so is retrogressive and undermines the role of the father as a parent (modern economics dictates that both parents often need to work...yet that doesn't lessen the duties of the father in any way, and likewise neither does it lessen the duties of a mother...ergo sharing parental duties is not a bad idea). So, if the traditional model "works better" that is only because the modern model is not as efficient as it should be. Employers don't do enough to aid women and men often don't do enough to help raising kids, let alone helping around the house. Men can now take child birth leave to help their wife. So the industry is adapting, though its taking its time. And btw I never said women were wholly emancipated, I said merely that they aren't as badly opressed as they were before. True, their induction into the labour force has meant their workload has increased (and they aren't even paid as much as they deserve quite often) yet that will change as employer attitudes shift. In any case, what are you on about reality? This is D&D. An argument about whether or not genders should have stat differences. Oh yeh, I forgot, D&D is reality :rolleyes: My point was that D&D women have NOTHING to do with women, either of older or modern times, because societies in D&D worlds are often very different, and reflect an entirely different period in time and way of life. Yeah, yet as I have stated repeatedly drow are modelled on spiders and follow a very similar social structure. So, I never said spiders and humans had much in common. Oh and btw, this being fantasy (yeh, weird isn't it? D&D is fantasy and not reality ...who would have thought :eek: :rolleyes: :P ) it is possible for humans to have developed some kind of connection with spiders (or whatever animal) and follow a similar model society. The drow are elves who did this.
Darion Fenix 01-29-05, 10:31 PM	Read my quotation marks. "Non Issue" While in the vast majority of the animal kingdom the females are larger and more powerful than males, this just isn't true for mammals. Male primates are just bigger stronger than their opposite sex same species counter parts. It's biology, not sociology. Words of wisdom from Dr. Patrick J. Bird, "Men are about 30 percent stronger than women, on average. This difference is mainly in the upper body, where men have an edge of about 40%. In the lower body the difference is only about 15%. This strength advantage is do to the fact that men are generally bigger and heavier. They typically have more muscle mass and less body fat. And their taller and wider skeletal frame provides a leverage advantage. But there are no inherent gender differences in muscle quality or capacity. Women can generate the same force per unit of muscle as men. And with training, they make the same relative strength improvements. Moreover, there is a considerable range among both sexes, and some women are stronger than some men. " Yup, men are bigger, taller, wider, heavier, sweatier and smellier than women (on average.) Female muscle is just as strong as male muscle. However, women generally cannot gain muscle mass as quickly as men (because of hormonal differences) and typically have a lower strength cap than men. (There's only so much weigh your body can handle...) Based on my own estimates off of the Carrying Capacity chart in the PHB, I'd say that the average 18-25 year old man comes in at the 11-13 range while women of the same age might get a 6-8. In high school, a lot of girls (basketball players and track runners) could scarcely bench press the 45 pound bar which you load weight on to...in D&D terms that's a strength score of 4. Of course I was also friends with the girl who took 2nd place in the state powerlifting contest. Given her lifting scores she would come in at a 12 in D&D. It would certainly look like men are stronger. So what? Big deal! I don't know about you, but I only move furniture every few months at the most. Being able to lift a loveseat over your head is certainly impressive...but it doesn't make you a better member of society. Men and women are equal in all mental faculties (though I am inclined to believe that men are generally more left brained and better at math and the hard sciences while women more right brained and commonly better at...everything else). And men and women ought to be equal in all sections of society. That said...don't screw with D&D's stats. Didn't I just say that men are clearly stronger? Why yes I did. Don't do it. Maybe only 1 in 10 Fighters is a woman, but she's just as strong as the other 9. PCs are already exceptional individuals, doesn't matter what sex they are. Never mind the fact that the mechanics of it are a DM's nightmare. Give men +2 Strength and they're as strong as half orcs. Give half orc men +2 more strength to make it fair and you've got a first level barbarian with 22 Strength on your hand! Give women -2 Strength instead? Yeah...that'll go over real well with the female players at the table. DM "So I've decided on a house rule. All female characters will get +2 Charisma but -2 Strength while male characters will get -2 Charisma and +2 Strength." Female Player who likes Fighters *Crams a d4 up the DM's nose* Male Player who likes Bards *Sobs piteously*
Daybreaker 01-29-05, 10:43 PM	:rofl: :rofl: Motherhood is slavery? :rofl: :rofl: No, slavery is slavery. :) Which includes being forced against your will, and if a certain style of motherhood is forced on you against your will, then motherhood becomes slavery. Think about it. How would you like it if you were forced in the same way? Nobody would even think about telling a man that he has to stay home and be a house-husband. Heck, that's seen as making him less of a man.
Darion Fenix 01-29-05, 11:27 PM	I dunno...I think a single father raising a kid all by himself is pretty manly. Of course, I don't need a woman telling me that men ought to do their share of the house work. After all being a "house wife" doesn't come with vacation days or even lunch breaks, it typically starts at 7 instead of 9 and ends when everyone ELSE is in bed. ...I love my mommy ^_^
Daybreaker 01-29-05, 11:29 PM	Agreed. Moms kick ass. :D
Andrew_980 01-30-05, 03:58 AM	Think about it. How would you like it if you were forced in the same way? Nobody would even think about telling a man that he has to stay home and be a house-husband in all fairness, the common man has been forced into harsh labor, working himself to an early grave from the dawn of man. women like to say motherhood is worse cuz they put in more time, but ask a man how hard it is to go to war, farm(in the old days) or work in a steel mill or factory. I dont feel like hearing it from either side, in all fairness lets call it even
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-30-05, 03:47 PM	True, primate males do tend to be inherently stronger. BTW don't women have longer legs proportionately to their body and larger thighs? From what I know due to pregnancy they have wider waists and thighs than a man of the equivalent size. They also have a much better balance than men and are more flexible. But, men who train well can attain a similar level of flexibility and agility. Not necessarily balance though. Women are inherently more dextrous and can take more pain than men. Yet as said before, these differences in physical capacity are marginal, and at the most warrant a +/- 1 difference. Sociology does play a role, as I said earlier. The size gap may not be so large if women were to do heavy labour more or men to do lighter labour (over time evolution would alter the physique). Maybe women won't be larger than men, but they will be closer in size. Now if in D&D women are accustomed to doing heavy physical labour the strength gap may be smaller. In cases like the drow, were females are inherently larger, the notion of larger male is reversed. OK they are marginally bigger, but still. In any case, its best to leave out adjustments of any sort, especially in the case of D&D. Why? It may be that women are smaller than men, but unlike women in real life which tend to be unfit, women in D&D are usually either hard workers in farm steads or aristocrats who exercise regularly. So at least they will be able to lift their own body weight. STR covers many aspects, including your own body's strength (ie the ability to climb etc), not just how hard you hit. Anyway, there are ways of overcoming a strength deficiency (like taking up a martial art such as kung fu or aikido and focusing on styles that take advantage of dexterity and inner strength or focusing on fighter styles that favour speed). Women had no choice but to bear children and stay home at a certain point (and if men were forced to go to steel mills this was of their own fault as they created the situation in which they forced women to stay home while they went out to work). I won't go further into it, as its irrelevant to what is being discussed. Agreed that women are equal in all mental faculties (difference in ways of thinking doesn't mean difference in capacity), and ought to be equal in every single sector in society (physiological differences such as being more dextrous or less strong are irrelevant and inconsequential). So to end this, forget idiotic rule modifications that as already said do not reflect reality accurately, are a pain in the ass and do nothing but complicate already complicated rules and annoy people. Leave NPC stat distribution up to the DM and PC stat distribution (based on gender or physical attributes) to the player. Otherwise it just becomes overbearing.
Darion Fenix 01-30-05, 07:05 PM	You can't really talk about sociology having any effect on biology. We're the same species as we were 1,000 years ago, the same as we were 10,000 years ago. If earth was suddenly ruled by a gynarchy where women were prized for size and physical strength and 10,000 years passed men and women would still have the same comparative anatomies. I got my nose, green eyes and wide shoulders from my father...the ability to bench press 300 pounds isn't genetic. "Well, what if only the biggest and strongest women were allowed to mate and men were prized for being small and weak?" Well, that's interesting, but dumb. We're not separate species, new generations of both sexes would be effected the same way, not separate ways. Men would still be taller and stronger on average. If my mother was 6'7" and 300 pounds and my father was 5'4" and 150, would that mean my sister would automatically be bigger and stronger? Not a chance. Maybe after a million years of the gynarchy then there might be an evolutionary shift. But even the entire history of civilization is an insignificant fraction of time when compared to evolution, even the existence of our species! It's not like women threw off the shackles of domesticity 100 years ago and spontaneously changed their biology. It's not true either that men lift more weights or do more physical labor than women any more (in America.) Your average American man is just as fat and lazy as your average American woman. Okay...men might be fatter and lazier...but the point is that men and women are just as likely to exercise and just as likely to strength train. Since the end of Victorianism to the present day have women gotten stronger? Yes, but that's because it's socially acceptable for them to play sports and lift weights, not because they're evolving.
Meshakhad 01-30-05, 08:06 PM	What I should point out is that as far as I know, in D&D, it is advantageous to be female. Why? Every single prestige class that has a gender requirement requires members to be female. This was probably created to balance the fact that roleplayers tend to be male. However, I think we need to have some male-only prestige classes. First of all, the Eye of Gruumsh would never allow a female. Females are merely property in orc society, after all.
IceFractal 01-30-05, 09:21 PM	Ok, I'll admit that we "need" gender stat-modifiers ... when you admit that we "need" different rules for overhand weapon swings, sideways swings, pierces, pomel strikes, tripping by leverage, tripping by mass, tripping by surprise, realistic thermodynamics for fireballs, conductivity index for lightning bolts, molecular structure for mithral and adamantine, details on how an elves/dwarves/etc digestive/nervous/endocrine/etc system differs from a human one, critical hit charts with different results to every single vulnerable body part and a "chance of infection" index for every wound, physics equations for where spell energy comes from, cerebrum-cerebelum interaction for controlling an odd number of limbs when polymorphed, a social-class/gender/birthplace modifier for commercial interactions, detailed rules on exactly how much nails and wood cost for using Profession(carpenter) versus Profession(shipbuilder), and so on, ad nauseum. There's about a million details that D&D glosses over because too much realism gets ridiculous. Do you want a 100 volume, 20,000 page PHB with a DVD set full of revisions? Do you want an attack roll to take 15 minutes? No? Then you don't really want perfect realism.
Yak of Darkness 01-30-05, 11:19 PM	conductivity index for lightning bolts I want to be able to throw a lightning bolt into a small pool and fry everyone in it long before I want the game I play to say, "women are as strong as three-foot tall hobbits." Y'know, 'cause of the realism. Actually, now I really want that lightning thingy. *starts thinking about a non-instantaneous spell that would allow lightning to conduct* And, from what I've seen of the female-only PrCs, they seem to be restricted to things that--as a fantasy archetype--are the realm of women. I'm not sure how many male Swanmays the world really needs.
Kuraito 01-31-05, 03:14 AM	Please forgive the possible arrogance of this post, but i think its time someone who actually knows what the HELL hes talking about to make a stand here. I'm a weightlifter, and i use a system called BFS, also known as Bigger Faster Stronger, which is the system used by most pro athletes. Its called this because its designed to add the most amount of muscle on your body as possible, thus making you Bigger, Stronger and Faster. Women has a slightly diffent BFS program (done by the same company) called BETTER, Faster, Stronger. Its done this way because women don't have the testastorone (Er...bad spelling) to add on muscle the way men do. They find it VERY diffacult to ADD muscle and they usually just tone the muscle they already had (on the upside, women tone muscles easier than men). Hence a woman and a man using the same work out system, at the end the man will be MUCH bigger and moderatly stronger. that being said, ready for the biggy? MEN ARE NOT NATURALLY STRONGER THAN WOMAN TO BEGIN WITH! Its only when you start to really get into shape that a big diffrence starts showing. As such, with the abstract system of stats in DnD, theirs no need to alter how men and women gain str. as the diffrance is truly minute until the upper levels of strength. Anyone who says their stronger then their female freinds than i ask you how active they are and how active are you? Also, how BIG are you compared to them? SIZE also plays a big part as size changes relative stength. I, at 260, can lift MUCH more than someone who worked out just as much as me (and is hence as strong as me RELATIVLY) but only weighs 200. Now size dosn't matter until you become Large, and Size has more of an impact on strength than being male or female, so again, no need to complicate matters. Now i may be just an ignorant jock but this is an area i actually have some expertise in, so i think my opinion is worth taking into account. Also, Early i saw some RIDICULOUS arguments that say men should get more Int, aparently because our brains are bigger. Did you know that when we evolved from neanderthals to HomoErrectus, our brains got SMALLER and more complex? Brain size means nothing for Int, it how complex said brain is, and how its used and applied.
Keoki 01-31-05, 04:44 AM	MEN ARE NOT NATURALLY STRONGER THAN WOMAN TO BEGIN WITH! Its only when you start to really get into shape that a big diffrence starts showing. When a man develops his body strength (which, by the way, has very little to do with being in or getting into shape), he certainly improves is much more than a woman. However, men that don't exercise are still usually stronger than women that don't exercise. SIZE also plays a big part as size changes relative stength. ...And that's the main reason why. On average, men are larger than women. Of course that isn't always the case, but as I've posted here before, that's what the 3d6 (4d6) are for.
Kuraito 01-31-05, 05:38 AM	Forgive me. I tend to think in terms of RELATIVE strength or in weightlifting terms, Index. What i MEANT to say was that men and women are actually just as strong as each other relativly and that this only changes when you start working out a great deal.
Darion Fenix 01-31-05, 01:57 PM	I like to think I've got a pretty good handle on this subject too, Kuraito, since I did powerlifting in high school and at 250 I could bench 315, squat 500 and deadlift 520 (and I've got nothing but a couple of bronze medals to show for it if that's any indication of how tough Texas competition is.) Lifting meets are coed, some of the girls from my school trained as much as I did. Like I said, girl muscle is just as strong as boy muscle. If you had a 150 pound woman and a 150 pound man the same height and with the same body fat percentage, they would very likely be just as strong as one another. Men are just taller and heavier on average. Taller, heavier men are stronger than shorter, lighter guys. That's why there are weight classes in boxing and lifting. What might be realistic is to determine someone's Height and Weight AFTER determining their strength score. It's not sexist and it's very realistic. Something like +10 pounds for every point above 10 ought to do the trick.
Kuraito 01-31-05, 02:15 PM	Sorry, but there were some stupid, stupid people early and i couldn't bring myself to read all 100+posts. If you made those points before me, than congrats and glad someone other than me has a brain. On a side note, good stats, but your deadlifts a little low when compared with your squat, In my experience you should be able to dealdlift alot more than your squat but hey, its diffrent for everyone. I'm renouned for having a Abysmal powerclean considering my other lifts, just never could get the form right. And i do agree with relative size being and issue. We had a bard in the party with 12 str, he decided to be 6'7'' and 250 of pure muscle. Thats the same size as my 20 str half-orc! Some people..... One thing you did miss out on is the fact that the lifting will have made the boy BIGGER than the girl and hence stronger. (Lifting does make you BIGGER for all those non-active people). But AFTER the lifting, if their the same height and weight, they should lift about the same.
Inverted Dice 01-31-05, 02:36 PM	I don't get why people would think men would be more intelligent than women. Firstly, intelligence is really a number of many, many factors. It includes maturity, motivation, logical ability, creativity, linguistic ability and is largely a mess of both hereditary and environmental factors. And there is way more at work here than what gender you happen to be. I think whatever the differences gender might have on intelligence is irrelevent since people are likely to adapt to their environment with what they have. I believe I have heard that accomplished scientists all solve basic problems the way they are most comfortable with doing it. Also, as a general rule of thumb: brain size in proportion to body size is some indication of intelligence. And really this is only any good for comparing different species and not humans, since no doubt many other factors come into play. Also since I tend to hate humans equally: Women can be every bit as stupid as a man and vice versa. Seriously, if you're a guy and you think a girls are wiser than you, that's just plain wrong. You're just less likely to notice when they screw-up because women are attractive to you or because they do their best to hide any faults they may have.
Elhan the Sorcerer 01-31-05, 04:39 PM	Yeah, its true a man and a woman of the same measurements and BF would have the same strength. Yet there is a difference in female fat levels and bone structure that gives them wider waists and thicker thighs. Research shows women are good at enduring environmental extremes and have a high threshold for pain (although the whining some women do would lead you to think otherwise...its just because they express emotions more). They are also highly agile and flexible, and have good balance. This is all irrelevant, as such attributes may not be enough to warrant a Con or Dex bonus. In D&D women have access to magic, which can affect evolution, are generally physically active etc So they can be strong, either in relative or absolute terms for a number of reasons. If anything, size differences are what make women weaker, not the fact that they are women. Stop nitpicking with gender adjustments. Str adjustments could be introduced for height/ weight. But then what about BF? Relative strength (ie how powerful your own body is at handling its own weight, things like climbing etc)? Different body types? This is getting excessive. As well as boring. As a previous poster said, it would lead to 20 000 pages of modifications. Then why not just make D&D a science manual or something? D&D's vagueness allows for flexibility. Anyway enough. I bore with this. I'm leavin :P
Darion Fenix 01-31-05, 08:36 PM	No, I said there should be weight modifiers for Strength, not the other way around. If you're strong then you're going to weigh more. But if you're weigh 250 pounds you're either really fat or really strong...maybe both. Height is pretty irrelevant to how strong someone is...I can name 2 guys right now who are 7 inches shorter than me and bench just as much. And thanks Kuraito. I think my squat was so much better by comparison because that's always the first lift of a meet...and after 6 hours before they got to the deadlift, I was pretty drained. That and I always got psyched about the squat because it was my best lift anyway, so the adrenaline rush definitely helps. My powercleans suck too for some reason...short guys definitely have an advantage there. Random notes: Yup, girls won't bulk up as quickly as guys because they produce 1/10th the testosterone. There is a female hormone which helps with muscle development but I forget the name...And yes, girls have 10% more body fat than men, fertility is dependent on that.
Keoki 02-01-05, 04:16 AM	What might be realistic is to determine someone's Height and Weight AFTER determining their strength score. It's not sexist and it's very realistic. Something like +10 pounds for every point above 10 ought to do the trick. Now this idea I like. Unfortunately, it's even more complicated. Better to just leave the rules the way they are.
arimus09 02-01-05, 08:46 PM	I just read the first page of this board and it seems to me that everyone is missing the obvious. I'm sure we would all agree that females and males alike are not born with an 18 str. Furthermore, it is widely excepted that D&D is about exttrordinary pc's taking huge risks/gambles against insurmountable odds. Why then can we not assume that pc's have worked hard on what ever score they have in any stat. That a female with 18 str spent her life working out because she knew she wanted to be an adventurer etc...Therefore excluding the need to put gender adjustments in the stats. I do agree with some things that have been said here, but I think alot of it will be on how the pc is rp'd. We can get into all sorts of things like word per day quotas etc...Armed forces studies that show women are better fighter pilots because their bodies are better suited physoilogicly to withstand g-forces and they can track multiple targets with great ease then men. In large women interact differently socially then men, which is rping not stat adjustment. They are physiologicly different then men. Thresholds of vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell, pain are different for men and women taken as a whole. Each individual has different thresholds as well. In short this game is about individuals.It should be considered that every player regardless of sex, is assumed to have been blessed or worked for the stats that they have. Therefore adjustments based on sex are better left alone. By the way...I'm male.