Female adventurers are exceptional. They should be able to be equal to male adventurers in every way.
Adventurers are meant to be above average, that's why ability score rolls are biased high. But Olympic athletes are also exceptional; at least, they are in the real world. It seems a shame to me that, in contrast to male athletes, female athletic achievement is represented as unremarkable in 5e D&D.
My preference would be for human males to be superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in others; and for the other races to be differently dimorphic.
Look at the physical differences between a halfling and a half-orc, compared to the differences in stats between them. Do you really think that the physical differences between a male human and a female human are high enough to warrant gender-based ability score modifiers?
Seeing that D&D has stats that cover attributes outside of physicality, I agree and would love to see human males superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in other aspects. As to the second part -
A halfling and half-orc are two very different things. It's like comparing a chimp and a silverback - if we're talking physically. As to the last part, as someone that makes a living based on increasing, testing, analyzing, and studying strength, how to get it, how you lose it, why it matters, who has it and why they have it, I can say without a doubt, that there is a significant difference between a human male with average strength and human female with average strength. The same goes for outliers, at either the top 1% of strength or bottom 1% of strength. But, we are talking real stuff here. Perhaps there isn't a need to create that separation in a game of heroes and champions. If it was (is) present though, I'd not be shocked, because it's completely true that there's difference.
Again, we are talking only physically - or more to the point, the strength stat.
Female adventurers are exceptional. They should be able to be equal to male adventurers in every way.
Adventurers are meant to be above average, that's why ability score rolls are biased high. But Olympic athletes are also exceptional; at least, they are in the real world. It seems a shame to me that, in contrast to male athletes, female athletic achievement is represented as unremarkable in 5e D&D.
My preference would be for human males to be superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in others; and for the other races to be differently dimorphic.
Look at the physical differences between a halfling and a half-orc, compared to the differences in stats between them. Do you really think that the physical differences between a male human and a female human are high enough to warrant gender-based ability score modifiers?
Seeing that D&D has stats that cover attributes outside of physicality, I agree and would love to see human males superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in other aspects. As to the second part -
A halfling and half-orc are two very different things. It's like comparing a chimp and a silverback - if we're talking physically.
And yet there's only a +2 difference in strength. That's my point. The differences between a a human male and a human female aren't remotely that far apart, so based on the way the game is set up, it's perfectly acceptable to not bother with gender-based ability score modifiers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In any kind of check you do in D&D, the d20 roll is modified by your stat bonus. Differences in bonuses are half of the differences in ability scores. Each bonus points is equivalent to a 5% difference in your chance of success. So a 5% measured difference ought to represent an ability score difference of 2 points.
The average difference in measured strength between male and female humans is somewhere between 10% and 20%. In D&D check terms a difference of at least 2 bonus points or 4 points in STR.
On the flip side, female humans live about 5% longer than males. They are less susceptible to diseases (including the current pandemic.) A difference of at least 1 bonus point or about 2 points in CON.
We also know, from the standardized testing in our school system, that girls outperform boys in exam results. The average difference is about 10%. A difference of about 4 points in INT.
And we know from experiment, that females are better than males at reading people's emotional state from their faces. Again this has been measured at about 10%. That skill is Insight in D&D terms and the driving stat for that is WIS.
I don't know of any measured real world differences that would apply to DEX or CHA. But yes, the measured differences in average ability we know about are typically greater than the differences between races in 5e D&D.
Moderators are not DDB staff, but the forum rules are what they are for good reasons.
D&D doesn't have to conform to IRL any more than we have to conform to its rules. In the end, the ultimate onus is upon us.
The question here is whether it should be something plainly stated in the sources beyond the existing "you can play your way" sentiments in the game already. At what point do we stop defining more examples of different ways to play? Each addition is just another definition that people will restrict themselves to using rather than playing how they want.
Compared to all prior, 5e's design is to be inclusive - the more players, the better (not referring to party size), but the players are the only ones able to make that happen, not the game system. No matter how many new definitions of gameplay are published, the players will still eventually have to pull up their sleeves and use some elbow grease and headlight fluid and play the game their way. No books are gonna cover everything even with an entire public library filled with sources.
So, when do we stop relying on the books and start relying on ourselves and each other?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
A halfling and half-orc are two very different things. It's like comparing a chimp and a silverback - if we're talking physically.
And yet there's only a +2 difference in strength. That's my point. The differences between a a human male and a human female aren't remotely that far apart, so based on the way the game is set up, it's perfectly acceptable to not bother with gender-based ability score modifiers.
5e doesn't distinguish at all between a chimp and a gorilla, they only have apes as a single type. But they do have baboon which is small like a halfling compared to the ape which is medium like a half-orc. The difference between them is 8 points of strength.
Female adventurers are exceptional. They should be able to be equal to male adventurers in every way.
Adventurers are meant to be above average, that's why ability score rolls are biased high. But Olympic athletes are also exceptional; at least, they are in the real world. It seems a shame to me that, in contrast to male athletes, female athletic achievement is represented as unremarkable in 5e D&D.
My preference would be for human males to be superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in others; and for the other races to be differently dimorphic.
Look at the physical differences between a halfling and a half-orc, compared to the differences in stats between them. Do you really think that the physical differences between a male human and a female human are high enough to warrant gender-based ability score modifiers?
Seeing that D&D has stats that cover attributes outside of physicality, I agree and would love to see human males superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in other aspects. As to the second part -
A halfling and half-orc are two very different things. It's like comparing a chimp and a silverback - if we're talking physically.
And yet there's only a +2 difference in strength. That's my point. The differences between a a human male and a human female aren't remotely that far apart, so based on the way the game is set up, it's perfectly acceptable to not bother with gender-based ability score modifiers.
I'm with ya. In the end, I agree it's probably best to not bother. I'd have more separation from halfling to half-orc though. The 2 point gap doesn't seem right but not sure if it enhances gameplay at all to muck around with it.
That would be under the original 5e rules. Under the new system there's no difference in strength between a halfling and a half-orc (except that halfings can't wield weapons tagged heavy.)
Yes, gendered pronouns exist in the world. While there seems to be overmuch emphasis on policing language lately (something we might agree on), saying that using gendered language has No effect on the larger picture of how people think of particular social roles is stretching it. If people use "he" the large majority of the time to refer to a random doctor or a judge (rather than a specific doc or judge) it helps reinforce the impression that being a doctor or a judge is the natural purview of men, thus indirectly having some psychological effect on how many girls/young women imagine themselves going into such professions in the
future. That there are languages with heavy use of gender built into them is a fact, but that does not mean we should unconsciously allow that to influence how we think about social roles pertaining to the game.
As it pertains specifically to this discussion, I don't know how many times people on these forums just assume that Random DM is going to be male. While there is probably little or no direct animus against non-male DMs in most such instances, it does reinforce the idea that DMing is the moreso the purview of men/boys than it is of women/girls.
I disagree. Using a pronoun is never discriminatory. If we keep making caveats here and there, changing the language we speak to hopefully not offend some hypothetical person then we will redefine pronouns, gender and the differences and similarities between the two, very much like Newspeak in George Orwell's 1984 was designed to do, erase the ideas and concepts so no one could question them.
If we keep going down the path of redefining words, or changing them, we will redefine language in such a way that there will be nothing unique or special about either women or men. Want to celebrate things about women and the advances women have made in achieving equality then you'll have to accept that there are key differences in pronouns, language and adjectives, and it'll be best to let the language change organically as more and more women begin choosing to take up positions that are not actually denied to them but for some reason, statistically speaking, choose not to engage in in the same numbers as men. I could be wrong about that as I don't have hard numbers on hand, I'm only speaking from personal experience and what I've seen from other people talking about it.
\
Why is it that when issues of language come up, people like assuming that there is some attempt at instituting language police right around the corner? I have never advocated forcing people to use a particular language or pronoun. I bring up issues so that people who DO have social influence, whether in their gaming group, amongst peers, or b/c they administer gaming conventions or have the money to spend on Patreon to support podcasts/livestreams are more aware of them and might take them into account when deciding how to allocate their own or their organization's resources.
And I am taking issue with your statement that pronouns never hurt anyone. If you are a GM/DM or a player and you are sitting at a table with a player who is trans or non-binary, respect the pronouns that they ask you to use for them and their character, not b/c they or anyone else are going to force to do so, but because that is the Polite thing to do and it shows some modicum of respect for their existence and presence at your table.
This thread has repeatedly deviated into topics and areas that are explicitly against site rules, including but not limited to political discussion and discriminatory language and concepts. Because of this, in addition to the thread having pretty much run its course and now becoming cyclical in nature, we will be locking the thread.
Seeing that D&D has stats that cover attributes outside of physicality, I agree and would love to see human males superior in some aspects and human females to be superior in other aspects. As to the second part -
A halfling and half-orc are two very different things. It's like comparing a chimp and a silverback - if we're talking physically. As to the last part, as someone that makes a living based on increasing, testing, analyzing, and studying strength, how to get it, how you lose it, why it matters, who has it and why they have it, I can say without a doubt, that there is a significant difference between a human male with average strength and human female with average strength. The same goes for outliers, at either the top 1% of strength or bottom 1% of strength. But, we are talking real stuff here. Perhaps there isn't a need to create that separation in a game of heroes and champions. If it was (is) present though, I'd not be shocked, because it's completely true that there's difference.
Again, we are talking only physically - or more to the point, the strength stat.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
And yet there's only a +2 difference in strength. That's my point. The differences between a a human male and a human female aren't remotely that far apart, so based on the way the game is set up, it's perfectly acceptable to not bother with gender-based ability score modifiers.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To go off on a slightly different tangent -- what about hags?
I never cared before. They're a gamified version of a well-known trope. But maybe that is an issue in itself?
Just wondering what others think.
In any kind of check you do in D&D, the d20 roll is modified by your stat bonus. Differences in bonuses are half of the differences in ability scores. Each bonus points is equivalent to a 5% difference in your chance of success. So a 5% measured difference ought to represent an ability score difference of 2 points.
The average difference in measured strength between male and female humans is somewhere between 10% and 20%. In D&D check terms a difference of at least 2 bonus points or 4 points in STR.
On the flip side, female humans live about 5% longer than males. They are less susceptible to diseases (including the current pandemic.) A difference of at least 1 bonus point or about 2 points in CON.
We also know, from the standardized testing in our school system, that girls outperform boys in exam results. The average difference is about 10%. A difference of about 4 points in INT.
And we know from experiment, that females are better than males at reading people's emotional state from their faces. Again this has been measured at about 10%. That skill is Insight in D&D terms and the driving stat for that is WIS.
I don't know of any measured real world differences that would apply to DEX or CHA. But yes, the measured differences in average ability we know about are typically greater than the differences between races in 5e D&D.
Moderators are not DDB staff, but the forum rules are what they are for good reasons.
D&D doesn't have to conform to IRL any more than we have to conform to its rules. In the end, the ultimate onus is upon us.
The question here is whether it should be something plainly stated in the sources beyond the existing "you can play your way" sentiments in the game already. At what point do we stop defining more examples of different ways to play? Each addition is just another definition that people will restrict themselves to using rather than playing how they want.
Compared to all prior, 5e's design is to be inclusive - the more players, the better (not referring to party size), but the players are the only ones able to make that happen, not the game system. No matter how many new definitions of gameplay are published, the players will still eventually have to pull up their sleeves and use some elbow grease and headlight fluid and play the game their way. No books are gonna cover everything even with an entire public library filled with sources.
So, when do we stop relying on the books and start relying on ourselves and each other?
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
D&D is the gamification of well-known tropes. Remove that and there'd be nothing left.
5e doesn't distinguish at all between a chimp and a gorilla, they only have apes as a single type. But they do have baboon which is small like a halfling compared to the ape which is medium like a half-orc. The difference between them is 8 points of strength.
I'm with ya. In the end, I agree it's probably best to not bother. I'd have more separation from halfling to half-orc though. The 2 point gap doesn't seem right but not sure if it enhances gameplay at all to muck around with it.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
That would be under the original 5e rules. Under the new system there's no difference in strength between a halfling and a half-orc (except that halfings can't wield weapons tagged heavy.)
Why is it that when issues of language come up, people like assuming that there is some attempt at instituting language police right around the corner? I have never advocated forcing people to use a particular language or pronoun. I bring up issues so that people who DO have social influence, whether in their gaming group, amongst peers, or b/c they administer gaming conventions or have the money to spend on Patreon to support podcasts/livestreams are more aware of them and might take them into account when deciding how to allocate their own or their organization's resources.
And I am taking issue with your statement that pronouns never hurt anyone. If you are a GM/DM or a player and you are sitting at a table with a player who is trans or non-binary, respect the pronouns that they ask you to use for them and their character, not b/c they or anyone else are going to force to do so, but because that is the Polite thing to do and it shows some modicum of respect for their existence and presence at your table.
This thread has repeatedly deviated into topics and areas that are explicitly against site rules, including but not limited to political discussion and discriminatory language and concepts. Because of this, in addition to the thread having pretty much run its course and now becoming cyclical in nature, we will be locking the thread.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here