If you had said all your characters are human - they all have the same base stats - so you're going to add in some variance by creating some bonuses. Bonus A and Bonus B - the players can choose whichever they want based on their background and upbringing. I would have been totally down for that. But putting it based on gender - hell no.
which is incredibly sexist don't you think? Outside of training your base man, due to testosterone is stronger than your base woman, not to say that with some training a woman cant be as strong as a man, but don't tell me that if you don't randomly select 1 man and 1 woman that most of the time the man will be stronger, basic physiology, we're built different, and it should be celebrated and bring us together.
But adventurers aren't your "base man" or "base woman" - they're adventurers. The pinacle of their skills. What's average about that?
at level one? we're all level one characters really with our standard array slightly manipulated.
If you're basing it on real life - most real people wouldn't be level 1 characters. We'd be commoners.
Actually, a level 1 character is decidedly more powerful than the average person. That's why there's a Commoner statblock, which represents the average, untrained civilian. They have a flat 10 on all skills and just 4 hp. Reaching just level 1 puts a PC above the average person in a measurable way, even if it feels like a minor difference for D&D players who get used to higher levels.
If you really want variation, I would instead tie Asi's to backgrounds.
I like this idea a lot more. It would require a lot more homebrewing, since you'd have to go through each background and assign an ASI to it, but I think that would be the best way to add that level of varation without just letting players give themselves whichever boost they personally want.
I mean... if you're letting players regularly play as unbalanced homebrew races, that's more on you than on your players.
Here's my thing about this concept... one of the most appealing aspect of playing a human in this setting is how customizable the race is. You don't need to worry about having ability scores that don't compliment the class you want to play. You don't have to worry about having a racial ability that you'll never use because it doesn't pair well with your personal playstyle. A human can be exactly what the player wants them to be without any fluff or technical issues getting in the way. If you're taking that away... why would anyone want to play as a human?
Take it in terms of this campaign: you're hunting down a serial killer in modern day USA, it's supposed to be realistic, guns are easy to come by, swords, not so much, cars, trains, planes all exist (at exuberant costs of course) none of the people are athletes, there's a sheriff, and an FBI agent, a farmer, his/her son/daughter, and a pastor, race isn't a factor because i don't see any elves or tieflings walking around IRL, this is really an open world game, gender provides the variation, as well as rolled stats, and so basically everybody is human for a realistic game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
too much work man, next thing imma have to tie bonuses for age, and then get labelled as agist, cuz old people would get negatives in str, con and dex and bonuses in wis and int. and young ppl would get massive bonuses in str dex and con and massive penalties in wis/ int.
Okay I can see what you mean... although at this point, why run the game through D&D? There's plenty of modern-setting games that work better for a realistic modern game. I can understand if your group of players are all used to playing D&D and don't want to learn a new system for the game, but it sounds like you're going to have to do a ton of reworking and reskinning to make the game work in that setting.
I don't know enough about your game to know how fantasy heavy your story is going to be, but a good compromise would be to let everyone be "human", but they still use the racial stats and benefits from the different races. Like... someone would still be human, but maybe they have an "Orc soul", and they get the benefits associated with half-orcs.
That sounds like a campaign much better served being played in a different game system than D&D. As for the rest - you're fine with sexism but not with ageism? Am I reading that wrong?
What do you think? Accurate? Agist? No? Age Modifier: 15-25 years +2 str, +2 Dex +2 con, -3 wis, -3 int; 25-40 no bonuses or penalties; 40-65 -1 Str, Dex and Con, +2 in Wis +in in Int, 65+ -2 Str, -3 Dex, -4 Con, +5 Wis, +4 Int
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
As BioWizard said, if your table are all on board with it, do whatever you want, your table your rules. Because of that I'm going to ignore any perceived sexism or anything of that nature, and just offer a suggestion on a mechanical change.
Have males be +1 Str, +1 Con with a floating +1 they can assign to any stat. Females can be similar, with a +1 Dex, +1 Cha (or however you want to distribute stats) with the same floating bonus. With only 2 different stat spreads, allowing the players to customize their stats just a little to fit their chosen class/build better could be quite helpful since they aren't able to customize via race like they normally would.
That sounds like a campaign much better served being played in a different game system than D&D. As for the rest - you're fine with sexism but not with ageism? Am I reading that wrong?
Yes. I am against sexism, agism, racism anything. This was a fun idea for a *Realistic* type game with some mods, after it's my table, homebrew, campaign, etc. I was merely talking about an idea i had. I'm not being sexist, being sexist would be discriminating against men/ women based on their gender, which i'm not, the different bonuses correlate with *typical* strengths each gender displays. I'm not telling women they can't play, or that players can't play as women, i'm not saying that women are bad or weak or anything like that, but in an attempt for *realism* i'm highlighting the differences. Is that wrong? No. I feel like you're mistaking sexism for simply using gender as a way of customizing characters and the inherent strengths and weaknesses are biological, not because i'm hating on anybody.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
As BioWizard said, if your table are all on board with it, do whatever you want, your table your rules. Because of that I'm going to ignore any perceived sexism or anything of that nature, and just offer a suggestion on a mechanical change.
Have males be +1 Str, +1 Con with a floating +1 they can assign to any stat. Females can be similar, with a +1 Dex, +1 Cha (or however you want to distribute stats) with the same floating bonus. With only 2 different stat spreads, allowing the players to customize their stats just a little to fit their chosen class/build better could be quite helpful since they aren't able to customize via race like they normally would.
hm, yeah that could work, for now imma leave it as is, but if it's a sticking point, i would absolutely try that. thank you for your constructive criticism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I just want to take a moment to point out that discrimination and prejudice takes many forms and none of them are acceptable on this site. While something may seem 'realistic' or 'scientific', it's important to remember that a lot of discrimination is masked by preconception, misconception, assumption and misinformation. As such, bringing in any kind of discrimination, regardless of intent, rarely engenders a welcoming or inclusive atmosphere.
As pointed out, what someone decides to use at their table is their prerogative, but once a topic is brought into this forum, it affects people outside your table. It is for that reason we have the rules for this site that we do. I would ask everyone keep in mind how what you say might affect others, and also that there are many perspectives and experiences out there, so just because you may not see a problem with something, that doesn't mean there isn't one.
too much work man, next thing imma have to tie bonuses for age, and then get labelled as agist, cuz old people would get negatives in str, con and dex and bonuses in wis and int. and young ppl would get massive bonuses in str dex and con and massive penalties in wis/ int.
It is not that much work. This took less than five minutes.
Background: Doctor. You gain a +2 to INT and a +1 to WIS. Gain proficiency Healer's and Surgeons supplies.
Soldier: Gain +2 to DEX, +1 to CON. Gain proficiency in firearms.
Entertainer: Gain +2 to CHA, +1 to DEX. Gain proficiency in Performance and two musical instruments of your choice. (You may choose the voice.)
Criminal: Gain +2 to STR, +1 to WIS. Gain proficiency in melee weapons and handguns.
Heir: Gain +1 to INT, +1 to CHA. Start the game with the equivalent of 50,000 USD.
Scientist: Gain +3 to INT and proficiency in Investigation.
These aren't that hard to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
That sounds like a campaign much better served being played in a different game system than D&D. As for the rest - you're fine with sexism but not with ageism? Am I reading that wrong?
Yes. I am against sexism, agism, racism anything. This was a fun idea for a *Realistic* type game with some mods, after it's my table, homebrew, campaign, etc. I was merely talking about an idea i had. I'm not being sexist, being sexist would be discriminating against men/ women based on their gender, which i'm not, the different bonuses correlate with *typical* strengths each gender displays. I'm not telling women they can't play, or that players can't play as women, i'm not saying that women are bad or weak or anything like that, but in an attempt for *realism* i'm highlighting the differences. Is that wrong? No. I feel like you're mistaking sexism for simply using gender as a way of customizing characters and the inherent strengths and weaknesses are biological, not because i'm hating on anybody.
Even the most strident feminist will give you that males are stronger than females as a biological fact. Every other stat in the game? You're going to get an argument if you claim that one gender is better than the other.
Dexterity? By what standard do you compare? Are the top end female Gymnasts appreciably superior to the top end male ones? Do women have faster reflex speeds? Better eye-hand coordination? Where are you getting the idea that women are more graceful?
Constitution? Again, by what standard are you making a comparison? Ability to survive traumatic injury? Nope. Pretty even in that respect. High pain threshold? Resistance to disease or poisons? Again, pretty even there. Check out emergency room statistics. What makes you think that men are tougher?
Next up, mental stats, and that's a real minefield.
Where do your objective standards come from? How do you judge? What comes from cultural expectations and upbringing, what is due to biological difference, and how do you tell?
Throughout history most rulers and politicians have been male, and they still are. Does that mean that men are more charismatic than women? Here in the 21st Century more and more women are moving into high positions in politics. Does that mean that women are somehow defying biology?
There has been an absolute and utter crapton of research done trying to establish that men or women are superior in various aspects, and about all that has ever been agreed upon is that men really are stronger. Your version of "realism" seems to be entirely based on stereotypes and unsupported opinion. That is Not Cool.
Also I have to wonder in what way it enhances the fun of the game to make guys play as females if they want to be casters, or for women to play as males if they want to be warriors. Or do you expect the guy who wants to play a Wizard to really appreciate that +2 to Strength? Will a woman who wants to play an Amazon have a more enjoyable experience because of her bonus to Wisdom?
Sure, 5th level game, those stat points aren't a huge deal, but if they don't matter anyway, why risk offending someone for nothing?
That sounds like a campaign much better served being played in a different game system than D&D. As for the rest - you're fine with sexism but not with ageism? Am I reading that wrong?
Yes. I am against sexism, agism, racism anything. This was a fun idea for a *Realistic* type game with some mods, after it's my table, homebrew, campaign, etc. I was merely talking about an idea i had. I'm not being sexist, being sexist would be discriminating against men/ women based on their gender, which i'm not, the different bonuses correlate with *typical* strengths each gender displays. I'm not telling women they can't play, or that players can't play as women, i'm not saying that women are bad or weak or anything like that, but in an attempt for *realism* i'm highlighting the differences. Is that wrong? No. I feel like you're mistaking sexism for simply using gender as a way of customizing characters and the inherent strengths and weaknesses are biological, not because i'm hating on anybody.
Even the most strident feminist will give you that males are stronger than females as a biological fact. Every other stat in the game? You're going to get an argument if you claim that one gender is better than the other.
Dexterity? By what standard do you compare? Are the top end female Gymnasts appreciably superior to the top end male ones? Do women have faster reflex speeds? Better eye-hand coordination? Where are you getting the idea that women are more graceful?
Constitution? Again, by what standard are you making a comparison? Ability to survive traumatic injury? Nope. Pretty even in that respect. High pain threshold? Resistance to disease or poisons? Again, pretty even there. Check out emergency room statistics. What makes you think that men are tougher?
Next up, mental stats, and that's a real minefield.
Where do your objective standards come from? How do you judge? What comes from cultural expectations and upbringing, what is due to biological difference, and how do you tell?
Throughout history most rulers and politicians have been male, and they still are. Does that mean that men are more charismatic than women? Here in the 21st Century more and more women are moving into high positions in politics. Does that mean that women are somehow defying biology?
There has been an absolute and utter crapton of research done trying to establish that men or women are superior in various aspects, and about all that has ever been agreed upon is that men really are stronger. Your version of "realism" seems to be entirely based on stereotypes and unsupported opinion. That is Not Cool.
Also I have to wonder in what way it enhances the fun of the game to make guys play as females if they want to be casters, or for women to play as males if they want to be warriors. Or do you expect the guy who wants to play a Wizard to really appreciate that +2 to Strength? Will a woman who wants to play an Amazon have a more enjoyable experience because of her bonus to Wisdom?
Sure, 5th level game, those stat points aren't a huge deal, but if they don't matter anyway, why risk offending someone for nothing?
This is an excellent post. People are not quantifiable by six numbers. Also, strength is not just brute force and lifting. It also covers athletics, which is jumping, climbing and various other things. Sure men might be able to lift more on average, but are they also more proficient in the other areas of athletics? Even arguable the most simple stat is not cut and dried.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
That sounds like a campaign much better served being played in a different game system than D&D. As for the rest - you're fine with sexism but not with ageism? Am I reading that wrong?
Yes. I am against sexism, agism, racism anything. This was a fun idea for a *Realistic* type game with some mods, after it's my table, homebrew, campaign, etc. I was merely talking about an idea i had. I'm not being sexist, being sexist would be discriminating against men/ women based on their gender, which i'm not, the different bonuses correlate with *typical* strengths each gender displays. I'm not telling women they can't play, or that players can't play as women, i'm not saying that women are bad or weak or anything like that, but in an attempt for *realism* i'm highlighting the differences. Is that wrong? No. I feel like you're mistaking sexism for simply using gender as a way of customizing characters and the inherent strengths and weaknesses are biological, not because i'm hating on anybody.
Even the most strident feminist will give you that males are stronger than females as a biological fact. Every other stat in the game? You're going to get an argument if you claim that one gender is better than the other.
Dexterity? By what standard do you compare? Are the top end female Gymnasts appreciably superior to the top end male ones? Do women have faster reflex speeds? Better eye-hand coordination? Where are you getting the idea that women are more graceful?
Constitution? Again, by what standard are you making a comparison? Ability to survive traumatic injury? Nope. Pretty even in that respect. High pain threshold? Resistance to disease or poisons? Again, pretty even there. Check out emergency room statistics. What makes you think that men are tougher?
Next up, mental stats, and that's a real minefield.
Where do your objective standards come from? How do you judge? What comes from cultural expectations and upbringing, what is due to biological difference, and how do you tell?
Throughout history most rulers and politicians have been male, and they still are. Does that mean that men are more charismatic than women? Here in the 21st Century more and more women are moving into high positions in politics. Does that mean that women are somehow defying biology?
There has been an absolute and utter crapton of research done trying to establish that men or women are superior in various aspects, and about all that has ever been agreed upon is that men really are stronger. Your version of "realism" seems to be entirely based on stereotypes and unsupported opinion. That is Not Cool.
Also I have to wonder in what way it enhances the fun of the game to make guys play as females if they want to be casters, or for women to play as males if they want to be warriors. Or do you expect the guy who wants to play a Wizard to really appreciate that +2 to Strength? Will a woman who wants to play an Amazon have a more enjoyable experience because of her bonus to Wisdom?
Sure, 5th level game, those stat points aren't a huge deal, but if they don't matter anyway, why risk offending someone for nothing?
good question, but may i first say, despite the fact that most rulers were men, and I chalk it to physical strength, women are almost always much more influential hence the saying "Happy Wife, happy life" for this a +1 CHA to women
Women do tend to be more flexible, and their smaller hands lend themselves to more dexterous endeavors, let's not forget, if you're smaller you're *generally* more acrobatic, after all nobody ever saw Shaquille O'Neal do a backflip. +1 Dex to women
As for Wis at least at younger ages, women do tend to be more mature and dare i say it wiser, than men, and it's reflected in automobile accident rates and deaths, men tend to be more risk takers, women tend to be more measured. +1 Wis to women
As for Strength, it's covered already. +2 to men (why the +2? you may ask... i'm not giving anybody an INT bonus and men tend to be significantly stronger, at least physically)
As for Con, Men do tend to be physically tougher, though i'd chalk it up to adrenaline, men tend to be adrenaline junkies.
INT, i'm not gonna assign that, some people are smarter than others but it's not determined by gender, that's much more of a nurture over nature thing (and it's been proven)
Am I trying to hate? No. Am I saying one's better than the other? No. I'm trying to balance the game, give people reasons to play both men and women, if it doesn't work out it's ok, it's just an idea i had, i thought it would be fun, and i just thought i would share it. I hope you all have a good day, and I never wanted to start any wars.
Also to the point about +2 Strength wizards... I LOVE MUSCLE WIZARDS!!! and also, amazons were noted for their wisdom.
Dude, just take the L and admit this isn't going your way. Literally no one has agreed with you so far and even the people who aren't accusing you of sexism still think this doesn't seem like a good idea for pure gameplay reasons.
Dude, just take the L and admit this isn't going your way. Literally no one has agreed with you so far and even the people who aren't accusing you of sexism still think this doesn't seem like a good idea for pure gameplay reasons.
cuz there's nothing to lose, people be aksing questions, and i'm answering them, it's just an idea i'm *testing*
if it doesn't work out... so what? if it does, great. I didn't marry this idea, i'm just playing with the thought of it.
If you're basing it on real life - most real people wouldn't be level 1 characters. We'd be commoners.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
If you really want variation, I would instead tie Asi's to backgrounds.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Actually, a level 1 character is decidedly more powerful than the average person. That's why there's a Commoner statblock, which represents the average, untrained civilian. They have a flat 10 on all skills and just 4 hp. Reaching just level 1 puts a PC above the average person in a measurable way, even if it feels like a minor difference for D&D players who get used to higher levels.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I like this idea a lot more. It would require a lot more homebrewing, since you'd have to go through each background and assign an ASI to it, but I think that would be the best way to add that level of varation without just letting players give themselves whichever boost they personally want.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Take it in terms of this campaign: you're hunting down a serial killer in modern day USA, it's supposed to be realistic, guns are easy to come by, swords, not so much, cars, trains, planes all exist (at exuberant costs of course) none of the people are athletes, there's a sheriff, and an FBI agent, a farmer, his/her son/daughter, and a pastor, race isn't a factor because i don't see any elves or tieflings walking around IRL, this is really an open world game, gender provides the variation, as well as rolled stats, and so basically everybody is human for a realistic game.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
too much work man, next thing imma have to tie bonuses for age, and then get labelled as agist, cuz old people would get negatives in str, con and dex and bonuses in wis and int. and young ppl would get massive bonuses in str dex and con and massive penalties in wis/ int.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Okay I can see what you mean... although at this point, why run the game through D&D? There's plenty of modern-setting games that work better for a realistic modern game. I can understand if your group of players are all used to playing D&D and don't want to learn a new system for the game, but it sounds like you're going to have to do a ton of reworking and reskinning to make the game work in that setting.
I don't know enough about your game to know how fantasy heavy your story is going to be, but a good compromise would be to let everyone be "human", but they still use the racial stats and benefits from the different races. Like... someone would still be human, but maybe they have an "Orc soul", and they get the benefits associated with half-orcs.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That sounds like a campaign much better served being played in a different game system than D&D. As for the rest - you're fine with sexism but not with ageism? Am I reading that wrong?
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
What do you think? Accurate? Agist? No? Age Modifier: 15-25 years +2 str, +2 Dex +2 con, -3 wis, -3 int; 25-40 no bonuses or penalties; 40-65 -1 Str, Dex and Con, +2 in Wis +in in Int, 65+ -2 Str, -3 Dex, -4 Con, +5 Wis, +4 Int
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Yes. I am against sexism, agism, racism anything. This was a fun idea for a *Realistic* type game with some mods, after it's my table, homebrew, campaign, etc. I was merely talking about an idea i had. I'm not being sexist, being sexist would be discriminating against men/ women based on their gender, which i'm not, the different bonuses correlate with *typical* strengths each gender displays. I'm not telling women they can't play, or that players can't play as women, i'm not saying that women are bad or weak or anything like that, but in an attempt for *realism* i'm highlighting the differences. Is that wrong? No. I feel like you're mistaking sexism for simply using gender as a way of customizing characters and the inherent strengths and weaknesses are biological, not because i'm hating on anybody.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
hm, yeah that could work, for now imma leave it as is, but if it's a sticking point, i would absolutely try that. thank you for your constructive criticism.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I just want to take a moment to point out that discrimination and prejudice takes many forms and none of them are acceptable on this site. While something may seem 'realistic' or 'scientific', it's important to remember that a lot of discrimination is masked by preconception, misconception, assumption and misinformation. As such, bringing in any kind of discrimination, regardless of intent, rarely engenders a welcoming or inclusive atmosphere.
As pointed out, what someone decides to use at their table is their prerogative, but once a topic is brought into this forum, it affects people outside your table. It is for that reason we have the rules for this site that we do. I would ask everyone keep in mind how what you say might affect others, and also that there are many perspectives and experiences out there, so just because you may not see a problem with something, that doesn't mean there isn't one.
As always, be excellent to each other.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It is not that much work. This took less than five minutes.
Background: Doctor. You gain a +2 to INT and a +1 to WIS. Gain proficiency Healer's and Surgeons supplies.
Soldier: Gain +2 to DEX, +1 to CON. Gain proficiency in firearms.
Entertainer: Gain +2 to CHA, +1 to DEX. Gain proficiency in Performance and two musical instruments of your choice. (You may choose the voice.)
Criminal: Gain +2 to STR, +1 to WIS. Gain proficiency in melee weapons and handguns.
Heir: Gain +1 to INT, +1 to CHA. Start the game with the equivalent of 50,000 USD.
Scientist: Gain +3 to INT and proficiency in Investigation.
These aren't that hard to make.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Party on Dude
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Even the most strident feminist will give you that males are stronger than females as a biological fact. Every other stat in the game? You're going to get an argument if you claim that one gender is better than the other.
Dexterity? By what standard do you compare? Are the top end female Gymnasts appreciably superior to the top end male ones? Do women have faster reflex speeds? Better eye-hand coordination? Where are you getting the idea that women are more graceful?
Constitution? Again, by what standard are you making a comparison? Ability to survive traumatic injury? Nope. Pretty even in that respect. High pain threshold? Resistance to disease or poisons? Again, pretty even there. Check out emergency room statistics. What makes you think that men are tougher?
Next up, mental stats, and that's a real minefield.
Where do your objective standards come from? How do you judge? What comes from cultural expectations and upbringing, what is due to biological difference, and how do you tell?
Throughout history most rulers and politicians have been male, and they still are. Does that mean that men are more charismatic than women? Here in the 21st Century more and more women are moving into high positions in politics. Does that mean that women are somehow defying biology?
There has been an absolute and utter crapton of research done trying to establish that men or women are superior in various aspects, and about all that has ever been agreed upon is that men really are stronger. Your version of "realism" seems to be entirely based on stereotypes and unsupported opinion. That is Not Cool.
Also I have to wonder in what way it enhances the fun of the game to make guys play as females if they want to be casters, or for women to play as males if they want to be warriors. Or do you expect the guy who wants to play a Wizard to really appreciate that +2 to Strength? Will a woman who wants to play an Amazon have a more enjoyable experience because of her bonus to Wisdom?
Sure, 5th level game, those stat points aren't a huge deal, but if they don't matter anyway, why risk offending someone for nothing?
<Insert clever signature here>
This is an excellent post. People are not quantifiable by six numbers. Also, strength is not just brute force and lifting. It also covers athletics, which is jumping, climbing and various other things. Sure men might be able to lift more on average, but are they also more proficient in the other areas of athletics? Even arguable the most simple stat is not cut and dried.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
good question, but may i first say, despite the fact that most rulers were men, and I chalk it to physical strength, women are almost always much more influential hence the saying "Happy Wife, happy life" for this a +1 CHA to women
Women do tend to be more flexible, and their smaller hands lend themselves to more dexterous endeavors, let's not forget, if you're smaller you're *generally* more acrobatic, after all nobody ever saw Shaquille O'Neal do a backflip. +1 Dex to women
As for Wis at least at younger ages, women do tend to be more mature and dare i say it wiser, than men, and it's reflected in automobile accident rates and deaths, men tend to be more risk takers, women tend to be more measured. +1 Wis to women
As for Strength, it's covered already. +2 to men (why the +2? you may ask... i'm not giving anybody an INT bonus and men tend to be significantly stronger, at least physically)
As for Con, Men do tend to be physically tougher, though i'd chalk it up to adrenaline, men tend to be adrenaline junkies.
INT, i'm not gonna assign that, some people are smarter than others but it's not determined by gender, that's much more of a nurture over nature thing (and it's been proven)
Am I trying to hate? No. Am I saying one's better than the other? No. I'm trying to balance the game, give people reasons to play both men and women, if it doesn't work out it's ok, it's just an idea i had, i thought it would be fun, and i just thought i would share it. I hope you all have a good day, and I never wanted to start any wars.
Also to the point about +2 Strength wizards... I LOVE MUSCLE WIZARDS!!! and also, amazons were noted for their wisdom.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Dude, just take the L and admit this isn't going your way. Literally no one has agreed with you so far and even the people who aren't accusing you of sexism still think this doesn't seem like a good idea for pure gameplay reasons.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
cuz there's nothing to lose, people be aksing questions, and i'm answering them, it's just an idea i'm *testing*
if it doesn't work out... so what? if it does, great. I didn't marry this idea, i'm just playing with the thought of it.
Party on Dude. Have a good day.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine