>female character >-1 STR >+1 DEX How true is this IRL?

Fuck no.

Don't forget -1 INT

>>41289259
more like

>-5 STR
>-2 DEX
>-2 INT

File: 0k]op.gif (988KB, 450x252px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 450x252px

>>41289259
>-1 STRENGTH
>-1 ENDURANCE
>+1 CUNNING

Fixed.

File: IMG_0162.jpg (178KB, 948x669px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 948x669px

>>41289259
> no boosts to charisma and luck

>>41289259
More charming, cunning, and have a natural affinity for being more agile and doing more things at once.
But they get no special bonus for it.

>>41289259
Strength and musculature helps with agility so average ones, no

>>41289259
>-infinite Everything important
>+1 hole for sexual pleasure
Ftfy

>>41289259
-5 STR because the average man is stronger than all but the top 1% of women
no DEX adjustment if using only DEX; if using AGL and DEX then -2 AGL and +2 DEX only because their hands are smaller
-2 CON the WR women's marathoner would place 100th in the men's field
no INT adjustment but scores over 15 are treated as 15 and scores under 6 are treated as 6
-3 WIS
+10 CHA

>>41289369
Not even
More like +1 to being desired by men, so they can get them to do shit, otherwise most of them couldn't do shit like that to people that don't want to fuck them.

>>41289553
it's not even charisma though, its more like

+5 man attraction

-4 str
-2 dex
-3 con
-3 wis
-1 int
All stats rolled as 2d6 + 3 instead of 3d6

This is probobly the most accurate

>>41289611
Exactly they'd have -5 against other women

>>41289680
Wouldn't 3d4+3 make more sense?

>>41289733
probably invert the scale for women, an 18 in man attraction is a 3 for dealing with other women