What is garunteed more replies than -4 str?

>>52297660

Being obese = +2 CON

Defending GW business practices.

Posing as a successful dudebro and sneering at nerds.

Some meme-tier shit for/against 3rd wave feminism.

-4 str on the D&D scale doesn't accurately reflect the gap in physical strength between men and women in the real world.

>>52297732

Good answer.

>>52297732
-4 STR is rather stupid anyways for the gap in strength between men and women, it only works in real life because people have practical limits in real life.

in D&D you can stack STR like there's no tomorrow until you are jacked enough to lift a mountain with an anal plug theoretically. -4 STR doesn't make sense at all.


it's about how women have a lower potential limit than men, but with D&D removing said limits there's no reason to give women a STR penalty.

>>52297660
A thread discussing why -4 str gets replies

>>52297814

And INT penalty would probably be better. Maybe lower Wil save too, seeing as how they experience orgasms during rape.

>>52297660
> Hi, guys, don't you just hate how women are ruining our hobby?

>>52297660
>there's rumors of Age of Emperor/Guillimarines out there guys! I've heard it from a very reliable source!

>>52297814

The thing is that the reason women have lower strength then men on average is just because they're smaller than men on average.

If you wanted to be mister hyper autist "realist" you'd put a hard cap on strength that's determined by your height. But then you'd get the equal amount of autists going "why can't I be a super strong 5'3 barbarian!?" and so on and so on.

>>52297814
Women don't only have a lower ceiling, they have a lower starting point (which is what -4 str represents).

>>52297851
Int penalty is wrong. Women simply have a strongly bell-shaped IQ distribution, men have a flatter one. So most women are average; while men vastly outnumber women at the top (and bottom) of the IQ graph.

>>52297851
not sure about an INT penalty, given how Women tend to be more stable then men and aren't nearly as extremely successful or as much of a failure.

a lower will save could make sense as even Jean de Arc never really fought herself, but women tend to have an easier time inspiring or seducing others, and thus a higher CHA score could make sense so long as they're not talking to somebody who is Hostile and not good aligned.

>>52297745

Just look where this thread is going.

>>52297851
The INT penalty should go to men looking at your retarded post.

>>52297896
>hard cap on strength that's determined by your height
>realistic

That's cute.

File: comparison of hand-grip strength male female.png (138KB, 1682x1223px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1682x1223px

>>52297896
No, bone density and other factors also play a part.

Given a Gaussian distribution within genders, this is exactly what you'd expect from a flat penalty...

>>52297929
Jesus Christ you two get a room already

>>52297732
This is the best answer that this thread is likely to produce.

>>52297929
but does the concept of a str floor really apply when we're talking about the same setting where people with funny hats and silly robes are blatantly fucking with the fundamental laws of physics for cheap thrills?

>>52297660
BBEG

>>52297976
>Neither males or female in this group did not engage in special athletic training

So... they DID engage in special athletic training?

>>52297660
>>52297660
veiled /pol/ threads, ie orc threads

>>52298008
Unless there is a previously declared exception, "realism" is assumed to prevail. In gaming, this is called "verisimilitude" and is often a valued setting attribute.

If you need a handwave, just say your female PC is in the gray-marked spot of gender equality shown in >>52297976 because she is a PC and thus an exceptional specimen, clearly in the top 5% of humans.

3D printers are a cheap and high-quality alternative for GW's minis.

File: 1418579944522.jpg (21KB, 450x299px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x299px

>>52298034
>stating facts
MUH /pol/

>>52298036
yes that also makes sense, generally speaking the women a party is either fighting or playing as is going to be in the top 5% of women. with limits not really applying in D&D there's no reason to give a PC female a STR penalty unless you're going for hyper autistic realism/peasant party.

now for your normal female NPC such as a shopkeeper or bumblefuck shitstain of assvile who is just a normal peasant farmer, a low str stat makes sense.

>>52298105
>/pol/
>having facts
Pick one and only one

>>52297660
False dichotomy of Good Roleplaying vs Mechnically Sound characters.

>>52297660
boobplate

>>52298082
They are neither cheap nor are they high quality

You pay more money for worse models. If all you need is a handful on figures why would you spend hundreds to print a piece of shit instead of just buying the figures?

>>52298137
this

/pol/ and reality aren't even casual acquaintances, more like nemeses.

>>52298137
>>52299195
wtf I love progressive social policies now

>>52297732
The attribute system in general isn't a very accurate way to represent physical or mental aspects of a real person in the first place, and considering most games are played with the intention as being fantastic or inherently unrealistic to some degree, I feel like it's mostly redundant in the first place.

Boobplate

>>52297660
A fun and interesting thread that touches on many of the things that /tg/ likes.

>>52298031
Thats what I'm thinking, too. lol.

>>52297896
>The thing is that the reason women have lower strength then men on average is just because they're smaller than men on average.
You sure it doesn't have anything to do with the pair of glands hanging between a man's legs that constantly secretes natural steroids into their body from puberty onward?

>>52298008
What about a historical setting though/ Not everybody is playing D&D, if you're attempting to simulate realism should you basically penalize players for picking women in a combat-heavy pre-gunpower era game? It'd be more realistic but also limit player options.

>>52298110
But by that logic wouldn't the male adventurers also be in that top 5% and still be significantly stronger?

>>52299195
>hillary is going to win by a landslide guys!
>milk and pepe the frog are white supremacist hate symbols
>everything we don't like is the product of a vast russian conspiracy
>there's nothing wrong with storing classified information on an unsecured, unauthorized secret private server
Yeah it's /pol/ who have the problem with dealing with reality.

>>52302121
And yet that idea doesn't seem to dissuade my female fighter from having 20 strength.

>>52302189
I was just ponting out the flaws in this posters reasoning >>52298110, the top 5% argument swings both ways. You can make your game as fantastical as you want, I don't care, just don't use junk reasoning like that. If you want women to be as strong as men then just say the magic words "it's magic I ain't gotta explain shit". The only time this would be an issue would be if you wanted to play a hardcore realism game and that's rarely the case, everyone just plays D&D instead were "ordinary" people surviving a fall from orbit is an accepted part of the setting.

>>52302105
In a historical setting, if you're being that detailed about realism, your strength only matters for how much crap you can carry on your way to a fight. If you hit someone with a sword and their armor didn't block it, they're dead or dying even if you aren't a bodybuilder.

"Combat-heavy pre-gunpowder historical game" is just standing in a pike block and flipping a coin to see if you kill a single enemy or die. If you're lucky enough to be a knight, then you kill an arbitrary amount of enemies until you're tackled to the ground. Then you're either saved, or captured and sold back for ransom because you're a noble. If you're a knight fighting an enemy knight, then you may as well just flip the coin again.

>>52302262
You're an idiot.

>>52302288
If you're attempting to simulate realism, you should be realizing that swords kill people when you hit them.

>>52297976

The document your image is referencing here is interesting but it's a very controlled subject that's mostly about examining one element of grip strength.

Strength in D&D like a lot of things is a much more complicated and nuanced stat that deals in physical fitness and how much adrenaline you can field in a strike. It's an abstraction of numberous factors that aren't always gonna be something you can just sit down and run tests on.

>>52302436

To put a point on it, saying this study/chart accurately describe strength in D&D is like saying IQ directly correlates with Intelligence which is something I'm sure /tg/ would ALL UNANIMOUSLY AGREE ON.

>>52297976
Because hand grip=overall str differences.

After calculating the strengths of men and women, it was determined that women only get a -1 str penalty according to the way the D&D system actually defines strength and encumbrance/carrying/lifting capacities.

Yeah, you're all retarded.

>>52297660
If you didn't want cheeto dust on your cards you shouldn't have provided them.
Its not a big deal to not use coasters.
Theres nothing wrong with my half dragon half ogre half drow. Hell being a rogue is bad for me, barbarian would let me have more Str.

>>52302495

Uh... source?

>>52297732
You're on to something.

>>52302357
If you're attempting to simulate realism you should realize that being stronger then your opponent can be an advantage. If it can't be why in the hell did knights even bother training and not just lie around all day watching jesters, eating big chunks of meat and getting fat? Firstly you can wear heavier (and thus more protective) armour as well as wielding heavier (and therefore more damaging) weapons at the same time as hitting your opponents harder, the force of a blow with a weapon like that is largely dependant on your strength, a child striking someone with a sword isn't going to do as much damage as an adult will it?

Also this simplistic idea that people just instantly die when you hit them with a sword is so mind-numbingly idiotic, people survived individual sword wounds all the time. And what about picks and warhammers, don't you think the amount of force behind that point would contribute to whether or not it penetrated the armour? What about bows that have a certain minimum draw weight, wouldn't your overall amount of strength be important then?

You're so blinded by your political beliefs you can't even confront objective reality.

>>52297660
-4str, -2int, -2wis

>>52302473
>>52302455
>>52302436
So grip strength is the only area in which men are significantly stronger then women? Is this really the hill you're gonna die on?

>Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

inb4 wikipedia, they have a citation for it.

>>52302508
/tg/.

Do the math yourself again if you want. It's a comparison of the relative strength chart and the weight allowance chart straight across.

File: 1473438315389.jpg (724KB, 3648x2052px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 3648x2052px

>>52302568

>>52302578
Higher disparity than I thought, and I think stats shouldn't differ at all.

>>52302596
I'm guessing this is due to how fucking ridiculous the tables get once you get up to like 16

File: 1442491825862.jpg (80KB, 1000x769px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x769px

>>52297732
Here is your trophy for best answer.

>>52302609
>>52302578
BTFO

>>52297660
Why is there a difference of +4 between female and male anal circumference rolls?

>>52302167
...if you think that anyone besides your strawmen actually say those things then no, you are the one with the reality issue.

A lot of people I know think that the server was a problem. They also think that literally working for russia is worse.

>>52304996
>implying Clinton's official site is a strawman of Clinton supporters
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

>>52304729
Cause the boipussies are the tightest

>>52297732
Oh I don't know.

If you assume that 10 is average and 18 is the upper limit, it makes some sense. The world's strongest woman would be a 14, as strong as a moderately strong man. This seems about right to me.

But the real problems start to show up once you realize that men outperform women in chess and particle physics about as much as they do at power lifting.

>>52305484
>men outperform women in roles they are groomed for
Gee, go figure.

When it comes to manipulation people, the average men are pussies in comparison to the average woman. Not because they're incapable, but because they're not groomed for it. There are plenty of women who are involved in those fields you mentioned, but they're outliers who chose to go into those field. It's not about 'stronk womyn', it's about social training.

File: 1481227680668.jpg (2MB, 1209x2009px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1209x2009px

>>52297660
Topics include:
>Stop using the term "BBEG"
>60 Multimeltas
>Defending D&D
>How do I make a Good Necromancer?
>Demons can be good.
>Succubi can be male.
>Furries
>"Weebshit"

>>52297966
You have been tricked into becoming angered by a post on 4chan. I bet you feel pretty silly now!

>>52297660
Bad spelling.

>>52305537
Is there something wrong with good necromancers? I mean, I realize that evil is immanent to messing with bodies in d&d lore, but the DM can choose to change that, it's up to them. Wouldn't attempting to discover a way to make people immortal be a noble goal?

>>52297929
>Int penalty is wrong. Women simply have a strongly bell-shaped IQ distribution, men have a flatter one. So most women are average; while men vastly outnumber women at the top (and bottom) of the IQ graph.

So 5d4-2 or 15d2-12?

Or maybe 3d6 for women and man is 1d16 +2

>>52305526
Manipulating people and being unable to understand the concept of honor are two different concepts, femanon.

>>52305537
How those Demon threads aren't just Hellboy threads confuses me.

>>52302473
Yes, actually. Grip strength correlates extremely well with overall fitness, which is probably why that study chose it as a metric.

metathreads

>>52312965
It's a little disheartening that metathreads with generic images can stay up for days, but /tg/-specific threads with pictures of Trump in the OP get deleted within hours.

I don't even like the guy, but come on.

>>52297732
Best answer, have my (You) as well.

>>52305526
>femfag thinks leading thirsty omegas around by wafting their pussy-stank at them is the epitome of manipulation.

Well you've certainly gotten a lot of replies.

Was it worth it?

>>52297950
>a lower will save could make sense as even Jean de Arc never really fought herself,

But that's wrong you retard.

http://www.stjoan-center.com/military/stephenr.html

Fucking hell guys this was the easiest bait to notice yet you all fucking fell for it

>what annoys you more than x?
>how do I shitpost better than I already do?

fucking sage.

>>52297851
Guys, I think Virt found a way around his ban.

coasters