If it's just that you're looking for more variety I'd echo what someone suggested earlier: Use the human variant rule that's already in the PHB. Your players will get two +1's to put wherever they want, an extra proficiency, plus a feat. If realism is your goal, that's a pretty good way to showcase humans having a wide range of abilities.
If, on the other hand, you're specifically interested in creating a fantasy setting where it's mechanically important that men are stronger than women... I mean... it's your table. I guess if that kind of thing is that important to you and your players are okay with it, it doesn't really matter how many other people think it's a bad idea.
If it's just that you're looking for more variety I'd echo what someone suggested earlier: Use the human variant rule that's already in the PHB. Your players will get two +1's to put wherever they want, an extra proficiency, plus a feat. If realism is your goal, that's a pretty good way to showcase humans having a wide range of abilities.
If, on the other hand, you're specifically interested in creating a fantasy setting where it's mechanically important that men are stronger than women... I mean... it's your table. I guess if that kind of thing is that important to you and your players are okay with it, it doesn't really matter how many other people think it's a bad idea.
I'm just trying out a type of campaign where age and gender play into character creation. If you want to review it it's called "The cattle murderers" it's still recruiting, i'm just going for a max realism campaign, where player injuries may result in lost limbs, and such, very low magic.
I personally ususally use strength as the throwaway stat (I usually build high dex, high wis, high con rangers) but thats's not for everybody, my motivation isn't to make men stronger than women (hence the age table), rather it kind of shifts the power, obviously a 17-18 year old guy is your ideal fighter, and a 15 year old girl will make a decent rogue, so it's for realism. whereas your 65 year old guy is gonna be a much better spellcaster than a 20 year old one. so it's all about balance.
I love that this post blew up--of course it did. It's the internet, what did anyone really expect?
I'll just comment on the conceptual side and then speak on the gameplay side.
I'm entering college and have just started looking at the research on sex, gender, and gender roles. There's a fair group of historical anecdotes on societies with vastly different gender roles compared to our culture. I believe that these anecdotes, on their own, are given far too much weight. Knowing that a Native American society has perfectly reversed gender roles compared to ours is one thing, understanding the full ramifications of those differences is another, and while I've seen lots of examples of different gender role breakdowns in different cultures, I have yet to see a full breakdown of whether those systems worked as well as ours has. By "ours" I mean the whole traditional "Man big and strong, makes decisions and goes win bread; woman fair and dainty, talks with friends and takes care of home".
There's also been some interesting research demonstrating that biologically, yes, there are OBJECTIVE differences between the sexes. Different body parts. Different hormones that break the brain-blood barrier, thus affecting our mentality to some degree. Objectively, men have upper body strength. Objectively, male and female bodies redistribute muscle, fat, blood, and other things differently. Society has a lot of power on shaping lives and roles and stereotypes, but its not All-Powerful, nor All-Encompassing. So yes, you can make a game where males and females are mechanically different, without disparaging one or the other, and not be sexist. And since humanity is extremely variable in its forms and cultures, you can grant those bonuses however the heck you like to reinforce whatever gender roles you desire to. Traditionalist or Variant Gender Roles are not inherently evil so long as they do not infringe on human decency, human volition, or human dignity.
Now. Mechanically. I GUESS its fine? Humans receive a +1 to all stats, and the variant human rules have been discussed exhaustively. If you're replacing those rules entirely with these ones, I hope you intend to definitely do the worldbuilding around males and females are generally pushed and suited to different roles and classes, with some exceptions. Its been done before. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time had near-exclusively-female magic users and it worked to an extent. (I have issues with that series and its females but the worldbuilding itself is not where the issues lie). If you're doing these on top of the existing rules it's going to result in some really inflated stats, and humans are going to be a really really strong race in this world, maybe to the point where their physical ability rivals Orcs. That would lead to some interesting worldbuilding too. What sort of monsters exist in this world? How would they react to humans being extra powerful (on average)? Or if you're going with the first option I laid out, how would they react to males versus females? If females are naturally better spellcasters, is the society built around making them into spellcasters? I think it has a lot of potential, narratively.
Like Biowizard has said (a very wise human-person I dunno what flavor its the internet), what your players are cool with and what you think is fun is the only thing that matters. You posted on the internet to gain some opinions, and by golly have you got them!
I love that this post blew up--of course it did. It's the internet, what did anyone really expect?
I'll just comment on the conceptual side and then speak on the gameplay side.
I'm entering college and have just started looking at the research on sex, gender, and gender roles. There's a fair group of historical anecdotes on societies with vastly different gender roles compared to our culture. I believe that these anecdotes, on their own, are given far too much weight. Knowing that a Native American society has perfectly reversed gender roles compared to ours is one thing, understanding the full ramifications of those differences is another, and while I've seen lots of examples of different gender role breakdowns in different cultures, I have yet to see a full breakdown of whether those systems worked as well as ours has. By "ours" I mean the whole traditional "Man big and strong, makes decisions and goes win bread; woman fair and dainty, talks with friends and takes care of home".
There's also been some interesting research demonstrating that biologically, yes, there are OBJECTIVE differences between the sexes. Different body parts. Different hormones that break the brain-blood barrier, thus affecting our mentality to some degree. Objectively, men have upper body strength. Objectively, male and female bodies redistribute muscle, fat, blood, and other things differently. Society has a lot of power on shaping lives and roles and stereotypes, but its not All-Powerful, nor All-Encompassing. So yes, you can make a game where males and females are mechanically different, without disparaging one or the other, and not be sexist. And since humanity is extremely variable in its forms and cultures, you can grant those bonuses however the heck you like to reinforce whatever gender roles you desire to. Traditionalist or Variant Gender Roles are not inherently evil so long as they do not infringe on human decency, human volition, or human dignity.
Now. Mechanically. I GUESS its fine? Humans receive a +1 to all stats, and the variant human rules have been discussed exhaustively. If you're replacing those rules entirely with these ones, I hope you intend to definitely do the worldbuilding around males and females are generally pushed and suited to different roles and classes, with some exceptions. Its been done before. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time had near-exclusively-female magic users and it worked to an extent. (I have issues with that series and its females but the worldbuilding itself is not where the issues lie). If you're doing these on top of the existing rules it's going to result in some really inflated stats, and humans are going to be a really really strong race in this world, maybe to the point where their physical ability rivals Orcs. That would lead to some interesting worldbuilding too. What sort of monsters exist in this world? How would they react to humans being extra powerful (on average)? Or if you're going with the first option I laid out, how would they react to males versus females? If females are naturally better spellcasters, is the society built around making them into spellcasters? I think it has a lot of potential, narratively.
Like Biowizard has said (a very wise human-person I dunno what flavor its the internet), what your players are cool with and what you think is fun is the only thing that matters. You posted on the internet to gain some opinions, and by golly have you got them!
Thanks for that. To your question, it's mostly going to be other humans, and creature that exist IRL, (no mythical creatures such as orcs, elves, dragons). At some point ghosts and demons will come into the story, (It's a true crime story revolving on a quest to clear a family's name and a quest by law enforcement to bring justice to a serial killer who's under the influence of a demonic entity which he attempted to control in order to raise his wife and family from the dead after a tragic car accident, he failed and was controlled by it). So yeah, nothing's gonna seem out of whack. It's a modern day setting, cars will exist, swords will be rare, guns are cheap and easy to come by, there will even be a coronavirus outbreak going on. Magic will be rare, and it's somewhat taboo. Women may be better natural spellcasters, but by the time you reach 65, you will have a high enough wis modifier that you can do pretty much anything spellcasting-wise. Thanks for your vote of confidence, it really means alot, if you'd like to participate i'm still recruiting find me in PbP under "the cattle murderers"
also i think you pinned BioWizard pretty well, i really do respect his opinions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
Some people like detailed modifiers of this sort and some don't. I like the idea of including sex-related differences in the game, but I handle all that differently (see below).
If some of your players don't like sex-based adjustments, you can always make it optional for PCs.
When generating NPCs, I assign sex based on concept and role, or at whim. But if I want to do it randomly, I would roll 1D20. A result equal to or lower than the NPC's STR score indicates a man. Higher than STR score indicates a woman. This method means that higher STR NPCs are more likely to be men, but it doesn't rule out unusually strong women.
In a given culture, a particular profession may be dominated by one sex, even closed off totally to the opposite sex. I like to mix that up. Culture A might have very few women under arms, while culture B is an 'amazon' society and culture C accepts both male and female warriors. The powerful clergy of Culture D is open only to men. That sort of thing.
I like the idea. But if some of your players don't like sex-based adjustments, you can always make it optional for PCs.
Tangentially related note:
When generating NPCs, I assign sex based on concept and role, or at whim. But if I want to do it randomly, I would roll 1D20. A result equal to or lower than the NPC's STR score indicates a man. Higher than STR score indicates a woman. This method means that higher STR NPCs are more likely to be men, but it doesn't rule out unusually strong women.
that's a cool mechanic i'm gonna use it for my NPCs, obviously not all the players will like it, but since i'm recruiting, they don't have to play, they know what they're getting into.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
Your given gender bonus system assumes that men are clumsy and myopic, while women are weak and fragile.
You're confused over why people find this stance contentious?
"It's not sexism, it's biology" has been used to defend sexism, and to uphold and perpetuate deeply flawed and harmful gender roles, for hundreds of years. Please do not assume that claiming 'biology' absolves one of sexism. If your game is set up to use age and gender to determine stats rather than allowing players to make those choices themselves, and your players agree to this? Very well. BioWizard is, in this instance, correct - you may do as you wish at your table and if your players give their blessing, nothing more need be said.
But presenting this option and seeking to defend it is not a 'Your Table' thing - it's now a forum thing. I absolutely detest the modern Western male gender role/identity; my absolute rejection of what 'The World' expects of me because of my biological sex is likely the largest single cause of my dysphoria. I would not play in a game where those gender roles are reinforced by stat allocation, and judging by the reactions to the species ASI adjustments in Tasha's Cauldron, I am hardly the only one. While I understand your desire to introduce 'realism' into your game, I would caution against the assumption that enforced sexual dimorphism is a requirement for realism. Improved injury/rest/recovery rules, a more comprehensive skill and training system, and background-dependent bonuses/penalties would all go further to improving verisimilitude in many cases. You've covered many of these, which is good. Hopefully the rest will come in time.
Your given gender bonus system assumes that men are clumsy and myopic, while women are weak and fragile.
You're confused over why people find this stance contentious?
"It's not sexism, it's biology" has been used to defend sexism, and to uphold and perpetuate deeply flawed and harmful gender roles, for hundreds of years. Please do not assume that claiming 'biology' absolves one of sexism. If your game is set up to use age and gender to determine stats rather than allowing players to make those choices themselves, and your players agree to this? Very well. BioWizard is, in this instance, correct - you may do as you wish at your table and if your players give their blessing, nothing more need be said.
But presenting this option and seeking to defend it is not a 'Your Table' thing - it's now a forum thing. I absolutely detest the modern Western male gender role/identity; my absolute rejection of what 'The World' expects of me because of my biological sex is likely the largest single cause of my dysphoria. I would not play in a game where those gender roles are reinforced by stat allocation, and judging by the reactions to the species ASI adjustments in Tasha's Cauldron, I am hardly the only one. While I understand your desire to introduce 'realism' into your game, I would caution against the assumption that enforced sexual dimorphism is a requirement for realism. Improved injury/rest/recovery rules, a more comprehensive skill and training system, and background-dependent bonuses/penalties would all go further to improving verisimilitude in many cases. You've covered many of these, which is good. Hopefully the rest will come in time.
Hence rolled stats, women can be strong, remember they're not penalized (unless they're old) men can be smart (even if they're young) it's all about character builds, but due to *Biology* they have certain aptitudes in certain areas that other people don't have the same aptitude (your 20 year old woman is typically stronger than a 72 year old man. But he may be *wiser* (wisdom and intelligence are different).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
If it's just that you're looking for more variety I'd echo what someone suggested earlier: Use the human variant rule that's already in the PHB. Your players will get two +1's to put wherever they want, an extra proficiency, plus a feat. If realism is your goal, that's a pretty good way to showcase humans having a wide range of abilities.
If, on the other hand, you're specifically interested in creating a fantasy setting where it's mechanically important that men are stronger than women... I mean... it's your table. I guess if that kind of thing is that important to you and your players are okay with it, it doesn't really matter how many other people think it's a bad idea.
I'm just trying out a type of campaign where age and gender play into character creation. If you want to review it it's called "The cattle murderers" it's still recruiting, i'm just going for a max realism campaign, where player injuries may result in lost limbs, and such, very low magic.
I personally ususally use strength as the throwaway stat (I usually build high dex, high wis, high con rangers) but thats's not for everybody, my motivation isn't to make men stronger than women (hence the age table), rather it kind of shifts the power, obviously a 17-18 year old guy is your ideal fighter, and a 15 year old girl will make a decent rogue, so it's for realism. whereas your 65 year old guy is gonna be a much better spellcaster than a 20 year old one. so it's all about balance.
If you're going for max realism I'd recommend against relying on gender stereotypes. Especially if you're going for a modern-day setting. On average, there's not a significant difference between modern men and women when it comes to traits we would boil down to strength or dexterity in D&D. Upbringing, practice, training, education, nutrition, lifestyle, etc., contribute more to the physical and intellectual differences between any two given people than sex or gender do.
Of course I'm not saying you can't run your game this way. Just be aware if max realism is your goal this particular idea won't be contributing to that goal.
If it's just that you're looking for more variety I'd echo what someone suggested earlier: Use the human variant rule that's already in the PHB. Your players will get two +1's to put wherever they want, an extra proficiency, plus a feat. If realism is your goal, that's a pretty good way to showcase humans having a wide range of abilities.
If, on the other hand, you're specifically interested in creating a fantasy setting where it's mechanically important that men are stronger than women... I mean... it's your table. I guess if that kind of thing is that important to you and your players are okay with it, it doesn't really matter how many other people think it's a bad idea.
I'm just trying out a type of campaign where age and gender play into character creation. If you want to review it it's called "The cattle murderers" it's still recruiting, i'm just going for a max realism campaign, where player injuries may result in lost limbs, and such, very low magic.
I personally ususally use strength as the throwaway stat (I usually build high dex, high wis, high con rangers) but thats's not for everybody, my motivation isn't to make men stronger than women (hence the age table), rather it kind of shifts the power, obviously a 17-18 year old guy is your ideal fighter, and a 15 year old girl will make a decent rogue, so it's for realism. whereas your 65 year old guy is gonna be a much better spellcaster than a 20 year old one. so it's all about balance.
If you're going for max realism I'd recommend against relying on gender stereotypes. Especially if you're going for a modern-day setting. On average, there's not a significant difference between modern men and women when it comes to traits we would boil down to strength or dexterity in D&D. Upbringing, practice, training, education, nutrition, lifestyle, etc., contribute more to the physical and intellectual differences between any two given people than sex or gender do.
Of course I'm not saying you can't run your game this way. Just be aware if max realism is your goal this particular idea won't be contributing to that goal.
Right, that's what levelled ASIs are for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
Your given gender bonus system assumes that men are clumsy and myopic, while women are weak and fragile.
You're confused over why people find this stance contentious?
I don't desire to disparage your personal beliefs considering gender roles, but I find this statement to be patently false.
A +2 STR and +1 CON stat bonus translates to a +1 on all STR rolls and possibly a +1 on all CON rolls. This means ONLY that a male human is 5% stronger ON AVERAGE than his female counterpart and 2.5%-5% more physically enduring ON AVERAGE than his female counterpart. This says absolutely nothing about his dexterity, his mental acumen, or his social skills. in the same way, a female human is 2.5%-5% more dexterously competent, intuitive, and socially apt than her male counterparts, ON AVERAGE. This has no commentary or say on her individual abilities on pure physical strength and endurance, it is representing a statistical average difference found between the men and women as a GROUP. We all know that individuals are riddled with exceptions to the rules or statistical averages.
The lack of bonuses is not equivalent to a malus, let's not pretend that it is.
This is my post regarding your homebrew rule and how I feel about it. First, I want to understand that this post is not intended as an insult to you, and I know that many of the other people in this thread that protest this concept feel the same way as me. This is an awful idea, and I recommend against using it, defending it, or recommending it. If you continue to do so, this thread is not going to end positively. It will most likely have to be closed by a moderator, as that's what typically happens to discussions/flamewars like this one.
Previous editions of D&D did mechanics similar to this (higher strength caps for men than women), and it was thrown out due to inclusivity. Do not try and defend it, it is harmful to society to reinforce and support these stereotypes. I mean no offense, I just feel very strongly on this point, as I myself am an outlier of my sex. I am not strong, and am certainly not healthy for any human, not just the male members of our species.
There are other reasons I dislike this other than the fact that it reinforces stereotypes about the different genders/sexes (though that is my main issue with it), and that is that as a player this would restrict my creative agency. I do not play D&D to be told that I have to play a certain race or gender to be good or better at my job as a character. I don't want to play a female character because of a mechanical boost, I want to play a female character to roleplay a new unique character. It's not that I don't want a bonus for playing a certain build or specially designed character, I enjoy that, but I do not want gender or sex to be something that effects the mechanics of the game in any way. There are good things to add bonuses and benefits too (backgrounds, races, classes, subclasses, magic items) but are also very bad things to add benefits to, mostly things that should only be a matter of roleplay, not within the realm of the mechanics of the game (gender/sex, sexual preference, alignment, ideology, personality traits, etc). To add mechanics to these features will enforce stereotypes, limit creativity, and overall be detrimental to the game and the world.
Additionally, this creates problems when dealing with transgender characters. I know many people in real life and on this website that I consider good friends who are transgender, and I cannot consciously support a mechanic that restricts and emotionally harms them the way this rule would. I suggest that you seriously reconsider your position on this rule and cease and desist in your adamant defense of it. This mechanic will hurt real people, as this no longer makes D&D just a game. This twists the mechanics of the game into an unprovoked bashing of the players who are transgender and other members of the LGBTQ community.
I believe that if you stop protecting this rule as if your self-esteem is tied to whether or not this is a good idea, and apologize for any offense you may have caused, as well as "disowning" this idea and realizing why it is problematic and harmful, everyone will walk away with no hard feelings too hard to overcome. It's okay that you made a mistake, and I know that you feel like you're being attacked for an idea that you think is constructive and creative, but this will not end well unless accept that this is not a good idea.
That's just my thoughts. Again, I mean no disrespect, but I do urge you to very seriously and cautiously reconsider what horse you're backing.
Your given gender bonus system assumes that men are clumsy and myopic, while women are weak and fragile.
You're confused over why people find this stance contentious?
I don't desire to disparage your personal beliefs considering gender roles, but I find this statement to be patently false.
A +2 STR and +1 CON stat bonus translates to a +1 on all STR rolls and possibly a +1 on all CON rolls. This means ONLY that a male human is 5% stronger ON AVERAGE than his female counterpart and 2.5%-5% more physically enduring ON AVERAGE than his female counterpart. This says absolutely nothing about his dexterity, his mental acumen, or his social skills. in the same way, a female human is 2.5%-5% more dexterously competent, intuitive, and socially apt than her male counterparts, ON AVERAGE. This has no commentary or say on her individual abilities on pure physical strength and endurance, it is representing a statistical average difference found between the men and women as a GROUP. We all know that individuals are riddled with exceptions to the rules or statistical averages.
The lack of bonuses is not equivalent to a malus, let's not pretend that it is.
thank you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
This is my post regarding your homebrew rule and how I feel about it. First, I want to understand that this post is not intended as an insult to you, and I know that many of the other people in this thread that protest this concept feel the same way as me. This is an awful idea, and I recommend against using it, defending it, or recommending it. If you continue to do so, this thread is not going to end positively. It will most likely have to be closed by a moderator, as that's what typically happens to discussions/flamewars like this one.
Previous editions of D&D did mechanics similar to this (higher strength caps for men than women), and it was thrown out due to inclusivity. Do not try and defend it, it is harmful to society to reinforce and support these stereotypes. I mean no offense, I just feel very strongly on this point, as I myself am an outlier of my sex. I am not strong, and am certainly not healthy for any human, not just the male members of our species.
There are other reasons I dislike this other than the fact that it reinforces stereotypes about the different genders/sexes (though that is my main issue with it), and that is that as a player this would restrict my creative agency. I do not play D&D to be told that I have to play a certain race or gender to be good or better at my job as a character. I don't want to play a female character because of a mechanical boost, I want to play a female character to roleplay a new unique character. It's not that I don't want a bonus for playing a certain build or specially designed character, I enjoy that, but I do not want gender or sex to be something that effects the mechanics of the game in any way. There are good things to add bonuses and benefits too (backgrounds, races, classes, subclasses, magic items) but are also very bad things to add benefits to, mostly things that should only be a matter of roleplay, not within the realm of the mechanics of the game (gender/sex, sexual preference, alignment, ideology, personality traits, etc). To add mechanics to these features will enforce stereotypes, limit creativity, and overall be detrimental to the game and the world.
Additionally, this creates problems when dealing with transgender characters. I know many people in real life and on this website that I consider good friends who are transgender, and I cannot consciously support a mechanic that restricts and emotionally harms them the way this rule would. I suggest that you seriously reconsider your position on this rule and cease and desist in your adamant defense of it. This mechanic will hurt real people, as this no longer makes D&D just a game. This twists the mechanics of the game into an unprovoked bashing of the players who are transgender and other members of the LGBTQ community.
I believe that if you stop protecting this rule as if your self-esteem is tied to whether or not this is a good idea, and apologize for any offense you may have caused, as well as "disowning" this idea and realizing why it is problematic and harmful, everyone will walk away with no hard feelings too hard to overcome. It's okay that you made a mistake, and I know that you feel like you're being attacked for an idea that you think is constructive and creative, but this will not end well unless accept that this is not a good idea.
That's just my thoughts. Again, I mean no disrespect, but I do urge you to very seriously and cautiously reconsider what horse you're backing.
Your position has been noted. I do not agree with it, however, if you don't want to play it, you don't have to. Age is also a factor in this campaign....and if a character wants a buff or nerf, they can always talk to the DM, and i encourage them to do so, most Dms are open to such modifiers within reason. I'm not asking you to play, i was just pointing out that i'm *playtesting this* and imma give an update as the campaign keeps on going and if it doesn't work i will throw it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love this word that the OP keeps using.....'tend'. What a great, scientifically correct, perfectly composed word. Yes men 'tend' to be stronger, and women tend to be more social. Yes men 'tend' to be more interested in things and women 'tend' to be more interested in people. But not my guy. He is a computer wizard (literally), a social devil, a carousing genius who is able to read between the lines and notice things that others can't. He also can't deadlift a sack of potatoes, and if you flick his nose it will bleed profusely. I feel like I am describing myself (jk lol, I am this but dumber)
No adventurer will symbolize every single person, so you cannot assign an ASI on a generalization. Even if men 'tend' to be stronger that does not mean that your PCs should be. There are ALWAYS men that are smart and ALWAYS women that are strong (Just ask my cousin Ren....she is seven, and can no joke beat me and the rest of my family in an arm wrestle. No special training, she is just built like a brick s***house), so why can't your PCs be one of those people?
Party on dude, I rest my case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Warning. The following post contains sarcasm. Not for the easily offended. Viewer discretion advised.
Don't you think that in the campaign black skinned Humans should get a +1 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, while white skinned Humans should get a +1 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma? A huge percentage of professional athletes have black skin, and most doctors, scientists, movie actors, and teachers are white skinned. It must be Biology. I'm just being realistic here, and I'm just giving bonuses, so it's totally not racist.
I love this word that the OP keeps using.....'tend'. What a great, scientifically correct, perfectly composed word. Yes men 'tend' to be stronger, and women tend to be more social. Yes men 'tend' to be more interested in things and women 'tend' to be more interested in people. But not my guy. He is a computer wizard (literally), a social devil, a carousing genius who is able to read between the lines and notice things that others can't. He also can't deadlift a sack of potatoes, and if you flick his nose it will bleed profusely. I feel like I am describing myself (jk lol, I am this but dumber)
No adventurer will symbolize every single person, so you cannot assign an ASI on a generalization. Even if men 'tend' to be stronger that does not mean that your PCs should be. There are ALWAYS men that are smart and ALWAYS women that are strong (Just ask my cousin Ren....she is seven, and can no joke beat me and the rest of my family in an arm wrestle. No special training, she is just built like a brick s***house), so why can't your PCs be one of those people?
Party on dude, I rest my case.
100% I stand with you, there are always exceptions to the rule. talk to the DM, but as for *general rules* remember *general* men are typically stronger than women and women tend to be better socially. nothing wrong with that, but if you dont want to play that... don't.
just a question... are you sure she's not MC Ren? XD
Warning. The following post contains sarcasm. Not for the easily offended. Viewer discretion advised.
Don't you think that in the campaign black skinned Humans should get a +1 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, while white skinned Humans should get a +1 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma? A huge percentage of professional athletes have black skin, and most doctors, scientists, movie actors, and teachers are white skinned. It must be Biology. I'm just being realistic here, and I'm just giving bonuses, so it's totally not racist.
I'm curious about the motivation here.
If it's just that you're looking for more variety I'd echo what someone suggested earlier: Use the human variant rule that's already in the PHB. Your players will get two +1's to put wherever they want, an extra proficiency, plus a feat. If realism is your goal, that's a pretty good way to showcase humans having a wide range of abilities.
If, on the other hand, you're specifically interested in creating a fantasy setting where it's mechanically important that men are stronger than women... I mean... it's your table. I guess if that kind of thing is that important to you and your players are okay with it, it doesn't really matter how many other people think it's a bad idea.
I'm just trying out a type of campaign where age and gender play into character creation. If you want to review it it's called "The cattle murderers" it's still recruiting, i'm just going for a max realism campaign, where player injuries may result in lost limbs, and such, very low magic.
I personally ususally use strength as the throwaway stat (I usually build high dex, high wis, high con rangers) but thats's not for everybody, my motivation isn't to make men stronger than women (hence the age table), rather it kind of shifts the power, obviously a 17-18 year old guy is your ideal fighter, and a 15 year old girl will make a decent rogue, so it's for realism. whereas your 65 year old guy is gonna be a much better spellcaster than a 20 year old one. so it's all about balance.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I love that this post blew up--of course it did. It's the internet, what did anyone really expect?
I'll just comment on the conceptual side and then speak on the gameplay side.
I'm entering college and have just started looking at the research on sex, gender, and gender roles. There's a fair group of historical anecdotes on societies with vastly different gender roles compared to our culture. I believe that these anecdotes, on their own, are given far too much weight. Knowing that a Native American society has perfectly reversed gender roles compared to ours is one thing, understanding the full ramifications of those differences is another, and while I've seen lots of examples of different gender role breakdowns in different cultures, I have yet to see a full breakdown of whether those systems worked as well as ours has. By "ours" I mean the whole traditional "Man big and strong, makes decisions and goes win bread; woman fair and dainty, talks with friends and takes care of home".
There's also been some interesting research demonstrating that biologically, yes, there are OBJECTIVE differences between the sexes. Different body parts. Different hormones that break the brain-blood barrier, thus affecting our mentality to some degree. Objectively, men have upper body strength. Objectively, male and female bodies redistribute muscle, fat, blood, and other things differently. Society has a lot of power on shaping lives and roles and stereotypes, but its not All-Powerful, nor All-Encompassing. So yes, you can make a game where males and females are mechanically different, without disparaging one or the other, and not be sexist. And since humanity is extremely variable in its forms and cultures, you can grant those bonuses however the heck you like to reinforce whatever gender roles you desire to. Traditionalist or Variant Gender Roles are not inherently evil so long as they do not infringe on human decency, human volition, or human dignity.
Now. Mechanically. I GUESS its fine? Humans receive a +1 to all stats, and the variant human rules have been discussed exhaustively. If you're replacing those rules entirely with these ones, I hope you intend to definitely do the worldbuilding around males and females are generally pushed and suited to different roles and classes, with some exceptions. Its been done before. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time had near-exclusively-female magic users and it worked to an extent. (I have issues with that series and its females but the worldbuilding itself is not where the issues lie). If you're doing these on top of the existing rules it's going to result in some really inflated stats, and humans are going to be a really really strong race in this world, maybe to the point where their physical ability rivals Orcs. That would lead to some interesting worldbuilding too. What sort of monsters exist in this world? How would they react to humans being extra powerful (on average)? Or if you're going with the first option I laid out, how would they react to males versus females? If females are naturally better spellcasters, is the society built around making them into spellcasters? I think it has a lot of potential, narratively.
Like Biowizard has said (a very wise human-person I dunno what flavor its the internet), what your players are cool with and what you think is fun is the only thing that matters. You posted on the internet to gain some opinions, and by golly have you got them!
Thanks for that. To your question, it's mostly going to be other humans, and creature that exist IRL, (no mythical creatures such as orcs, elves, dragons). At some point ghosts and demons will come into the story, (It's a true crime story revolving on a quest to clear a family's name and a quest by law enforcement to bring justice to a serial killer who's under the influence of a demonic entity which he attempted to control in order to raise his wife and family from the dead after a tragic car accident, he failed and was controlled by it). So yeah, nothing's gonna seem out of whack. It's a modern day setting, cars will exist, swords will be rare, guns are cheap and easy to come by, there will even be a coronavirus outbreak going on. Magic will be rare, and it's somewhat taboo. Women may be better natural spellcasters, but by the time you reach 65, you will have a high enough wis modifier that you can do pretty much anything spellcasting-wise. Thanks for your vote of confidence, it really means alot, if you'd like to participate i'm still recruiting find me in PbP under "the cattle murderers"
also i think you pinned BioWizard pretty well, i really do respect his opinions.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Some people like detailed modifiers of this sort and some don't. I like the idea of including sex-related differences in the game, but I handle all that differently (see below).
If some of your players don't like sex-based adjustments, you can always make it optional for PCs.
When generating NPCs, I assign sex based on concept and role, or at whim. But if I want to do it randomly, I would roll 1D20. A result equal to or lower than the NPC's STR score indicates a man. Higher than STR score indicates a woman. This method means that higher STR NPCs are more likely to be men, but it doesn't rule out unusually strong women.
In a given culture, a particular profession may be dominated by one sex, even closed off totally to the opposite sex. I like to mix that up. Culture A might have very few women under arms, while culture B is an 'amazon' society and culture C accepts both male and female warriors. The powerful clergy of Culture D is open only to men. That sort of thing.
that's a cool mechanic i'm gonna use it for my NPCs, obviously not all the players will like it, but since i'm recruiting, they don't have to play, they know what they're getting into.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Your given gender bonus system assumes that men are clumsy and myopic, while women are weak and fragile.
You're confused over why people find this stance contentious?
"It's not sexism, it's biology" has been used to defend sexism, and to uphold and perpetuate deeply flawed and harmful gender roles, for hundreds of years. Please do not assume that claiming 'biology' absolves one of sexism. If your game is set up to use age and gender to determine stats rather than allowing players to make those choices themselves, and your players agree to this? Very well. BioWizard is, in this instance, correct - you may do as you wish at your table and if your players give their blessing, nothing more need be said.
But presenting this option and seeking to defend it is not a 'Your Table' thing - it's now a forum thing. I absolutely detest the modern Western male gender role/identity; my absolute rejection of what 'The World' expects of me because of my biological sex is likely the largest single cause of my dysphoria. I would not play in a game where those gender roles are reinforced by stat allocation, and judging by the reactions to the species ASI adjustments in Tasha's Cauldron, I am hardly the only one. While I understand your desire to introduce 'realism' into your game, I would caution against the assumption that enforced sexual dimorphism is a requirement for realism. Improved injury/rest/recovery rules, a more comprehensive skill and training system, and background-dependent bonuses/penalties would all go further to improving verisimilitude in many cases. You've covered many of these, which is good. Hopefully the rest will come in time.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm glad you like that mechanic. I feel as if I have contributed positively. Yay!
Hence rolled stats, women can be strong, remember they're not penalized (unless they're old) men can be smart (even if they're young) it's all about character builds, but due to *Biology* they have certain aptitudes in certain areas that other people don't have the same aptitude (your 20 year old woman is typically stronger than a 72 year old man. But he may be *wiser* (wisdom and intelligence are different).
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
If you're going for max realism I'd recommend against relying on gender stereotypes. Especially if you're going for a modern-day setting. On average, there's not a significant difference between modern men and women when it comes to traits we would boil down to strength or dexterity in D&D. Upbringing, practice, training, education, nutrition, lifestyle, etc., contribute more to the physical and intellectual differences between any two given people than sex or gender do.
Of course I'm not saying you can't run your game this way. Just be aware if max realism is your goal this particular idea won't be contributing to that goal.
Right, that's what levelled ASIs are for.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
If your fine with this and you players are then do it, it's your game and your rules.
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
I don't desire to disparage your personal beliefs considering gender roles, but I find this statement to be patently false.
A +2 STR and +1 CON stat bonus translates to a +1 on all STR rolls and possibly a +1 on all CON rolls. This means ONLY that a male human is 5% stronger ON AVERAGE than his female counterpart and 2.5%-5% more physically enduring ON AVERAGE than his female counterpart. This says absolutely nothing about his dexterity, his mental acumen, or his social skills. in the same way, a female human is 2.5%-5% more dexterously competent, intuitive, and socially apt than her male counterparts, ON AVERAGE. This has no commentary or say on her individual abilities on pure physical strength and endurance, it is representing a statistical average difference found between the men and women as a GROUP. We all know that individuals are riddled with exceptions to the rules or statistical averages.
The lack of bonuses is not equivalent to a malus, let's not pretend that it is.
This is my post regarding your homebrew rule and how I feel about it. First, I want to understand that this post is not intended as an insult to you, and I know that many of the other people in this thread that protest this concept feel the same way as me. This is an awful idea, and I recommend against using it, defending it, or recommending it. If you continue to do so, this thread is not going to end positively. It will most likely have to be closed by a moderator, as that's what typically happens to discussions/flamewars like this one.
Previous editions of D&D did mechanics similar to this (higher strength caps for men than women), and it was thrown out due to inclusivity. Do not try and defend it, it is harmful to society to reinforce and support these stereotypes. I mean no offense, I just feel very strongly on this point, as I myself am an outlier of my sex. I am not strong, and am certainly not healthy for any human, not just the male members of our species.
There are other reasons I dislike this other than the fact that it reinforces stereotypes about the different genders/sexes (though that is my main issue with it), and that is that as a player this would restrict my creative agency. I do not play D&D to be told that I have to play a certain race or gender to be good or better at my job as a character. I don't want to play a female character because of a mechanical boost, I want to play a female character to roleplay a new unique character. It's not that I don't want a bonus for playing a certain build or specially designed character, I enjoy that, but I do not want gender or sex to be something that effects the mechanics of the game in any way. There are good things to add bonuses and benefits too (backgrounds, races, classes, subclasses, magic items) but are also very bad things to add benefits to, mostly things that should only be a matter of roleplay, not within the realm of the mechanics of the game (gender/sex, sexual preference, alignment, ideology, personality traits, etc). To add mechanics to these features will enforce stereotypes, limit creativity, and overall be detrimental to the game and the world.
Additionally, this creates problems when dealing with transgender characters. I know many people in real life and on this website that I consider good friends who are transgender, and I cannot consciously support a mechanic that restricts and emotionally harms them the way this rule would. I suggest that you seriously reconsider your position on this rule and cease and desist in your adamant defense of it. This mechanic will hurt real people, as this no longer makes D&D just a game. This twists the mechanics of the game into an unprovoked bashing of the players who are transgender and other members of the LGBTQ community.
I believe that if you stop protecting this rule as if your self-esteem is tied to whether or not this is a good idea, and apologize for any offense you may have caused, as well as "disowning" this idea and realizing why it is problematic and harmful, everyone will walk away with no hard feelings too hard to overcome. It's okay that you made a mistake, and I know that you feel like you're being attacked for an idea that you think is constructive and creative, but this will not end well unless accept that this is not a good idea.
That's just my thoughts. Again, I mean no disrespect, but I do urge you to very seriously and cautiously reconsider what horse you're backing.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
thank you.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Your position has been noted. I do not agree with it, however, if you don't want to play it, you don't have to. Age is also a factor in this campaign....and if a character wants a buff or nerf, they can always talk to the DM, and i encourage them to do so, most Dms are open to such modifiers within reason. I'm not asking you to play, i was just pointing out that i'm *playtesting this* and imma give an update as the campaign keeps on going and if it doesn't work i will throw it out.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I love this word that the OP keeps using.....'tend'. What a great, scientifically correct, perfectly composed word. Yes men 'tend' to be stronger, and women tend to be more social. Yes men 'tend' to be more interested in things and women 'tend' to be more interested in people. But not my guy. He is a computer wizard (literally), a social devil, a carousing genius who is able to read between the lines and notice things that others can't. He also can't deadlift a sack of potatoes, and if you flick his nose it will bleed profusely. I feel like I am describing myself (jk lol, I am this but dumber)
No adventurer will symbolize every single person, so you cannot assign an ASI on a generalization. Even if men 'tend' to be stronger that does not mean that your PCs should be. There are ALWAYS men that are smart and ALWAYS women that are strong (Just ask my cousin Ren....she is seven, and can no joke beat me and the rest of my family in an arm wrestle. No special training, she is just built like a brick s***house), so why can't your PCs be one of those people?
Party on dude, I rest my case.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Warning. The following post contains sarcasm. Not for the easily offended. Viewer discretion advised.
Don't you think that in the campaign black skinned Humans should get a +1 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, while white skinned Humans should get a +1 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma? A huge percentage of professional athletes have black skin, and most doctors, scientists, movie actors, and teachers are white skinned. It must be Biology. I'm just being realistic here, and I'm just giving bonuses, so it's totally not racist.
<Insert clever signature here>
100% I stand with you, there are always exceptions to the rule. talk to the DM, but as for *general rules* remember *general* men are typically stronger than women and women tend to be better socially. nothing wrong with that, but if you dont want to play that... don't.
just a question... are you sure she's not MC Ren? XD
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
lol, no. maybe on size though? <5'4" +1 Dex 6'<+1 Str
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine