"I'm not sexist, but here is this sexist thing I believe." is pretty much how this topic reads to me. It is your game and you and your friends can do what you want, but I would not play using this rule, nor do I know others that would because the premise is offensive.
"I'm not sexist, but here is this sexist thing I believe." is pretty much how this topic reads to me. It is your game and you and your friends can do what you want, but I would not play using this rule, nor do I know others that would because the premise is offensive.
I'm not sexist, but do what you want.
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.
Why will a 60yr old be a better caster? Magic doesn't exist, and it is magic....It doesn't exist IRL so you don't know. As I said in my last post, my cousin is probably going to be a better 'fighter' than any other 17-18yr old (when she gets to that age), and I know a whole ton of 17-18yr olds who are weak as reeds but smart as really, really smart dolphins. you can't say 'every 15yr old girl will be a great rogue' and 'every 17-18yr old guy is a jock'.....it simply doesn't work like that. If every guy in your campaign is genetically identical, I would understand, but otherwise there will always be people who don't fit your generalizations......a LOT of people. Also, why would a 20yr old have a -3 int and wis for gods sake? If you have the standard commoner stats (10 across the board) that would make you mentally impaired? The strongest man in the world is 56 dude.
Also.......HOW DARE YOU KILL MY BRETHREN! THE BOVINES ARE FOREVER MORE YOUR ENEMIES! YOU SHALL FIND NO PEACE IN THE PASTURES, AND NO PEACE IN THE CITIES, FOR WE SHALL FOLLOW YOU TILL HE ENDS OF THE EARTH, AND THEN TRAMPLE YOU INTO A VAGUELY HUMANOID MULCH!
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.
Age is always a factor in D&D. There's a whole monk feature dedicated to not getting the negative effects of aging, and a spell (time ravage) that provides the only official mechanics for old age (but this is a bit simplified and for characters near their time of death). Having age be a mechanical factor in the game is a completely different matter than from including a sex-based mechanic in the game. Aging is the process of growing older, and you eventually get weaker and frailer over time. It's inevitable for all of us who live long enough to experience it. It's not as much a matter of inclusivity as sex-based mechanics are. If you're trying to support your having this mechanic in the game with you also including age mechanics (which it appears you are trying to do), that is not connected to the problem I have with the first and most problematic mechanic mentioned in this thread (though I would have problems with the possibility of age mechanics if you'd be taking away their choices as a player through rolling age or choosing it, or something like that).
If you don't agree with my post, and you are 100% sure you want to go down this road, I suggest you give some better excuse to use it than "realism" or "genetics" and actually truly respond to my points, because you just did a cop out.
And of course I don't need to play this, but I do have an issue with recommending playing this or encouraging others to playtest it. If you want to support this house rule at your table, I care, but will not do anything more than politely encourage you to look at it from a different, more empathetic and analytic view. But, if you want to ask other people not connected to your table online to use this rule that I think is bad for the hobby, society and the world, I will encourage the same people to not use this rule. I hope there are no harsh feelings for this, I don't have any towards you, but will understand either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
Why will a 60yr old be a better caster? Magic doesn't exist, and it is magic....It doesn't exist IRL so you don't know. As I said in my last post, my cousin is probably going to be a better 'fighter' than any other 17-18yr old (when she gets to that age), and I know a whole ton of 17-18yr olds who are weak as reeds but smart as really, really smart dolphins. you can't say 'every 15yr old girl will be a great rogue' and 'every 17-18yr old guy is a jock'.....it simply doesn't work like that. If every guy in your campaign is genetically identical, I would understand, but otherwise there will always be people who don't fit your generalizations......a LOT of people.
Also.......HOW DARE YOU KILL MY BRETHREN! THE BOVINES ARE FOREVER MORE YOUR ENEMIES! YOU SHALL FIND NO PEACE IN THE PASTURES, AND NO PEACE IN THE CITIES, FOR WE SHALL FOLLOW YOU TILL HE ENDS OF THE EARTH, AND THEN TRAMPLE YOU INTO A VAGUELY HUMANOID MULCH!
i agree 100% with you, but with increased age comes with increased wisdom, and experience, and knowledge. Which seems better for spellcasters. anyways, if u dont want to play it don't, i'm just playing around with some mechanics, im open to modifying those rules when exceptions warrant it, but if it's not needed ehh, go by typicalities.
Also... when did i say i was anti-bovine.... i'm pro bovine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
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.
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.
Age is always a factor in D&D. There's a whole monk feature dedicated to not getting the negative effects of aging, and a spell (time ravage) that provides the only official mechanics for old age (but this is a bit simplified and for characters near their time of death). Having age be a mechanical factor in the game is a completely different matter than from including a sex-based mechanic in the game. Aging is the process of growing older, and you eventually get weaker and frailer over time. It's inevitable for all of us who live long enough to experience it. It's not as much a matter of inclusivity as sex-based mechanics are. If you're trying to support your having this mechanic in the game with you also including age mechanics (which it appears you are trying to do), that is not connected to the problem I have with the first and most problematic mechanic mentioned in this thread (though I would have problems with the possibility of age mechanics if you'd be taking away their choices as a player through rolling age or choosing it, or something like that).
If you don't agree with my post, and you are 100% sure you want to go down this road, I suggest you give some better excuse to use it than "realism" or "genetics" and actually truly respond to my points, because you just did a cop out.
And of course I don't need to play this, but I do have an issue with recommending playing this or encouraging others to playtest it. If you want to support this house rule at your table, I care, but will not do anything more than politely encourage you to look at it from a different, more empathetic and analytic view. But, if you want to ask other people not connected to your table online to use this rule that I think is bad for the hobby, society and the world, I will encourage the same people to not use this rule. I hope there are no harsh feelings for this, I don't have any towards you, but will understand either way.
No hard feelings as you want, genders have differences, they're highlighted here but i'm always open to exceptions... if the players aks for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
Positive stereotypes and implicit biases are real things and together perpetuate separation.
I would like to pose the following questions, and am interested to the answers.
Is giving men a +1 to strength and women a +1 to intelligence sexist?
Is giving Africans a +1 to strength and Asians a +1 to intelligence racist?
Is giving people ages 20-35 a +1 to strength and people ages 70-90 a +1 to wisdom ageist?
is giving people who weight under 200 pounds +1 to dex and people over 200 pounds a +1 to con an issue?
is giving people with native heritage proficiency in nature and people with foreign heritage proficiency in religion an issue?
is giving a homosexual proficiency in performance and a Heterosexual proficiency in athletics an issue?
If you answered yes to any of these but not all of them then perhaps educating yourself on both the effects of positive stereotypes and implicit biases, and maybe take an online test using the link I've provided to find out if you have any. Those tests are run by Harvard, so they aren't a BuzzFeed quiz.
Sidebar: I literally spend close to two hours composing a much better composed post but then my cat walked across my keyboard and refreshed the page and it was all gone so this is basically the TLDR of the original post.
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.
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.
Why will a 60yr old be a better caster? Magic doesn't exist, and it is magic....It doesn't exist IRL so you don't know. As I said in my last post, my cousin is probably going to be a better 'fighter' than any other 17-18yr old (when she gets to that age), and I know a whole ton of 17-18yr olds who are weak as reeds but smart as really, really smart dolphins. you can't say 'every 15yr old girl will be a great rogue' and 'every 17-18yr old guy is a jock'.....it simply doesn't work like that. If every guy in your campaign is genetically identical, I would understand, but otherwise there will always be people who don't fit your generalizations......a LOT of people.
Also.......HOW DARE YOU KILL MY BRETHREN! THE BOVINES ARE FOREVER MORE YOUR ENEMIES! YOU SHALL FIND NO PEACE IN THE PASTURES, AND NO PEACE IN THE CITIES, FOR WE SHALL FOLLOW YOU TILL HE ENDS OF THE EARTH, AND THEN TRAMPLE YOU INTO A VAGUELY HUMANOID MULCH!
i agree 100% with you, but with increased age comes with increased wisdom, and experience, and knowledge. Which seems better for spellcasters. anyways, if u dont want to play it don't, i'm just playing around with some mechanics, im open to modifying those rules when exceptions warrant it, but if it's not needed ehh, go by typicalities.
Also... when did i say i was anti-bovine.... i'm pro bovine.
(Your campaign literally called the cattle murderers)
Hahahahahaahahahhaaa......haha.....ha...ha.....oh s**t he is serious. I believe myself to be more well read than most people twice my age, and my knowledge (Not trying to blow my own trumpet here) is quite extensive. Experience is something I cannot argue upon, but I don't think it plays enough significance into a +5 bonus to your mentals. Also I can think of about thirty diseases that make your brain function less well, that in general only old people get, for example dementia.
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.
No hard feelings as you want, genders have differences, they're highlighted here but i'm always open to exceptions... if the players aks for it.
Not genders, sexes. And the differences in the sexes for humans are small enough that no mechanical bonus/change should be attributed to either. Also, I would instead present this as a variant rule to your players to not make them feel pressured to use this feature. That's what I always do when making homebrew variant first-time rules like this and it always works. Sometimes the players take the DMs homebrew rules as the word of God in the campaign and feel afraid to speak up as a result of avoiding offending the DM. Just a recommendation for how to introduce this to your table if you're absolutely determined on using this rule.
(I can't help but notice that you keep dodging creating actual responses to my posts. Maybe you just happened to forget.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
Age is always a factor in D&D. There's a whole monk feature dedicated to not getting the negative effects of aging, and a spell (time ravage) that provides the only official mechanics for old age (but this is a bit simplified and for characters near their time of death). Having age be a mechanical factor in the game is a completely different matter than from including a sex-based mechanic in the game. Aging is the process of growing older, and you eventually get weaker and frailer over time. It's inevitable for all of us who live long enough to experience it. It's not as much a matter of inclusivity as sex-based mechanics are. If you're trying to support your having this mechanic in the game with you also including age mechanics (which it appears you are trying to do), that is not connected to the problem I have with the first and most problematic mechanic mentioned in this thread (though I would have problems with the possibility of age mechanics if you'd be taking away their choices as a player through rolling age or choosing it, or something like that).
If you don't agree with my post, and you are 100% sure you want to go down this road, I suggest you give some better excuse to use it than "realism" or "genetics" and actually truly respond to my points, because you just did a cop out.
And of course I don't need to play this, but I do have an issue with recommending playing this or encouraging others to playtest it. If you want to support this house rule at your table, I care, but will not do anything more than politely encourage you to look at it from a different, more empathetic and analytic view. But, if you want to ask other people not connected to your table online to use this rule that I think is bad for the hobby, society and the world, I will encourage the same people to not use this rule. I hope there are no harsh feelings for this, I don't have any towards you, but will understand either way.
No hard feelings as you want, genders have differences, they're highlighted here but i'm always open to exceptions... if the players aks for it.
So then is there any point in having the stats in the first place? And did you tell the players this? Cause if not, these 'exceptions' (Which are more like 25% of the population) may as well not exist.
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.
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.
Age is always a factor in D&D. There's a whole monk feature dedicated to not getting the negative effects of aging, and a spell (time ravage) that provides the only official mechanics for old age (but this is a bit simplified and for characters near their time of death). Having age be a mechanical factor in the game is a completely different matter than from including a sex-based mechanic in the game. Aging is the process of growing older, and you eventually get weaker and frailer over time. It's inevitable for all of us who live long enough to experience it. It's not as much a matter of inclusivity as sex-based mechanics are. If you're trying to support your having this mechanic in the game with you also including age mechanics (which it appears you are trying to do), that is not connected to the problem I have with the first and most problematic mechanic mentioned in this thread (though I would have problems with the possibility of age mechanics if you'd be taking away their choices as a player through rolling age or choosing it, or something like that).
If you don't agree with my post, and you are 100% sure you want to go down this road, I suggest you give some better excuse to use it than "realism" or "genetics" and actually truly respond to my points, because you just did a cop out.
And of course I don't need to play this, but I do have an issue with recommending playing this or encouraging others to playtest it. If you want to support this house rule at your table, I care, but will not do anything more than politely encourage you to look at it from a different, more empathetic and analytic view. But, if you want to ask other people not connected to your table online to use this rule that I think is bad for the hobby, society and the world, I will encourage the same people to not use this rule. I hope there are no harsh feelings for this, I don't have any towards you, but will understand either way.
No hard feelings as you want, genders have differences, they're highlighted here but i'm always open to exceptions... if the players aks for it.
So then is there any point in having the stats in the first place? And did you tell the players this? Cause if not, these 'exceptions' (Which are more like 25% of the population) may as well not exist.
i think there is, and yes, in all DMs i have told them that i'm up to exceptions.
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.
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
No. She is a girl. And the players shouldn't have to ask for exceptions, it should just be an option. If it is an exception, does it mean that you wont say yes 100% of the time? If not, then you are generalizing
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.
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.
You're blatantly incorrect. Even if stat bonuses are only a small change in percentages, the change in how the stats are roleplayed should be much more dramatic than the numbers would suggest. Here's an example. You know what a badger is, right? Just the small stupid animal that there's that annoying internet song about? Well, look at that tooltip I provided. What's their Intelligence? 2. Now, look at a commoner. What's their Intelligence? It's a 10.
Now, at first that may seem like a huge difference in their capabilities of intellect. It is and should be, however the dice do not show that. The 8 stat point difference in Intelligence only ends up being a difference in 4 to an intelligence check or saving throw made, which is still a pretty big difference, until you consider that each point difference is only 5% of a d20. According to the dice and mechanics of D&D 5e, the typical human commoner is only 20% smarter than a badger.
That means, in D&D mechanics RAW, a badger is completely capable of beating a commoner at an Intelligence contest. Have you ever tried playing Chess with a badger? I doubt any of you have. Well, in D&D 5e, if the Badger (or most other beasts) were to play 10 games of dragonchess with a commoner, statistically and Rules as Written, the badger would win 3 times.
If you can't see where my point is going, and may think, "Well, that's just totally ridiculous and has no relevance. No sane DM would allow that, and badgers are obviously more than 20% stupider than a human." Exactly. Unless this is clear, a badger in real life would never be able to learn the rules of chess, could never understand the concept, and be incapable of beating the average human being at the game, even one that doesn't know how to play the game. This makes it clear that ability scores are meant to imply a much larger difference in the actual meaning of ability score differences than the math indicates. That is a major reason why I object to you suggesting that a 5% difference in stats between the races is not that big of a deal and is small enough that it can be ignored.
Sure, the math may be fine, still offensive and problematic, but the math could be perfectly fine, but the rule would still not be based on the meaning of ability scores in D&D. But, the ability scores mean more than the numbers say they do. In D&D, saying a woman has higher Dexterity, Charisma, and Wisdom than a man, and that a man has higher Strength and Constitution than a woman is not just math and not just numbers. D&D doesn't have to follow so called "realism," which is proven by my point above and the fact that a 26 foot tall storm giant can't even lift as much as the world's strongest people.
Ability scores aren't realistic, and differences in them are a bigger deal than the rules suggest.
And the players shouldn't have to ask for exceptions, it should just be an option. If it is an exception, does it mean that you wont say yes 100% of the time? If not, then you are generalizing
Exactly. Players shouldn't have to ask for exceptions to rules based on stereotypes. And, if they ask for an exception, you should never deny it. If they worked up the courage to ask the almighty DM if they can ignore one of your rules, 90% of the time it's a much bigger deal for them than they may let on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The other thing I am confused about is the fact that you are 'playtesting' this. What is there to playtest? Mechanically, the stats are no different to any other race, so there is nothing that needs 'playtesting'....Just a badly designed rule that replaces different races with the same race. But now sex is a part of it, for absolutely no reason.
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.
"I'm not sexist, but here is this sexist thing I believe." is pretty much how this topic reads to me. It is your game and you and your friends can do what you want, but I would not play using this rule, nor do I know others that would because the premise is offensive.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not sexist, but do what you want.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Why will a 60yr old be a better caster? Magic doesn't exist, and it is magic....It doesn't exist IRL so you don't know. As I said in my last post, my cousin is probably going to be a better 'fighter' than any other 17-18yr old (when she gets to that age), and I know a whole ton of 17-18yr olds who are weak as reeds but smart as really, really smart dolphins. you can't say 'every 15yr old girl will be a great rogue' and 'every 17-18yr old guy is a jock'.....it simply doesn't work like that. If every guy in your campaign is genetically identical, I would understand, but otherwise there will always be people who don't fit your generalizations......a LOT of people. Also, why would a 20yr old have a -3 int and wis for gods sake? If you have the standard commoner stats (10 across the board) that would make you mentally impaired? The strongest man in the world is 56 dude.
Also.......HOW DARE YOU KILL MY BRETHREN! THE BOVINES ARE FOREVER MORE YOUR ENEMIES! YOU SHALL FIND NO PEACE IN THE PASTURES, AND NO PEACE IN THE CITIES, FOR WE SHALL FOLLOW YOU TILL HE ENDS OF THE EARTH, AND THEN TRAMPLE YOU INTO A VAGUELY HUMANOID MULCH!
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Age is always a factor in D&D. There's a whole monk feature dedicated to not getting the negative effects of aging, and a spell (time ravage) that provides the only official mechanics for old age (but this is a bit simplified and for characters near their time of death). Having age be a mechanical factor in the game is a completely different matter than from including a sex-based mechanic in the game. Aging is the process of growing older, and you eventually get weaker and frailer over time. It's inevitable for all of us who live long enough to experience it. It's not as much a matter of inclusivity as sex-based mechanics are. If you're trying to support your having this mechanic in the game with you also including age mechanics (which it appears you are trying to do), that is not connected to the problem I have with the first and most problematic mechanic mentioned in this thread (though I would have problems with the possibility of age mechanics if you'd be taking away their choices as a player through rolling age or choosing it, or something like that).
If you don't agree with my post, and you are 100% sure you want to go down this road, I suggest you give some better excuse to use it than "realism" or "genetics" and actually truly respond to my points, because you just did a cop out.
And of course I don't need to play this, but I do have an issue with recommending playing this or encouraging others to playtest it. If you want to support this house rule at your table, I care, but will not do anything more than politely encourage you to look at it from a different, more empathetic and analytic view. But, if you want to ask other people not connected to your table online to use this rule that I think is bad for the hobby, society and the world, I will encourage the same people to not use this rule. I hope there are no harsh feelings for this, I don't have any towards you, but will understand either way.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
i agree 100% with you, but with increased age comes with increased wisdom, and experience, and knowledge. Which seems better for spellcasters. anyways, if u dont want to play it don't, i'm just playing around with some mechanics, im open to modifying those rules when exceptions warrant it, but if it's not needed ehh, go by typicalities.
Also... when did i say i was anti-bovine.... i'm pro bovine.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
. . . You know that post was a satiric dig on you, right? I'm a bit confused as to why you liked that post. . .
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No hard feelings as you want, genders have differences, they're highlighted here but i'm always open to exceptions... if the players aks for it.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Positive stereotypes and implicit biases are real things and together perpetuate separation.
I would like to pose the following questions, and am interested to the answers.
If you answered yes to any of these but not all of them then perhaps educating yourself on both the effects of positive stereotypes and implicit biases, and maybe take an online test using the link I've provided to find out if you have any. Those tests are run by Harvard, so they aren't a BuzzFeed quiz.
Sidebar: I literally spend close to two hours composing a much better composed post but then my cat walked across my keyboard and refreshed the page and it was all gone so this is basically the TLDR of the original post.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
cuz i thought it was funny. if people don't agree with me, i can still see their humor.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
(Your campaign literally called the cattle murderers)
Hahahahahaahahahhaaa......haha.....ha...ha.....oh s**t he is serious. I believe myself to be more well read than most people twice my age, and my knowledge (Not trying to blow my own trumpet here) is quite extensive. Experience is something I cannot argue upon, but I don't think it plays enough significance into a +5 bonus to your mentals. Also I can think of about thirty diseases that make your brain function less well, that in general only old people get, for example dementia.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Not genders, sexes. And the differences in the sexes for humans are small enough that no mechanical bonus/change should be attributed to either. Also, I would instead present this as a variant rule to your players to not make them feel pressured to use this feature. That's what I always do when making homebrew variant first-time rules like this and it always works. Sometimes the players take the DMs homebrew rules as the word of God in the campaign and feel afraid to speak up as a result of avoiding offending the DM. Just a recommendation for how to introduce this to your table if you're absolutely determined on using this rule.
(I can't help but notice that you keep dodging creating actual responses to my posts. Maybe you just happened to forget.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So then is there any point in having the stats in the first place? And did you tell the players this? Cause if not, these 'exceptions' (Which are more like 25% of the population) may as well not exist.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
true.... i may have to tweak that. thanks for the idea.
No the story revolves arround a cattle farmer turned serial killer... thats why it's named that.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
i think there is, and yes, in all DMs i have told them that i'm up to exceptions.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
No. She is a girl. And the players shouldn't have to ask for exceptions, it should just be an option. If it is an exception, does it mean that you wont say yes 100% of the time? If not, then you are generalizing
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The 1970s called, they'd like their game back.
You're blatantly incorrect. Even if stat bonuses are only a small change in percentages, the change in how the stats are roleplayed should be much more dramatic than the numbers would suggest. Here's an example. You know what a badger is, right? Just the small stupid animal that there's that annoying internet song about? Well, look at that tooltip I provided. What's their Intelligence? 2. Now, look at a commoner. What's their Intelligence? It's a 10.
Now, at first that may seem like a huge difference in their capabilities of intellect. It is and should be, however the dice do not show that. The 8 stat point difference in Intelligence only ends up being a difference in 4 to an intelligence check or saving throw made, which is still a pretty big difference, until you consider that each point difference is only 5% of a d20. According to the dice and mechanics of D&D 5e, the typical human commoner is only 20% smarter than a badger.
That means, in D&D mechanics RAW, a badger is completely capable of beating a commoner at an Intelligence contest. Have you ever tried playing Chess with a badger? I doubt any of you have. Well, in D&D 5e, if the Badger (or most other beasts) were to play 10 games of dragonchess with a commoner, statistically and Rules as Written, the badger would win 3 times.
If you can't see where my point is going, and may think, "Well, that's just totally ridiculous and has no relevance. No sane DM would allow that, and badgers are obviously more than 20% stupider than a human." Exactly. Unless this is clear, a badger in real life would never be able to learn the rules of chess, could never understand the concept, and be incapable of beating the average human being at the game, even one that doesn't know how to play the game. This makes it clear that ability scores are meant to imply a much larger difference in the actual meaning of ability score differences than the math indicates. That is a major reason why I object to you suggesting that a 5% difference in stats between the races is not that big of a deal and is small enough that it can be ignored.
Sure, the math may be fine, still offensive and problematic, but the math could be perfectly fine, but the rule would still not be based on the meaning of ability scores in D&D. But, the ability scores mean more than the numbers say they do. In D&D, saying a woman has higher Dexterity, Charisma, and Wisdom than a man, and that a man has higher Strength and Constitution than a woman is not just math and not just numbers. D&D doesn't have to follow so called "realism," which is proven by my point above and the fact that a 26 foot tall storm giant can't even lift as much as the world's strongest people.
Ability scores aren't realistic, and differences in them are a bigger deal than the rules suggest.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Exactly. Players shouldn't have to ask for exceptions to rules based on stereotypes. And, if they ask for an exception, you should never deny it. If they worked up the courage to ask the almighty DM if they can ignore one of your rules, 90% of the time it's a much bigger deal for them than they may let on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The other thing I am confused about is the fact that you are 'playtesting' this. What is there to playtest? Mechanically, the stats are no different to any other race, so there is nothing that needs 'playtesting'....Just a badly designed rule that replaces different races with the same race. But now sex is a part of it, for absolutely no reason.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Gonna slightly correct you on that last part. Sex is part of it, for absolutely no good/beneficial reason.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms