>males get +1 str and -1 cha >females get -1 str and +1

>>53901235
Pretty hard for D&D-specific stats to be any sort of "standard."

>>53901235
First, tell us why that should be the standard.

Women at physically weaker than men. They are not more charismatic in terms of the D&D definition because charisma in D&D also represents inner power and who. Women do have much of the latter, but what I mean is, women seen be the sorcerers because they at pretty. Anyway the real way to handle male / female stats is to let them be rolled normally, or point bought normally, but disallow females to have strength score > 13. This means women can still get fair stats but the strength score is limited to believable levels.

>>53901507
See, somebody gets it.

>>53901235
Because D&D humans are not precisely Earth humans, as demonstrated by the fact that you can be considered a pure human in D&D and still have a draconic bloodline, and they therefore do not need to line up one-to-one with the biological variation that you have observed.

>>53901235
Because it doesn't consider other races and their sexual dimorphisms (like would Drow women have +1 strength since they're bigger and strongerthan males), consideration for sub groups/off-shoots, and variants for those.

All in all it's just a headache that's not worth it.

Plus, there's plenty gender specific effects as is that people will actually powergame with, do you want someone to powergame MORE based on their gender?

How about we focus on roleplay and story-telling just a little?

>>53901507
Women get Persuade, Bluff and Diplomacy bonuses when dealing with heterosexual males. They also get an Intimidate bonus when dealing with hetero male spellcasters

>>53901235
Because it's a fantasy game and so people are allowed to live out fantasies that in reality would be hard to achieve.

Also you're a faggot and I hope you spill water all over your books, and get cheeto dust on your miniatures.

I never understood why male and females in a setting need to be balance when men and women in the real world are not balanced.

If you allow disabilities in your game why not just treat being a woman as a disability. Its not like you get extra stats because you want to roleplay as a disabled person so why do you get extra stats for roleplaying as a woman?

>>53901235
Play games where this is the way it works then? If you and your group like it, then go for it champ. What's stopping you? Other people having different fun?

>>53901576
We are focusing on roleplaying and storytelling. We're attempting to make characters more psychologically realistic (and perhaps thus more heroic) by constraining them the way nature constrains them
You're totally right about drow; there's no reason to limit our modifications to humans

>>53901611
>Its not like you get extra stats because you want to roleplay as a disabled person
That's more or less exactly how point buy works, though. By being absolutely abysmal in a few areas, you get to excel in others.

>>53901594
hahaha rage, rage against the dying of the light

Other than memes and trolling, you guys aren't serious about this -3 STR shit?

It's an easy handwave. The specific characters involved in the plot are simply strong as or stronger than most men. Why is it an issue?

>>53901592
and the reverse should be true too

Because the differences that exist between women and men, while they DO exist, are less than the weight of a +1 or -1 to an ability score.

>>53901235
The way we did it was male human PCs got a +1 to either Strength or Con (player's choice) and female humans got +1 to either Dex or Charisma.

>>53901670
it's probably half and half.

The old saying goes 'when a bunch of people pretending to be idiots gather, it's not long before real idiots think they're in good company'.

>>53901633
Yeah, and how long before someone sees >>53901507's "lol, women can't have more than a +1 strength mod" while males have no such limits and decide 'nah, fuck that'.

>>53901560
There is also this to consider.

Humans in DnD settings tend to be made by fucking Gods, not natural evolution. Countless more races were made by divinity or even mages than natural processes, so if you were a god, would you seriously want to gimp 50% of your population?

>>53901659
Why cant i post from my phone? You the internet police? And the top 10 percent of women are as strong as the bottom 10 percent of men, so a cap at Str 13 is actually very generous.

>>53901733
Maybe you're right that it's half and half, but it shouldn't be an issue. Anytime someone questions a character's ability based on their gender, I just assume that the handwave is "well this specific person just is that good".

Even if we're talking real humans. The strength difference between males and females is highly exaggerated, while there are differences it's only really notable at the highest levels of athleticism. A female warrior will be so much stronger than a male thief it's not even comparable. So that difference between a female and male warrior isn't worth the +1

>>53901235
Gender is a cosmetic choice (unless you always roll a woman so you can have a chance at seducing the villian or some shit), there's no good reason to change it. While you're going after cosmetics, why not add resistance against priestly spells to characters with red hair or give health penalties to large characters due to extra strain on their cardiovascular system?

>>53901755
fair point. That said:

>>53901633
>>53901235
Hey, I'm sorry, but what about my magical realm amazonian society? They're human.

But the women all developed into huge, muscle girls while men atrophied into weak, eternal shota boytoys?

>>53901693
>>53901763
Don't forget, if you give males +1 and females -1, the difference is actually a spread of 2. So it's even stupider!

File: 1340257884403.gif (3MB, 300x229px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x229px

>>53901235
Because "the standard" for game mechanics is decided by player acceptance instead of accuracy in mirroring reality.

>>53901670
So the issue is just how much weaker women are then men.

Women's +95kg weight lifting world record is 117kg for a snatch where the men's +105kg world record was 216kg. Nearly 100kg more. In fact the lowest weight class men can compete in, the 56kg, has a record of 138. So a man half her size can snatch 21kg more than the strongest women in the world.

There is just no comparison, especially when people also want to play women who are also petite and beautiful.

>>53901733
>The old saying goes 'when a bunch of people pretending to be idiots gather, it's not long before real idiots think they're in good company'.
You have to be an idiot (or incredibly naive) not to notice physical and psychological sexual dimorphism
>Yeah, and how long before someone sees >>53901507's "lol, women can't have more than a +1 strength mod" while males have no such limits and decide 'nah, fuck that'.
Anon is also naive. I was the one who suggested that women get Persuade, Bluff and Diplomacy buffs against heterosexual males, and Intimidate buffs against beta males such as wizards and gnomes

>>53901235
But an ugly women is less charismatic than an ugly man ?

>>53901235
Because it's pointless if you're using point buy and you should be using point buy.

>>53901842
>117kg
So, a Strength score of 19?

>>53901819
Your magical realm is your business, my friend. People can be anything they want there (and indeed, many people who defending musclegirl warrior women tropes would indeed love to inhabit it). What we're talking about here is injecting more human reality into mainstream fantasy, to raise the stakes of encounters with dragons and undead hordes even further

File: 1395993216132.jpg (53KB, 485x428px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 485x428px

>>53901633
>physiologically realistic
>D&D

>>53901763
>The strength difference between males and females is highly exaggerated, while there are differences it's only really notable at the highest levels of athleticism

On the contrary, it's often under appreciated. Top level female athletes compete on the level of (and have comparable world records) amateur ~14 year old boys and regularly get trounced by them.

In areas where sexual dimorphism is the highest like grip strength (very important in melee combat) professional female athletes barely reach the level of the average untrained male.

>>53901842
Except you so obviously made those numbers up it's hilarious. A quick glance at Olympic records show 115kg was done at 60kg. Which is almost equal to the men's side.
Official weight lifting organization probably has higher

>>53901751
Pretending to be retarded just means you are acting like a retard.

>>53901856
This should be reflected in mechanics as well

>falling for bait this obvious
He's not even trying guys.

>>53901507

Except for when they're on testosterone, then they compete with most non-outlier men.

In a world where a dude can rip a hole in space and time by waving his hands, you don't think a female can use magic to make herself as strong as any male?

it's a game with elves and goblins. There are literally a billion in-lore ways to make it believable that a player character happens to be an outlier female who's as strong as any male the players meet.

>>53901235
Because it has been worked out that-4 strength is pretty much the difference between top mle and female athletes in their lift/drag/whatever.

>>53901691

Look up the "Women are Wonderful" effect. Women are significantly more likely to be trusted than men, even with other women.

Because literally why? If a GM wants to implement those rules there's nothing to stop them, and 90% of GMs won't want to implement that rule or will outright ignore it.

Besides, 3.Path's rules are fundamentally unrealistic, so why is that such a big deal?

>beta males this desperate to preserve their masculinity
Don't worry, just because Nancy kicked your ass on the playground doesn't mean you're not a real man.

>>53901883
This seems to be the only counterargument to this question that I've ever encountered. Why? It's not good enough.
Human history teems with heroes. Heroism is psychologically realistic, it isn't constrained to DnD and its true nature can be reflected in DnD. Alexander the Great was a real person, as were Audie Murphy, Horatius Cocles, Ernst Junger, et al ad nauseam. There have even been female heroes; not just agent provocateurs, but actual heroes, from the Maiden of France to French resistance fighters, from Artemisia to Soviet snipers. All of them existed despite the physical and psychological constraints (contours?) of reality and the realism that constrained them made their stories all the more meaningful, both men and women
There's no reason human nature has to be jettisoned even in fantastic worlds of fiction

Top tier female weightlifters weigh well over 100kg (Zhou Lulu competes at 140kg...) yet their records are below those of the under 69kg male class...

>>53902014
Records show an almost equivalent lift for their sizes. Males having a small advantage. The difference is men also tend to compete at a higher weight class. Women go from 40-70 while men compete at 60-100 give or take.
Try looking up stats before opening your mouth. But I guess all those dicks lodged it in a permanently open position

>>53901993
I think we all know that IRL the more beta a man is, the more likely he is to say that there are no significant physical and psychological differences between men and women. This will be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete shutin

>>53902045
>Records show an almost equivalent lift for their sizes

No you fucking drooling retard. Zhou Lulu who holds the female Olympic weightlifting world record lifts less than men literally half her size.

>>53902085
Zhou lulu did a snatch of 328kg. What male half her size did anything remotely close to that?
The 75+ on Wikipedia is her weightclass, not her record.

File: 1435448692028.jpg (181KB, 1280x652px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x652px

You know, I'm not gonna argue that there's a difference in real life between men and women. Because there is.

The real question is: would these changes honestly enhance your enjoyment of tabletop RPGs?

Especially when you can better represent a character's deficiencies through point-buy/stat distribution and growth?

>>53902122
>snatch of 328kg
Confirmed for not knowing the first thing about what you're talking about.

>What male half her size did anything remotely close to that?
The male world record in the 69kg class (where everyone is half her size or less) is 357 kg m8...

>The 75+ on Wikipedia is her weightclass, not her record.
And her actual weight is 140kg.

All of the following assumes 5e.

>Tell me why this is not the standard

Because -1 bonuses are essentially meaningless in a game where 10 and 11 are mechanically identical stats, while a +1 bonus is essentially the same as a +2 bonus in a game where every even-numbered increase nets you a positive mechanical effect.

Consider:

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

I put the +1 in 15 and I put the -1 in 13, giving me:

16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8

The +1 turned my 15 into a 16, so I got something out of it. My 13 became a 12...which is mechanically identical to a 13. So there's no impact.

Now, you might argue that it has an impact because it still means women are slightly worse than men in fighty classes...and you're an idiot for thinking that because it means you've forgotten to take racial traits into account.

Consider the following fighter without race:

Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8

Now make it a male human 9standard) using OP's rules:

Str 17, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 8

And female human (standard):

Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 9

Once again, mechanically the two are essentially the same. The male has a slightly higher carrying capacity (255 lbs. verses 250 lbs.), but both are going to need to use the same number of ASI's to get their Strength scores to 20.

(Variant human doesn't change anything since the two +1s would go into Strength and Constitution anyway and thus result in broadly the same effect.)

>>53902323
>The male has a slightly higher carrying capacity (255 lbs. verses 250 lbs.)

*whoops, should have been 255 lbs. verses 240 lbs. Mea culpa.

>>53901235
It offends people. Whether it's realistic or interesting is irrelevant. If you're running a business, you don't want to offend potential customers. That's why they don't do that stuff.

>>53901711
That's equally unrealistic. I know plenty of guys that couldn't overpower an average woman. I know plenty of women with abysmal dexterity and zero charisma. Just stat people as individuals.

>>53901842
Yeah it's almost as if the genders evolved to be good at different things or something.

File: 1454143406691.jpg (32KB, 259x276px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 259x276px

>>53901235
>Tell me why this is not the standard
D&D takes place in an alternate universe where women aren't useless vaginas on stilts.

Need more "y no -10 lifespan for men" troll threads. It's more realistic after all.

Should a group decide to add rules for sexual dimorphism to their 3.PF/derivative D20 game, I recommend the following; it being something of my own creation.

Simple, Fantastic:
Stats cap at 20. Alter this number for games that have higher or lower 'power levels'.
Female Humans - STR and CON caps at 18 (-2). At level 10, choose a skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier.

Complex, Fantastic:
Female Humans - STR and CON cap at 18(-2). At level 10, choose two skills. Gain a +2 bonus to those skills when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier. Once per Adventure (or week or 5 long rests or some significant amount of time), you may choose to roll two D20s when making a CHA skill check, taking your choice.

Simple, 'Realistic':
Female Humans - STR, CON and DEX cap at 16 (-4). At level 13, choose a skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier.

Complex, 'Realistic':
Female Humans - STR, CON and DEX cap at 16 (-4). At level 13, choose two skills. Gain a +2 bonus to those skills when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier. Once per Adventure (or week or 5 long rests or some significant amount of time), you may choose to roll two D20s when making a CHA skill check, taking your choice.

These values, even the 'realistic' ones, are not 1:1 with real life. Even the most gritty and grimdark of settings in 3.x systems (or any progeny thereof) still have PCs as being exceptional specimens.

>>53901733
>would you seriously want to gimp 50% of your population
If it meant maintaining a social order that benefits me, yes

>>53902807
Alteration:
The line "Stats cap at 20. Alter this number for games that have higher or lower 'power levels'." should come before the line "Simple, Fantastic:", as a stat cap is meant to be implied as applying to every line below it.

>>53902807
This guy gets it. Stat caps are better for enforcing realism, bonuses and penalties exist to tweak game balance.

File: annoyed_rei.jpg (256KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1280x960px

I don't know which is worse:

The fact that this thread appeared in the catalog yet again prompting people to reply as expected, or the fact that there are people that will argue seriously about how the mechanics of a tabletop game about skeleton wizards and the multiverse don't accurately reflect reality.

>>53901932
>it's a game with elves and goblins.
What the fuck do completely realistic other hominids with their own evolutionary history have to do with problems concerning realism?

>>53901235
We compare heroes to heroes, the actual statistical distributions don't matter.
Strong women are rarer than strong men, but pcs and important npcs are exceptional anyway.

>>53901932
So you are saying that every female should start on steroids? Why not make a different class altogether then. I never played DnD so you may as well disregard my opinion, but shouldn't every class have its own strengths and weaknesses? If there are other types of females (elves, orcs etc) that have better stats than the humans why not just switch class instead of excessively buffing up the ones with lower strength.

>>53902862
>skeleton wizards and the multiverse don't accurately reflect reality.
But.. we're not talking about skeleton wizards. I don't get this argument, seriously. No one is arguing that in-universe material being unrealistic is bad, we're talking about the fact that a setting that has NORMAL (read: regular humans, not skeleton wizards) don't address the difference between males. There's nothing to indicate that for example in DnD the humans are somehow biologically different.

>>53902862
worst girl

>>53902777
I don't think that would actually offend any men though

Because then anyone who wanted to make a charismatic character would gravitate towards making them female, and anyone who wanted to make a strong character would gravitate towards making them male. Disregarding "lol -4 strength" memes, it would just unnecessarily pigeonhole character archetypes by making players have to choose between the best possible numbers and the character they actually want to play.

>>53902777
But here we get to the core issue with this, the only difference between males an females (aside from sex) that is entirely biological is that males are stronger and bigger. Almost any other difference is too nuanced and (whether it "favors" men or women) can be argued to be social or at least not entirely biological. Much like this. Not that I disagree with you really, it would be a nice stat if it affected the game at all.

>>53902959
This

>>53902638
This more importantly

Anything perceived as remotely exclusionary is treated like the plague by most businesses these days.

>>53901235
because women aren't charismatic and men are. women should get -1 str, -1 con and a lower maximum int by 2 points and instead get the 'racial' ability to bear children.

>>53903012
This literally sounds like something a bitter guy would say. Why the fucking stat penalty for intelligence? There are women scientists like Marie Curie

>>53902807
>At level 13, choose a skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier.
nah

>>53901235
>OP gets -2 hetero +2 autism and -17 years starting age

Yes I'm saying OP is a gay autistic baby.

>>53903046
>Marie Curie
leeched off her husbands work, literally the worst possible example for a female scientist.
Stat cap in place because the IQ bellcurve is a lot narrower for females than for males.
Or, to put it simply: For every ten male retards and geniuses, there are 1 female retard and genius. But stats are low-capped at 8 anyway so only the maximum needs adjustment.

I haven't played D&D or PF in forever. Do they even still make you choose a gender or sex? Seems like something they'd drop from the character sheet.

>>53901235
Because you're being a huge faggot.
Seriously, we all want this and agree with it, but when we ask where it is all they'll say is to blame you because you're being a huge faggot.

So this is really all on you.

>>53901235
Realistically, there are differences between men and women ON AVERAGE.

However, a player character is an exceptional person by design. It's only natural that their stats should be pretty fucking out of whack from the norm, the only thing that matters is the literal maximum capability inherent in the race itself (IE, being able to see in the dark and shit.).

The difference between genders can be handled by the GM quietly in the background for the NPCs without the players noticing a single fucking thing.

File: holes.jpg (121KB, 520x588px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 520x588px

>>53903046
>This literally sounds like something a bitter guy would say
Fuck off cunt

>>53903093
Strength is capped differently and so is Int. Read the fucking thread.
Con is probably capped as well but I'm too lazy to compare marathon records right now.

In the end we'll probably arrive at something like
female:
-4 max STR
-4 max CON
-2 max INT

>>53903097
You just seem really hateful

>>53903108
>realistic = hateful
>more shitty non-arguments
top kek

>>53901235
I have no idea where you got the idea for a Charisma bonus. If you REALLY want gendered stat modifiers, I've seen arguments for women to get a bonus to dexterity, constitution, or wisdom, while men would get a bonus to the others.

>>53901235
It's so boys and girls can sit at the same table and play the same game on the same terms.

From a game design perspective, that just trumped realism. I can get behind that.

But if this minor portion of realism gets your dick ragingly hard, just houserule it in. It shouldn't affect your group if you don't have any women in there, right?

>>53903093
Playing the devil's advocate here: Aren't, say, Olympic athletes also exceptional by design? Then why don't women compete with men? The gap between genders is largest at the highest levels -- almost as if there's a different inherent maximum capacity for men and women.

>>53903068
IQ measurements are generally regarded as bullshit, or at the very least subjective.

They're simply a model for a type of intelligence, but taking them as a end all, be all measure of intelligence is pointless.

It's like deciding that Lewis Structures are the end all of Chemistry.

>>53903012
>get the 'racial' ability to bear children.
Do characters need crunchy abilities for things that don't even come up in 99% of all adventures?

>>53903158
There's a shitload of arbitrary rules governing events such as the Olympics.

>>53903175
Are you seriously suggesting that the only thing keeping women from competing in athletics at the same level as men is arbitrary rules?

File: Apparently.jpg (11KB, 571x47px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 571x47px

>>53903162

>>53903190
I'd say metalworking comes up a lot more than pregnancy. Nearly every fantasy game I have been in has had a PC that made and maintained our equipment.

>>53903208
Huh, does that mean your groups execute all the women you rape?

I think male players should get 20% more starting funds in Monopoly, to represent the gender wage gap.

At the same time, female players should get to pick from a ragingly unbalanced Community Chest deck, representing how society at large coddles women.

Writing sexually dimorphic stats for every race would be dumb. Not every race would have male/females different in the same way.

>>53903221
Does yours let them tag along long enough for a pregnancy to become apparent?

>>53903188
I'm saying it's a factor. The other is that very few Olympians can be regarded as pure examples of physicality, drug use and other artificial methods, legal or otherwise are common to the point of being the norm, which can absolutely skew the data.

There's also issues of the fact that while the Olympics certainly attract a high level of athlete, it's hardly the be all, end all for measurement of gender capabilities. There can certainly exist a woman who's on an equal ground as a man that has simply never devoted her life to physical activity that would showcase this fact.

>>53903232
That's why they're not for every race. They're for humans.

Once that's sussed out, we can move on to dwarves.

File: IMG_0909.jpg (314KB, 560x746px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 560x746px

>>53903158
>devil's advocate

>>53903242
>a woman who's on an equal ground as a man that has simply never devoted her life to physical activity
Gonna have to stop you right there. If you don't devote your life to physical activity, your level of physical fitness is never going to be on an equal ground with someone that does work out religiously.

If I don't go to med school, I am not on equal ground with a surgeon. They're not going to let me stroll into an OR and get to work.

>>53901235
Because D&D doesn't care about any sort of "realism". In the core book of GURPS it already sugest some rules of this kind.

>>53903258
Is voiceful a word?

>>53901235
If you had to have gendered stat difference men getting +1str and women getting +1con would be more objectively biologically accurate (no -1 either the differences are not big engorge for a two point difference.)

Also cha is OBJECTIVITY the worse stat for this. Like the sheer amount of assumptions needed to just even suggest that tells us a whole bunch about you.

>>53901235
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A

>>53903241
we houserule child slaves over the age of 10 to count as free hirelings, so yeah.

>>53903292
Mouths to feed. No thanks.

>>53901235

I'd like it more if charisma was a useful attribute at all or had any derived statistic.

>>53902702
Isn't that OP's point? That women should be weaker but more charismatic, as they actually are?

File: IMG_0910.png (76KB, 485x309px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 485x309px

>>53903280

>>53901235
I would like this if I weren't me or anyone I know.

>>53903242
The delusion belief you hold is why I'm no longer against -3 str arguments.

People refuse to accept reality due to an overdose of propaganda.

>>53903050
why

Because in dnd you typically roll up a hero and not a regular pleb civilian or pleb tier militia trooper, and the whole 'roll up' mechanic is so that everyone starts with vaguely even stats.

Also so that if a player wants a female fighter they aren't gimping themselves.

>>53901896
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_women%27s_weightlifting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_men%27s_weightlifting
He didn't pull the numbers out of his ass, he just read charts like these wrong (presumably), comparing the earliest rather than most recent WRs.
>women's +90kg snatch
>155
>men's 105 kg snatch
>217
>men's 56kg snatch
>139
These are the actual values (though the ones he provided, apart from calling +90kg +95kg, are there as well, they're just the oldest rather than newest records). Interestingly, this means the gap has closed over time. It will probably continue to close as gender norms and beauty standards shift worldwide. Pretty sure more men are willing to disfigure themselves for dumb reasons because they're not as inherently physically attractive as women anyway, but with the equally dumb trend of feminine "empowerment" (ie "instead of trying to be excellent people in the ways they excel, women should struggle to be just slightly inferior to men at everything") there's going to be a larger and more serious female sample size competing.

Of course, men on average will always find it easier to gain and maintain muscle mass and also be more willing to do so simply because of their higher testosterone, but trends like these show that perhaps the largest factor in these things is social rather than biological.

Of course if you want to play a max-strength petite princess outside of an anime setting with consenting adults you're still cancer, unless the system's STR is a broader athleticism stat or something.

>>53903232
I agree that's why I just make every race identical to humans in everything but name. My players still haven't figured out.

>>53901235
Because you're being dumb by getting cha involved at all, when it should be, if you have to be dumb enough to give stat bonuses/penalties to the sexes at all, -1 to dex for men and +1 to con for women.

Neither of which make any more sense than anything else, and your thread is dumb, and the fact that you involved cha at all makes you look creepy and weird.

>>53901670
No, we aren't serious about -3 str because it's -4 str YOU FUCKING NEWFAG

>>53903440
But a male hero would still be physically stronger than a female hero.
Human males are biologically bigger and stronger than females. Or are you saying that a 5'4 female body with smaller muscles and only 10% of a male's testosterone can produce the same amount of force as a 6'0 male? Even at the same weight the muscles' size and potential would be different.
>>53901932
>but women could use magic to make them as strong as men
Then what's stopping men from using the same kind of magic?

>>53903258
Your hurt feelings and tumblr comics do not make you right.

For the record, I'm not a fan of -4 strength. For reasons mentioned in >>53903148 and because D&D seeks to simulate stories, not reality. But the "exceptional individuals" argument is complete horseshit.

>>53903258
Hi Tumblr.

>>53903583
>Then what's stopping men from using the same kind of magic?

Not that guy, but it's fucking magic. There are literally endless reasons for why it could work for women but not for men. The two most basic ones are either A) the spell is very literal, and simply makes one as strong as a man, meaning it would improve the strength of a woman or halfling, have no effect on a male human, and actually decrease the strength of a giant or B) the spell specifically only works on women for other mystical reasons like needing to ask favors from unicorns who only grant them to women or something

>>53901235
Considering Cha is a mental stat and Str is a physical stat, and this whole argument hinges on "Well men are stronger, but women have more force of personality than men" if I make a Transgender character that used to be male and is now a woman would I get +1 str and +1 cha

And before one of you fags shouts "BUT CHA IS ALSO ATTRACTIVENESS!!!" I would like to remind you that men can be attractive as well

>>53901268
/thread

File: ElieaBase.jpg (104KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x400px

>>53901235
What the fuck makes women automagically more charismatic?

A perspective borne of those obsessing over women more attractive than them whilst disregarding those of their own level of attractiveness. Anger out of perceived injustices brought about by this warped perception result in people occasionally coming to our board and complaining about something known as
>gender politics
and so a trite "whatever works for you"/"depends on the setting and tone" are all you can reasonable expect beyond rage.

>>53901507
>believable limits
>21 STR barbarian
>no woman above 13
<<<realism>>>

>>53901235
>tell me why this is not the standard
because it's not fun

if a person wants their character to have a fuck ton of str and they're a female, who gives a shit?

>>53901235
Because the general idea is not to treat players like babies and to stay clear from playing their characters for them.

If people want to play a charismatic socialite, they will do so. If they want to play a musclebound barbarian, they will do so as well. When insisting that they should have some sort of onus for some trait the character has, because "muh realism", you're taking agency away from the players, which is almost universally a bad thing.

I mean, what's next? If a guy plays a fat character, you're going to give them an arbitrary penalty on endurance? When characters get wounded in combat, they're going to get penalties for the resulting scar tissue? We can go on like this all day. Simply put, this is an arbitrary border to argue "muh realism" for, and that in setting typically dominated by things very, very far from realism indeed. I mean, if it makes it work for you in your head, you can just assume that all the bog standard NPC women have lower STR scores than the male NPC's, and that the PC's are exceptions to the average in society. Because they are. That's their entire point. They are outliers by default.

In short, you're playing a game, not reality, and you can and ought to trust players to make choices that they, themselves, are happy with, and your only demand should be that they aren't That Guys who try to force their shit onto other players. Like you're trying to do.

If YOU want to play a weak female character, YOU are free to do so.

>>53901633
>We're attempting to make characters more psychologically realistic

Have fun not having any fun. Hope you guys brought the DSM-5 with ya. While you're at it, don't forget to roll for statistic probability that you have one of the many mental disorders.

While you're at it, go ahead and roll for the genetic probability that you have the chance to have the ability to get a heritable trait (whether it's good or bad). Don't forget to consider upbringing, environmental stress (both at home and in the biosphere).

Also don't forget to take into account that every action you take has been likely predetermined by past behavior.

Another thing, remember to roll for the possibility that you develop any of these stress induced disorders after every combat session (I expect at least some will have PTSD and may be unable to continue after the next session, remember there is no cure for PTSD, and I'm assuming in your setting CBT. let alone therapy has been developed, if at all)

You want the players to have psychologically realistic characters? You fucking tell them to make it that way. Don't force stats because hurr durr realism unless you're willing to go all the way.

Also psychological does not equal physiological, +1/-1 to a physical stat isn't psychological. Women are just as un-charismatic as men are

>>53903258
>>53903328
>when someone you agree with on principle is so obnoxious that the other side begins to look tempting

>>53901235
Stupid and inarticulated threads don't deserve intelligent or articulated answers.

>>53901670
Most male d&d characters aren't "most men" so the strongest women being "stronger than most men" is still really low in STR terms.

>>53904839
>inarticulated

ironing is delicious

>>53902062

> skinnyfat neckbeard redpill autist basement dwelling elliotcucks who spend all day talking about women's weightlifting

> Alpha

Pick one.

>>53902825

>Not making your pets devoted to you automatically

fucking scrubs

>>53902062
The more beta a man is, the more likely he is to care about this kind of shit and bring it up a lot in conversations regardless of whether anyone else even gives a shit.

>>53901887

Strength doesn't represent strength in DnD, though. Or rather it does, but the majority of rolls used for it are generalizations about melee capacity.

No, really. Think about it. Strength governs melee accuracy and damage. While you can gain melee accuracy with dexterity, it requires specific feats (The only reason for this is game balance, as Dexterity also affects armor class while strength does not).

Meanwhile, you cannot reliably gain damage via skill. Levelling does not increase your melee damage output, and while some feats do, many are still strength governed (power attack) or class locked (weapon specialization), the latter of which are small bonuses.

Strength does the majority of your killing effectiveness. Logically, hitting people harder does more damage, but we overlook all of the other methods one can do more damage. Killing a human is remarkably easy with the proper weapon and know-how, as the force required to cut flesh to the bone with a blade is surprisingly small. People do it on accident occasionally with kitchen knives, after all.

It also overlooks techniques like draw cutting, push cutting, the tip speed of a swung two handed weapon with leverage, mostly from the hips, and so on and so forth.

If you're going for realism make all the women mind controlled by goblins to crave orc dick

>>53903097

Everyone assumes everyone on the internet is a man until proven otherwise anyway, so...

Your point?

>>53905259
It's a given

File: dude really.png (83KB, 313x290px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 313x290px

>>53901235
Because this is D&D, a fantasy game where humans can just come out bigger and stronker, and your character represents the most exceptional members of their race. The average woman is weaker than the average man but in D&D you are not playing the average. If the goal of D&D character creation was to make average humans your highest stat would be 15 at best.

Also, D&D features a panoply of fantasy races with different levels of sexual dimorphism or such different builds compared to humans that the way we consider gender to skew physiology often doesn't apply to them. I doubt very much that your average female orc is weaker than a human male, for example.

>>53901507
>This means women can still get fair stats but the strength score is limited to believable levels.

STR 20 and above is unbelievable anyway.

All stats in D&D become mythic after a certain point. No human on the planet has the equivalent of DEX 21 or STR 21. D&D is a game where if you get git enough you can be dexterous enough to walk on water or strong enough to punch through solid steel.

There's no reason to bring gender based modifiers into D&D unless you're doing so for political reasons. In which case, you need to work on keeping your politics out of your D&D.

File: 1473624885266.jpg (18KB, 178x334px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 178x334px

>this thread
>again

Really?

>>53901235
>Giving -X penalties based on gender.

File: 1431766289602.jpg (44KB, 429x724px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 429x724px

>>53901235
Women get charm person against any male with a lower charisma score. Minor telepathy, and Rage once every X, which often tops the men's str bonus. Not to mention they can do an intimidate check using ANY other skill rank against either sex.

All men get is a higher Str Cap, and a 08% chance on character creation to look ruggedly handsome.

I encourage us NOT to differentiate between them. Women are OP.

Yes women being as strong as men is completely ridiculous and unrealistic. Men have wider shoulders, stronger joints, lower body fat, and more lean muscle mass, so they're athletically superior to women in almost every way. Women are also psychologically unfit for combat.

But it's too late. Women with swords/armor has become an ubiquitous fantasy trope and while it's absurd it's also not worth bitching about. You can't get rid of it so just accept the trope as one of the downsides of roleplaying games and enjoy yourself anyway.

>>53901235
Because it makes for simpler lives and happier tables.

>>53901995
Give me a 5e build for Alexander the Hreat

>>53901995
>Alexander the Great was a real person

Yeah, and he's, like, 4th level at best.

D&D characters quickly cruise on into the fantastical. All D&D stats become impossible for humans of either gender to replicate at a certain point.

If you want to play a game that adheres completely to realism as we understand it in our world then play something else. D&D is not designed for that kind of game.

>>53901995
>Human history teems with heroes.
You do understand that heroes are created when their lives or stories end shortly after their heroic deeds? Nobody cares what Cocles did after he defended the bridge he was effectively dead to us, only his beautiful story matters. When heroes outlive their deeds, they are likely to destroy their wonderful legends, become frail, old, senile, no longer magnificient. Heroes who live are no longer heroes, they are mundane people. Heroism isn't psychologically realistic, it's a matter of observer's perception.

>>53901235
There's no reason for female to have bonus to charisma. In the systems where it matters i'd give them bonuses to empathy, because thet's where female are generally better than men IRL

If I'd go full realistic autism I'd givve them something to decrease random stat generation - fo example when a male rolls fo his starting stat he rolls
[Basic Value] + D6
Feamle rolls:
[Basic Value] + 2 + D3
The aversge is the same but the spread is lower.
That's how genetics in most mammals work - females tend more towards "average" values and more rarely develop extreme trits (be they good or bad). That's because most extremes are generally bad, and evolutionary speaking feamles are way more valuable to the population.

>>53902062
It's bad to be this insecure, Anon. It's just a game and it has magic, there literally does not need to be any more explanation. Don't bring your amateur psychology into this.

>>53902924
>don't address the difference between males and females

And as always, there are five very good reasons for it:

1) -1 stat modifiers are meaningless in a game where 10 and 11 are mechanically identical, and +1 modifiers are essentially the same as +2 in a game where every even increase in stats nets you a positive effect.

2) It offends a significant percentage of the potential buyers (regardless of whether or not it's "realistic"), and if you're running a business, you don't want to offend potential customers.

3) A significant percentage of people do not care enough to have D&D be granular enough to track stat differences between men and women.

4) D&D is not and never has been a Real Life Simulator

5) D&D is primarily concerned with player characters, not everyday people. Player characters are by their very nature extraordinary people who cannot be expected to conform to real-world norms, even physiological ones, given that it's enitrely possible for what D&D defines as a "normal human" to have a dragon, celestial, fiend, elf, orc, etc., as closely related as a grandfather.

>>53903258
>author of comic is male

>>53902924
Aside from the titanic strength and the literal fucking magic?

>>53903258
>The idea that 'reverse' sexism isn't just sexism

I took the bait, damn.

>>53903583
So the reason why men are stronger in real life (they simply have more of the relevant hormone, testosterone) can't be turned around in a fantasy setting with literal magic? In a setting with magic, the magic resonates with estrogen to bridge the gap in terms of physical stats. There, problem solved.

>>53906028
>(they simply have more of the relevant hormone, testosterone
Lol do you think it's that simple? No wonder you are eager to pander to your escapist fantasies.

>>53905916
hahaha whose psychology is amateur, my friend?
see >>53901995
>It's just a game and it has magic, there literally does not need to be any more explanation
Remember, it's ok to think about things, even things that cause you cognitive dissonance. Thinking about uncomfortable things will help you grow as a human being

>>53905189
I kind of dislike how RPGs use strength, dexterity, constitution and the like for anything that is even marginally related to those concepts, which have a very specific meaning.

They're just game mechanics. Giving them names that are direct references to physiology, cognition and psychology just leads to shitposting like the OP.

I propose:
Strength - Fire
Dexterity - Water
Constitution - Earth
Intelligence - Air
Will - Metal
Charisma - Soul

It's completely arbitrary nonsense, and it's just as functional as what we have now.

>>53905748
>All D&D stats become impossible for humans of either gender to replicate at a certain point.
Well, duh. Mid- to high-level D&D is a game about fantasy superheroes.

>>53906087
No need to get all defensive like that my man. I'm also not entirely sure why you think I am uncomfortable with any of this. Your usage of buzzwords pretty much gives away that it's all superficial anyway.

>>53901235

Because if your trying to represent a realistic difference between the genders on D&D's 18 point scale, females are going to be more like -6 str.

And if you aren't going to push it to the point of realism, might as well leave it equal. This is supposed to be escaspist fantasy after all.

I really need a bingo sheet for these shitpost threads.

File: lamaupin5.jpg (41KB, 258x345px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 258x345px

>>53905577
>Women are also psychologically unfit for combat.
Dites cela à mon visage, fornicateur et pas en ligne, et voyez ce qui se passe.

File: congo-firewood-23100909_std.jpg (61KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 620x400px

>>53906135
>women
>-6 str
>MFW

>>53906057
What's your deal? I presented a simplified explanation and then a simplified explanation why it could go the other way in a literal fantasy setting. Apparently it's believable you can literally will a swarm of meteors into existence and crash it on your enemy's head, but not wanting to waste time and energy on making women inferior to men gameplay wise is escapist fantasy.

>>53905577
>Women are also psychologically unfit for combat.
Are we going to pretend any random Joe Nobody off the streets is psychologically suited to combat?

Soldiers aren't just trained to get them physically up to par, anon.

>>53906087
Christ why is no one reading what I posted.

>>53905925
>>53905925
>>53905925

Those are the reasons why. They are even all of them good reasons. You don't like them, homebrew a difference or go play FATAL or something, but understand that majority opinion is against you for the five reasons listed.

File: 1484170137007.jpg (39KB, 960x908px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 960x908px

>>53906165
>niggers
Not human, doesn't count.

>>53906191
I gots me the result of thousands of DNA tests says different.

Oh, also, any half-black/half anything else baby, given that if they weren't human, crossbreeding would be impossible.

>>53906165
Carrying cargo on your back does not require ANY arm strength, shic is the onw Str stat represents most often. And wemen do have dreastically lower arm strength compared to equally fit men.

So gameplay-wise it'd be -X Str for everything arm-related, sp basically everything but carry weight, jumping, sprinting and kicking.

How much realism is too much?

Where do you draw the line, and more importantly, why?

I don't want to start making infection resistance rolls whenever I take physical damage.

>>53906228
>I gots me the result of thousands of DNA tests says different.
DNA tests say dogs and wolves are the same species.

>>53901235
Because
>males get +2 str
>females get +2 cha
makes more sense.

>>53906230
Shouldn't you just use Endurance/Constitution for said task?

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

>>53906230
I'll use whatever muscle I want, you basement-dwelling chud.

>>53906228
Don't fall for pol bait.

>>53906231
>I don't want to start making infection resistance rolls whenever I take physical damage.
You roll that after the battle if you had no/poor medical treatment. Thet's how the majority of Warhammer Roleplay characters die from gangrene.

>>53905817
Not all adventurers die, some retire

>>53906244
Taxonomy is not an exact science, anon.

>>53906275
It sounds absolutely terribly for getting a storyline going.

>>53906244
They are. If a wolf fucks a doberman and it has pups, those pups can grow up and breed with either a wolf or a schnauser without any significant issue.

If you can breed viable offspring with it, it's a member of your species. If the kids are mules, you're just super closely related.

>>53906244
I wish people like you would once again find the decency to keep their politics in the politics board. Or just cease to exist since it's the exact same result to me anyway. But I'll settle for quarantine.

>>53906248
>females get +2 cha
>makes more sense.
Why would they have ANY bonus to cha? I mean the most charismatic characters in history AND fiction were males. Also females generally cannot into humor, whic is a big deal in being charismatic.

>>53905748
Alexander the Great was *not* 4th level at best. He was covered head to foot in scars from leading practically every charge of the Companion Cavalry, all of whom were advanced cavaliers

>>53901235
When you think of charismatic leaders throughout history, how many women do you think of?

Also, the player characters can more easily be handwaved as exceptional individuals, so I don't think you need stat changes based on sex. I suppose you could make that argument for race as well though.

Not saying you absolutely shouldn't though, but I don't think it would add much in most cases.
Morrowind had different stat changes between sexes of different races which I found kind of interesting.

I'd just have the medieval fantasy setting follow somewhat realistic views of gender rules, men are more expendable, so it doesn't make sense for common soldiers to be women, but for the players they can go with female warriors if that's what they want to play.

>>53906309
He was. The whole point was that d&d characters very quickly become stronger than anything possible in our reality.

>>53906182
Oh Christ... this utterly naive mindset is going to spell the end of our civilization
The random Joe Nobody off the street is 10x more likely to be psychologically suited to combat than the average Jane Nobody off the street, you toddler, even if you personally have more in common with the latter

>>53906293
That's why noone plays WHRP

>>53906306
>>53906311
>When you think of charismatic leaders throughout history, how many women do you think of?
Bit weird to assume this means women can't be charismatic. It could just mean they were barred from occupying leadership positions. Historians don't write about boring-ass commoners, no matter how charismatic they may or may not be.

>>53902862
Motherfucker that girl is cosplaying Misato and you know it fix your fucking filename.

>>53906329
Nice capitalization of Christ, are you religious?

>>53901235
Just connect stats with apperance. Why people play someone on professional strongman level STR stat, but make him/her look like commoner with STR 10.

All PC have broken God testosterone glands which is why they're all way stronger than humans and have equal strength.
There problem solved.

>>53906329
If you can back this exact figure up with proper empirical research (not just anecdotes), I'll agree with you immediately.

>>53906334
>Bit weird to assume this means women can't be charismatic.
A bit weird to jump to a strawman so easily.
I did not assume that women can't be charismatic. A hint to me not assuming that should be apparent in that I did not say they can't be charismatic.

>>53901235

Because I play with actual women at the table and they don't want to be reminded of their real life physical limitations while playing pretend elf games.

>>53906332
>Bit weird to assume this means women can't be charismatic.
They can. They're just not MORE charismatic than males.
>It could just mean they were barred from occupying leadership positions.
Sure, but nowadays we have equal rights (hell, femals actually even have MORE rights) and the overwhelming majority of politicians and leaders are steel males.

>>53906347
Google it yourself, but I've read multiple papers on how women are actually better at coping with psychologically stressful situations as well as higher levels of pain tolerance than men.

>>53906373
So... the exact opposite of the point that was made earlier?

>>53906384
Different anon

>>53906373
So -4 Str +4Will

I give female characters +1 strength to weed out autists. It works like a charm.

File: scissorsisters.jpg (55KB, 282x543px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 282x543px

>>53901235
>Tell me why this is not the standard
Because acknowledging the reality of sexual dimorphism and creating mechanics that reflect that in a fun and meaningful way is sexist and is not allowed

>>53906338
No, actually, in fact I'm an atheist, but you capitalize names if you like to write properly
>>53906345
I like it
>>53906347
The word's already out on whether Joe or Jane are more physically suited to combat, and has already been ignored by utopian idealists. The psychological research will come with time, at the expense of vast numbers of broken bodies and lives

>/tg/ is hard to bait they said

>>53906311
I like the idea that women can be badass warriors, but they have to have been training from an extremely young age to do so. If Caleb Commoner and Patsy Peasant both got conscripted into an army in my world and had to fight each other in combat, Caleb should be able to win 9 times out of 10 just become men are naturally stronger (also Caleb probably worked a bunch of labor intensive jobs while Patsy miked cows and carried pitchers around).

>>53906426
Nobody ever said this.

>>53901235
Because biology and physiology as we know it don't have to apply.

People could just as well genuinely be dust and clay that the setting's Jehovah breathed life into.

Arguments about testosterone, estrogen and real-life statistics are all well and good, but they don't need to apply to walking, talking, divinely vitalized dirt.

If you consider "It's fantasy" a cop-out, that just means you haven't grasped what those two words really encompass. Everything you think you know about the how and why of our physical world may be fundamentally different.

If a setting includes magic, that's a pretty good reason to err on the side of caution and assume nothing about physics, chemistry or biology follows real-life laws, even though there aresuperficial similarities (apples fall to the ground, the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, and so on).

>>53906429
It might be the opposite depending on location. Women often were stuck with hard labor jobs around the house causing them to get fit. In real life middle ages women were bared from skilled labor, so men were more likely to be doing weak ass jobs like making shoes. So patsy the farmer is probably stronger than Caleb the shoemaker and both are weaker than bob the blacksmith.

>>53906429
>also Caleb probably worked a bunch of labor intensive jobs while Patsy
... also worked a lot of intense jobs. And still way weaker than Caleb, caus bilolgy is a bitch

>>53906309
And every single thing he ever historically did can be replicated by a 5th level D&D character at most, at least in 3e.

>>53906311
Plenty.

Zenobia, Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, Nefertiti (several), Elizabeth I and II, Victoria, Isabel of Spain, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth Petrovna, Amina, Jeanne d'Arc, Catherine de Medici, Mary Queen of Scots, Liliuokolani, Wu Zeitan, the Trung sisters (Trung Trac and Trung Nhi), Margret Thatcher, Tomyris, Audata of Thrace, Agrippina the Younger, Boadicea, Duchess Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Maria Theresa...

The principle thing holding back women rulers appears to be societal pressure, not any actual deficiency. Indeed in many cases when a woman is "forced" into a position of power due to a lack of male heir, they tend to *excel* compared to their male predecessors or successors.

This is all the more extraordinary since in many cases they weren't supposed to take over, but rather fell into the role by accident. Or a goodly bit of murder.

>>53906412
>The psychological research will come with time
Are we relying on evidence from the future now? If so, I'll just grab my evidence from a different timeline and automatically be right about everything as well.
>at the expense of vast numbers of broken bodies and lives
Boo fuckity hoo. Everything we have and everything we are is the result of thousands of generations of people suffering and dying.
If you can't handle the fact that the world doesn't care about your suffering and eventual death, just take the easy way out right now and take a long drop on a short rope.

>Strength
Men are physically stronger than women, no contest.

>Dex
Men are the best marksmen.

>Con
Men have always performed the most physically exhausting jobs.

>Int
Almost all of humanity's scientific and intellectual advancements are from men.

>Wis
Our philosophy also come almost entirely from men.

>Cha
The world's great leaders are almost all men, men have always run everything.

>BOTTOM LINE
Male characters should get a +1 to all stats, female character should get a -1 to all stats.

In terms of combat at least, as long as a minimum value is hit, it doesn't really matter if it's men or women. Women can hit that value pretty easily and thus are a combative threat. A spear held by a woman is going to rip through your chest as easily as a spear held by a man. We're not talking arm wrestling here, we're talking the ability to kill, which has a laughably low barrier.

>>53901235
Because sexual dimorphism is not standard between species so figuring out stats and then the culture behind em for every single race you add that reproduces sexually is a pain.
And if you're an adventurer there is zero reason you're sticking to stereotypes to begin with.

>>53901235
Women aren't more inspiring leaders than men, so the charisma thing is out.

For player characters at least, I think +1 Str for men, +1 Dex for women works pretty well. PCs belong to an artificial bracket of humanity, where ability and power are roughly equivalent. That doesn't indicate anything about humanity or either gender as a whole; it's just that we're only including folks whose skill and power is approximately X. It may be that that is a significantly larger cross-section of the male population than the female population, but seeing as the number of PCs is tiny when compared to the population of the world, that's not really an issue. Plus, we're talking about fantasy land, where the same rules don't apply, and where (usually, at least) gender roles have long been more equal than they were historically, which means that natural selection would help produce stronger, more martially-capable women (if evolution is even a factor at play).

In the end, at a certain level of overall capability in battle, a man's going to be stronger than a woman, and a woman's going to be more agile. That is to say, men have a higher strength to coordination ratio than women (even if this is only because their strength is higher while their coordination is closer to equivalent). Thus +1 Str and +1 Dex respectively.

>>53906429
>while Patsy miked cows and carried pitchers around

If they're both supposed to represent Ye Typical Realistic Medieval Peasant, then in fact both were probably farmers, and both did the exact same jobs on the farm. Because the farm doesn't care what your gender is. The farm has work that needs doing and someone's gonna do it.

Both plowed, both planted, both reaped, both carried pails, each did everything that the other did without exception.

>>53906398
>creating mechanics that reflect that in a fun and meaningful way is sexist and is not allowed
What's fun about handicapping female players that want to play a character of their own gender in an ability that plays a major part in a character's survivability?

You know when you see a bait and you except everyone to mock the bait but everyone takes it seriously instead

>>53901235

It's only an average that women are weaker than men. Having it as a standard rule instead of basing it on a case by case basis results in stale characterisation.

>>53906518
>Almost all of humanity's scientific and intellectual advancements are from men.
>Our philosophy also come almost entirely from men.
>The world's great leaders are almost all men, men have always run everything.
It's more about the width of statistical spread than averages. Female polpulation have slightly higher average IQ than male one but lower spread - i.e. there's a lot less geniuses/idiots amingst females than there are amongst males.

This is actually how statistical spread is for all characteristics - male are more diverse on EVERY SINGLE ONE, hence why the best of the best in every one are males.

>>53906549
It's fun for him.

>>53906528
Weapons are force multipliers. More at 11.

>>53906581
That's nice, but last I checked, D&D wasn't intended to be a single-player game.

>>53906536
>Because sexual dimorphism is not standard between species so figuring out stats and then the culture behind em for every single race you add that reproduces sexually is a pain.
So then, instead of getting a bonus based just on your race, it's based on both race and sex. Easy enough to implement.

>And if you're an adventurer there is zero reason you're sticking to stereotypes to begin with.
Then race shouldn't grant any bonuses.

>>53903518
This is the post I came here for. Why did it take so long?

>>53906491
>Plenty
More than men?

>The principle thing holding back women rulers appears to be societal pressure
Even at it's best it's an explanation of why there's less examples of charismatic women, not something that supports the notion that women have +1 cha, at worst it's just false and doesn't take into account the societal pressures of everyone else
>Indeed in many cases when a woman is "forced" into a position of power due to a lack of male heir, they tend to *excel* compared to their male predecessors or successors.
This opinion doesn't mean anything until you measure it

>This is all the more extraordinary since in many cases they weren't supposed to take over
Considering the amount of royalty you've listed this is especially amusing

not going to lie, female warrior characters really ruin immersion for me personally

>>53906601
Yes but people have it in their mind you need a high level of strength to be effective at combat. Which is wrong, combat for the most part consists of instant death. A woman stabbing you kills you just as fast as a man stabbing you. The strength plays such a minimal role it's almost insignificant. As long as you're capable of using the weapon, which is a achievable value for women, the strength means almost nothing, it's about your ability to use said weapon.

>>53906528
>A spear held by a woman is going to rip through your chest as easily as a spear held by a man.
Did you ever tried slaughtering a pig or cow and carving their carcas? Cutting through the skin, meat and especially bones requres a LOT of strenght. Do note that butchers are generally big guys with huge biceps.

>>53906612
Players are expendable. If your players don't find it fun, get better ones.

>>53906653
You don't need to fully slaughter or butcher someone in order to make their heart stop beating, anon.

>>53906231
I'm fine with no realism

>>53906664
>If your players don't find it fun, get better ones.
Does that mean I'm supposed to ban the annoying minority of players that won't shut up about giving female character -4 STR?

>>53906653
Carving up a carcass is one thing just poking a hole in it's body with a sharp weapon is another. It's not the process of cutting that takes a large amount of strength, it's doing it repeatedly in a certain fashion to cut out large chunks of flesh that does. Fortunantly you don't need to do that to kill someone.

File: IMG_1862.png (26KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 527x409px

>>53901235
I don't think anyone wants to play a D&D game that limits your stat potential, because limiting something based off of what someone picked isn't fun it's punishing the player for having Different tastes and that's not fun, and we play the game for fun right?

>>53906647
lolnope
go ask any HEMA practitioner or gistorian - strength plays a big role unless your opponent wears no armor (in which case its only big rather than huge).

>>53906704
>hurr durr ask a sportsman about what it takes to kill a dude
Lol, no.

>>53906653
They're cutting apart carcasses, though. You don't need to cut off limbs or split open ribs to kill someone. In fact, it's generally counterproductive, given that trying to hack someone apart takes a lot more effort than just stabbing them in the gut or slicing an artery or something.

>>53906698

so what you're saying is that there should be no stat differences of any kind in relation to character choice

>>53906691
Yeah, go try poking a hole though a standard medieval gambeson - you'd be surprised how much strength is requires even with something as effective at poking stuff as a spear.

>>53906743
Why the fuck would I do that, rather than stabbing someone in the face?

>>53906684
No, because then you're having fun wrong.

>>53906704
Asking a HEMAfag is on the same level of me telling you to ask a iaido practioner about combat. Both are full of shit.

File: 5a32b6c8d594829c58131c0dfc53d968.jpg (47KB, 320x275px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 320x275px

>>53906311
>When you think of charismatic leaders throughout history, how many women do you think of?

>>53906758
Let's find out what the right kind of fun is by performing some thorough market research in the full client base for RPGs, not just /tg/.

I don't have high hopes for -4 STR making the cut, anon. Too bad, so sad.

You're banned from my games. Go play games with the other morlocks.

>>53906753
1) helmet
2) head is a hard target
3) high stance required for this leaves you stupidly vulnerable to counter-attack

>>53901235
Bait thread, Just report and move on.

>>53906798
>picture unrelated

>>53906800
If we're adding whatever equipment is convenient to our argument into the mix, I'll just use a weed whacker.

Let's see you fight me when a length of wire is slapping you across the chops at a fuckton of revs per minute.

File: trygettingareservationatdorsianowyoustupidfuckingbastard.jpg (48KB, 264x484px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 264x484px

>>53906549
>handicapping
It's not a handicap, it's a tradeoff. Would you rather have a persuasion, bluff and diplomacy boost with a penalty to strength, or normal strength with no persuasion, bluff or diplomacy boosts.
It's an interesting dichotomy and can help you play the character you want to play.

>>53906518
You're retarded
>Men are the best marksmen.
Just because all the best marksmen are men doesn't mean that all men are good marksmen.
Also Dexterity isn't just used for ranged attacking.

>Almost all of humanity's scientific and intellectual advancements are from men.
Just because all the greatest scientists were men doesn't mean that all men can be

Our philosophy also come almost entirely from men.
Just because all the great philosophers were men doesn't mean that all men can be philosophers.

>The world's great leaders are almost all men, men have always run everything.
Just because all the great leaders are men doesn't mean that all men can be great leaders.

>>53903162
Welcome to 3aboos, where if it doesn't have detailed rules saying how it works, it can't happen.

>>53906839
In D&D? Strength, all day erryday. The entire game focuses so much on combat, it's ridiculous.

>>53906698
>because limiting something based off of what someone picked isn't fun it's punishing the player for having Different tastes
sure, everyone is identical and can cast fireballs at will, no reason to limit anyone, it's more fun for everyone this way

let's disregard the fact that these different tastes are now meaningless when the limits that define their different tastes are now removed

>and we play the game for fun right?
This implies that a game with limitation(every game) isn't fun for others.

>>53906547
The inverse is true
>men wash and fold their own clothes
>and do sewing/handicraft work
>and prepare food
>also care for babies and tend to the children

Jeez, farm life sounds like the military

>>53906830
>If we're adding whatever equipment is convenient to our argument
I'm adding your average troopers equipement. Every man at least get a helmet, most get a gambeson or something better they could afford it. Guys running into battle in shirts and bare heads aren't going to be worth their basic training time

>>53906862
That depends on the DM. Obviously a gender difference probably won't we much fun in a combat focused game. But if you're DM is running a campaign with an even spread of intrigue and combat, then the gender differences can only add to the game.

>>53906743
Spears were just the most common example of the masses. A spearman doesn't do 1 on 1 fights, their job is to hold a line with 1000 other people. Essentially people kill themselves against spears.

>>53906818
Either your a buttblasted ameriburger or just mad she's the last great monarch you'll ever have.

>>53906933
>if you disagree with me, you are wrong
scathing, really

>>53906630
>This opinion doesn't mean anything until you measure it

It's more of an observation, but let's use England/Great Britain (henceforth called England for the sake of expediency) for example. This is the traditional list of English monarchs through to the present day:

Alfred the Great
Edward the Elder
Æthelstan
Edmund I
Eadred
Eadwig
Edgar the Peaceful
Edward the Martyr
Æthelred the Unready (first reign)
Sweyn Forkbeard
Æthelred the Unready (second reign)
Edmund Ironside
Cnut the Great
Harold Harefoot
Harthacnut
Edward the Confessor
Harold Godwinson
Edgar the Ætheling (proclaimed, never crowned)
William I
William II
Henry I
Stephen
Henry II
Richard I
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Richard II
Henry IV
Henry V
Henry VI
Edward IV (first reign)
Henry VI
Edward IV (second reign)
Edward V
Richard III
Henry VII
Henry VIII
Edward VI
Elizabeth I
James I
Charles I
[Interregnum - Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell]
Charles II
James II
Mary II and William III [Mary is Mary II because it includes the Scottish monarchy] [Joint monarch with William III]
Anne [Act of Union, becomes Monarch of the United Kingdom]
George I
George II
George III
George IV
Wiliam IV
Victoria
Edward VII
George V
Edward VIII
George VI
Elizabeth II

There are a total of five queens: Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II

Let's discount Elizabeth II as being modern and so impossible to be objective about, so that leaves us with four, of which two (Elizabeth I and Victoria) are remembered as among the best monarchs that England has ever had; one (Mary II) as a capable and confident ruler when William III was away on foreign adventures, and only one (Anne) as remembered in any way unfondly.

So 3 out of 4 eligible English queens are considered to have been exceptionally good at their jobs. 4 out of 5 if you include Elizabeth II.

The Kings of England do not have nearly as comparable a track record, ranging from very good (Alfred the Great) to godawful (Charles I)

File: And then the giant faggot OP posted.jpg (40KB, 600x611px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x611px

>>53901235
What you dumb fucks don't seem to understand is that stats determine what the character is, not the other way around.

If a woman happens to have higher Strength than a man, that means that woman is necessarily bulkier and/or bigger than said man.

Are there many women like that around? Of course not, but they can certainly exist.

>>53906932
>Spears were just the most common example of the masses. A spearman doesn't do 1 on 1 fights, their job is to hold a line with 1000 other people. Essentially people kill themselves against spears.
My point stands. Strength is also crucial in melee whewre two lines of men push agains each other. Either way men got a huge advantage.

>>53907001
They have am advantage at reaching the point of minimum value. But combat isn't a strength vs strength contest which was the point. Any woman can be trained to reach the minimal value to kill someone. Men get there slightly faster but for all intents it means nothing once you're there. Combat isn't about locked swords and fist fights.

>>53906653
Did you know that in most hunter-gatherer societies, the hunter, generally male, only kills and carries the animal. The woman do all the cleaning, butchering, and prepping. Also, if the kill is too heavy for the man to carry back, he leaves it, and tells the woman to retrieve it. Which she does, by chopping it into pieces.

This is true for the Americas, Africa, South East Asia, etc.

The whole male butcher stereotype is only true in developed societies, where woman are delegated into the role of housewife.

Also, what kind of little bitch are you where butchering a pig or a deer is hard? Just because you're a pussy who has trouble breaking down an animal doesn't mean everyone is. Fuck, if you're doing it right, gravity does most of the work.

>>53906956
>needs to confront bait
Keep being a tool, friendo

>>53907046
>The whole male butcher stereotype is only true in developed societies
... where such job does exist.
it's onw thing to butcher and dismember something once a week taking half a day to do that, and entirely another to do it 12 times a day as you job.

>>53907098
>taking half a day to do it
Sure, if they're ripping apart an elephant.

We have reports of female natives breaking down grizzly or buffalo in an hour.

When I get home I'll post the sources.

>>53907179
>We have reports of female natives breaking down grizzly or buffalo in an hour.
Maybe hastly skinning and taking out the best parts - that I could believe

>>53906630
>Considering the amount of royalty you've listed this is especially amusing

Not really. Given that most societies have had male-only inheritance, including of titles, it generally means that something must have gone wrong in order to get a Queen. For example, Victoria was never "supposed" to be Queen. At birth she was fifth in line of secession after the four eldest sons of George III. Hang on, I'll let Wikipedia cover this:

>At birth, Victoria was fifth in the line of succession after the four eldest sons of George III: George, the Prince Regent (later George IV); Frederick, the Duke of York; William, the Duke of Clarence (later William IV); and Victoria's father, Edward, the Duke of Kent. The Prince Regent had no surviving children, and the Duke of York had no children; further, both were estranged from their wives, who were both past child-bearing age, so the two eldest brothers were unlikely to have any further children. The Duke of Clarence and the Duke of Kent married on the same day in 1818, but both of Clarence's daughters (born in 1819 and 1820) died as infants. Victoria's father died in January 1820, when Victoria was less than a year old. A week later her grandfather died and was succeeded by his eldest son, George IV. The Duke of York died in 1827. When George IV died in 1830, he was succeeded by his next surviving brother, William IV, and Victoria became heir presumptive.

In most cases of Queens throughout history, though especially in Europe, you'll find similar stories: the Queen became Queen due to a series of unfortunate events that left no viable male heirs. They were never expected to become monarchs, and yet historically speaking they tend to do rather well for themselves considering that situation, at minimum usually preserving status quo and often expanding the power of their nation in some way.

>>53907223
I know it's something of a meme, but natives really did use every part of an animal they killed that they could. Not out of respect for nature, but rather because that was their primary manufacturing material and there was no sense letting it go to waste.

File: vFSyBub.jpg (45KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 540x720px

>been years since Iwent to 4chan
>decide to come check my once favourite board that I last visited 4 years ago
>"females get -x str" thread

>>53901235
>>53901507
What you guys should be doing is getting a sample of a few hundred male DND characters and same amount females, and compare their Strength attributes (sum 'em up and get the average).

I'm quite sure female characters will have lower average Strength then male character, just as in "real life" as you guys want. People already have that in their mind when they make their characters up, we don't need rules to enforce that.

>>53907223
Nope, the whole thing. Granted it was as a team of two to six depending on the distance to the kill.

Also, men in hunter-gatherer societies tend to be lazy and force most of the repetitive, menial, labor onto their woman, like butchering animals.

It's about role-playing a fantasy. Y'all are ok with green moguls, eternally young fuccbois, giant lizard jews, old men who can throw lightning storms, but a stronger-than-average female is beyond your suspension of disbelief? Were you even planning on playing a str based female? Because if not, I don't see why you'd concern yourself with adding unnecessary limiting factors on something as aesthetic as gender.

>>53901235
I'm sorry that the hot but really shallow girl didn't go to Junior Prom with you, or whatever.
This whole thread is just a bunch of sad MGTOW or shutins needing to jerk off about how superior they are to those mean icky women who have wronged them, by giving them trash stats in their nerdy make believe games. Really stuck it to all the Staceys who would rather sleep with Chads than you.
Here's why giving women (try using this word instead of "females", fyi) different stats is stupid. So let's say you get a bunch of people together and they want to play fantasy versions of themselves, or something relatable. So they choose race and class. But wait, now there's penalties for being a feeeemale. This means between Phil and Jill who have identically rolled and built characters, Phil has a better character while Jill has to play trash because she wouldn't kowtow to her inherent "inferiority". Sure Jill can just play a dude, but why? Or maybe she should just be barred from playing the types of character classes she actually wants to play.
Don't you see, it's shitty game design because it doesn't allow players to have their characters stand on the merits of player choice and build.

Get over your own self insecurities and thinking the best way of getting ahead in the world is pulling others down.

Also bait.

Also shit thread.

Also shit posters.

>>53907325
>it doesn't allow players to have their characters stand on the merits of player choice and build.
Yeah it does.
Sex is another choice.

>>53901235
Why not just apply your lowest die roll to STR if you feel so damn inclined?
Unless you roll 12+ for all 6. Then her parents shat out a super baby.

>>53906862
Depends on the edition of D&D. Unless you have an anally retentive DM with a fetish for melee combat there's basically just one edition that wasn't a caster's paradise, or where you didn't really need high STR to be a successful adventurer.

And if you're playing 3.PF, even though CHA-based casters are usually the lowest tier of full casters, they're still in a completely different league than any STR-based character. This houserule would actually make the number of female characters spike up in most D&D circles I know of, not down.

>>53901235
>>53901507
>>53901592
>>53901611

Wow this is going to be a long summer

>>53907246

would you ever expect us to let you down?

Does nobody else like the idea of Orcs being based oh Hyenas so some degree?
>Females rape the males into submission with their feminine penis and keep them away from the newborns of rival males
I love the idea of a human warrior clearing out an orc camp, just to make his way into the breeding cave and get the shit kicked out of him by a mountain of meat with tits.

>>53907315

unless it's an amazon it breaks my immersion

File: IMG_0341.jpg (29KB, 261x197px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 261x197px

>>53906867
If you are the DM you control what happens dude, I didn't mean to say that everyone can do anything because fun I was trying to make a point about how you shouldn't force shit on your players because it's realistic, I'm sorry if my post was bad and didn't get that though I will make sure to be aware and make a better one next time.

>>53904057
>What the fuck makes women automagically more charismatic?

Boobies..

>>53907410
Don't kid yourself kid, this shit has been going on long before summer

>>53907397
Yeah, Sorcerers are Tier-II, the comparison being that a Tier-I character is like a country with 5,000 nukes, while a Tier-II is a country with like 50 nukes. Either way, it's still got nukes and so is inherently more powerful than any country without them, which is Tiers III to VI.

Or in other words:

Tier I (wizard): America
Tier II (sorcerer): India
Tier III (bard): Germany
Tier IV (rogue): Brazil
Tier V (fighter): Argentina
Tier VI (NPC classes): any African nation

Then there's the Truenamer, which is broken (as in, it just doesn't work). That's Syria.

>people still take the bait
jesus

File: 188fda59-ade0-423a-93b6-260c60234be3_thumb.png.jpg (56KB, 610x622px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 610x622px

>>53907448
But strong women actually exist.

Unlike giant Amazons.

>>53906996
I don't care about the argument one way or the other, but 4 eligible examples is not a very compelling sample size.

>>53901235
In most systems, you are simultaneously dealing with a high level of abstraction, a fantasy environment, and large delineation between subsequent values.

In other words, strength in DnD is an abstraction of a large number of different things, and represents skill with a blade, deadlift weight, and running endurance all at once. It does so in a setting with magic and gods and other such nonsense, wherein the players are world-saving powerful heroes. Furthermore, the difference between 10 and 11 strength is generally larger than the difference between an average (peasant) man and average (peasant) woman.

If you wanted to play a system with gritty simulated realism, then mechanical sexual dimorphism might make sense. Except, it'd still be nonviable. Many of these things are cutting science. It's obvious to a casual observer that the highest levels of sports, sprinting, and weightlifting are dominated by men.

>>53906329

I don't know, women are vicious, spiteful things if you push them. The capacity to mentally justify killing someone has little to do with gender, and women may actually be better at it.

Joe nobody is probably better at the killing, but I doubt he's any more psychologically predisposed to combat scenarios.

>>53907564
women are charismatic and funny
deal with it

>>53901592
Why? You might have an ugly woman. You might have a guy more interested in studies. Too many variables exist for this to be a thing. Unless there is actually a need for a particular race (such as men are 12' giants, woman are 18' dragon giants) then gender issues should just be ignored. Hell, only little boys with no real girlfriends actually want this so they can masturbate about hur-hur my barbarian has a harem is sexy girls; see the rules back it up.

I mean, serious question -
Who here has actually, seriously, realistically used gender modifiers for humans and how much actual difference did it make to the game? I'm guessing none whatsoever.

>>53907571
Cont.:

However, how does your system reflect men's superior average spatial awareness? How does it reflect the social differences between men and women when those aren't even fully understood by neuroscience? How does your system's equivalent of Strength interpreter this:
>No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number, muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis, or any motor unit characteristics.
specific muscular difference?

And that's not to mention that the difference between individuals is all the more striking. As much as the average man differs from the average woman, the party's male warrior differs from the party's male mage by even more.

>>53907383
Nice try, but weak excuse. Making that a stat impacting choice would simply penalize women not wanting to cross-play and add nothing to the game. If the chips fell the other way and I has to either play as a woman or have a sub optimal build I'd be just as rustled.
I don't even think GURPS has gender differentiation.

>>53901235
If I recall correctly, on dnd the average human should have all stats around 10. That is FAR from the average of playable characters, in any edition, who are always at least quite better than most humans in almost everything. So the whole game is based on the premise that the playable characters are not average, but beyond average.

Then you go on about how female playable characters should have less strength to represent real world statistics...

>>53907564
If you check out the Empresses of Russia you'll see the same basic tendency - there's not many of them, but at worst they tend to preserve the status quo, and at best they tend to be counted among the best rulers that Russia ever had.

Ditto other nations. That's the recurring theme amongst female rulers. In fact, except for Queen Liliuokolani I'm struggling to think of a single female ruler who's reign actually made things worse for her people in her lifetime, and even in Liliuokolani's case it was almost entirely because of outside influences and the fact that said outside influence was the United States. She can hardly be blamed for the Hawaiian Islands not being able to stand up to a nascent Great Power.

>>53906839

Dex has almost nothing to do with ranged attacking, at least in the modern day.

Rifles are heavy, so you need the strength to shoulder them without straining and thus wobbling. You need perception and reaction speed to accurately determine and sight a target, and breath control to steady your aim before firing.

Dexterity is trigger control. That's about all really, and it is still important, sure. No more important, however.

>>53901235
It's true, but I still hate it for the same reason I hate Half-elves, it's a purely mechanical bonus that serves no purpose other than to minmax.

Just let the players play what they want.

>>53907636
You don't need a lot of strength to hold a rifle without it wobbling. You need to strengthen the small muscles that aren't used to being used for long periods, which is just a practice thing. But you can shoot a rifle accurately with below average strength.

>>53907636
Dexterity, in the D&D sense, covers hand-eye coordination and reaction speed (RE: Initiative). It presumably also covers things like breath control, which D&D is not and should not be granular enough to independently track.

Or in other words, Wisdom is your ability to see a target, but Dexterity is your ability to aim accurately at it.

>>53907684

True, that sort of gets back to my argument that strength isn't actually strength in DnD, but you're right. Dex governs initiative, and so I could see it as being reaction time as well.

Which is odd, as that's a purely mental trait.

>>53907573
r u a grill

>>53907726

Yes, I'm a George Foreman actually

File: 1428009229646.jpg (16KB, 268x265px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 268x265px

Holy shit, 20 (you)s so far

Women have -1 Strength.

Men have -1 Wisdom.

People born in the topics have +1 Constitution.

Religious characters have -1 Intelligence.

At character creation, roll d100, on doubled your character is gay. On a 5 or less your character has autism: -2 Charisma, +1 Intelligence. On a 100 your character is both gay and has autism.

If your character is black, he has advantage on saves against sickle cell disease.

>>53907729
George Foreman, tell me your girly secrets. What makes you so good at killing people?

>>53907741
*21 >>53907729

>>53907397
>there's basically just one edition that wasn't a caster's paradise, or where you didn't really need high STR to be a successful adventurer.
Old school magic-users could get powerful at high levels but were very limited and frail at the lower levels you much more commonly played. As spell lists got longer (compare 2e to Moldvay Basic), their power increased, but all old school magic-users are more vulnerable and less flexible than what folks these days are probably accustomed to.

File: 1243732149061.jpg (49KB, 419x353px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 419x353px

>>53901235
Because PCs aren't normal people, and social skills have way more to do with one's rearing than their sex.

It's not the standard because these games aren't written by /pol/

>>53907771
Uh oh it's the PC police

>>53903473
It's literally impossible for that gap to close. Even with drugs.

They are already benefitting from steroids and optimal training conditions, unless you magically force women to use drugs from birth you won't close the damn gap.

>Buh muh norms
Other sports still have gaps, even when they don't require getting insanely huge. Test is one helluva drug, so no amount of crying can beat its effectiveness.

>>53907748

Mostly the fact that I'm everywhere and capable of burning people that mishandle me.

But no, on a more serious note, Hell hath no wrath, the yandere trope being almost exclusively feminine, amongst other things.

>>53906309
Every feat Alexander of Macedonia ever performed could be easily achieved by a 4th-5th level D&D PC. Yes, Alexander had a lot of experience as a warrior and leader, but in D&D characters simply go well beyond normal human limits.

By the time a character hits 5th level, he's starting to make his way into more Beowulf territory than anything in actual history. And, though an incredible historical figure, Alexander is no Beowulf.

File: When+will+the+madness+end_dfeef4_5482814.jpg (70KB, 685x474px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 685x474px

>>53907706
D&D is not a Real Life Simulator.

In other news, pic.

File: 712a6aDu8nL._UY700_.jpg (40KB, 748x700px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 748x700px

>>53907802
>Hell hath no wrath, the yandere trope being almost exclusively feminine,

Did you just say that stereotypes are self proving?

>>53906491
Don't forget Ching Shih.

Probably the most successful pirate lord ever.

File: 1494022785894.jpg (147KB, 1024x942px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1024x942px

>>53901507
>this entire post

>>53907802
This is why I said that women should get Intimidate bonuses against Wizards. Beta males are terrified of women, absolutely bedeviled

>>53906933
>she's the last great monarch you'll ever have

Oh god it's true.

Look at the absolute morons slated to be next in line. Dear fucking lord I hope they just shut themselves in Buckingham Palace and never say anything remotely political.

>>53907742
The Religious Characters having -1 Int is pretty damn fedora of you.

Most of histories strongest, most highly developed and "Scientifically" innovative societies had (relatively) incredibly highly organized religions. (Anglicanism, Rome both Ancient and Renaissance, Mesopotamia and the Greek peninsula. the Han Chinese cultures, Early Modern Indian empires, Mayan and Aztec city states of their day).

It simply does not follow. Because of organised religion you generally have forced adherence to the center, which necessitates education and schooling of some type, and in later European cultures, the ability to read and write in multiple languages.

If you wanted to have a fedora tipping setting in universe, have religion as a -1 Charisma, or ooc approach it as a general adherence to authority, and have -1 initiative.

>>53907620
>Nice try I concede that point, but let me go on a different tangent
okay

>Making that a stat impacting choice would simply penalize women not wanting to cross-play
Sure, just it penalizes you to give -1 dex and +1 con if you don't want to cross play

>>53903097
Reducing people to holes doesn't make you sound bitter at all lol.

>>53907823

They had to come from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be stereotypes, would they?

That doesn't mean they're universal, but damn sure possible.

>>53907881
Religion was once the opiate of the masses... now 4chan and Reddit are, albeit less effectively

>>53907881
Anon, I hate to inform you, but I think you might have just contracted a case of the "baits"

>>53907881
Not to mention there's a whole plethora of discoveries made by bored clergy with nothing to do after preparing their sermons.

File: Portrait-of-Ching-Shih.jpg (30KB, 353x522px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 353x522px

>>53907825
SHIT, good point, I forgot Ching Shih. Also "probably" nothing, I can't think of a single more successful one. Hell, I can't even think of one that comes close. Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Caribbean Golden Age of Piracy pirates, but Ching Shih was by an order of magnitude more successful in terms of treasure collected. Nevermind that she got to RETIRE and live out her remaining years in comfort and luxury with a significant portion of her ill-gotten gains.

And quite a looker, too.

>>53907678
>You don't need a lot of strength to hold a rifle without it wobbling.
I bet you never fired anything bigger than .22

>>53907911
I'm still in disbelief, so I just want to confirm this again.

You believe that all stereotypes are true, because otherwise they wouldn't be stereotypes.

You actually believe this?

>>53907935
I'm not either of them and I'm personally an atheist but I think what anon said was still worth stating for the record

>>53906465
>>53906547
>>53906481

Fair enough, that's actually really interesting to consider how farmlife actually was. My main point still stands though.

>>53907958

Not universally, no.

Though I'm rather baffled at the idea that you believe something could come about from nothing.

>>53907922
What are you talking about?

A half paraphrased, basterdised quote from Marx's Essay on Hegel's thoughts doesn't form the basis for an argument.

If you're baiting, then 2/10, it's annoying to see someone speaking that way. If you're being genuine, whew wee. You a dumb dumb boi, and know very little about how societies actually function effectively across multiple, homogeneous generations.

>>53907678

That depends almost entirely on the rifle in question. Anything in the medium or heavier weight range will require some modicum of strength to hold steady while standing.

You can do it with below average strength, sure. You will find it much easier to do so if you're stronger however, as you can afford to relax more.

>>53907956
I've never fired a .50 BMG from a standing position, but I've shot standard ammo sizes pretty regularly.

>>53907510

that's a freak of nature though

most fish don't have three eyes either

men are predisposed to strength, women are not