So i'm trying a new idea in a homebrew campaign, where there are no racial ASIs (They're all human anyway), however men get +2 STR and +1 CON, while Women get +1 DEX, +1 WIS, and +1 CHA. I'm all for race-based ASIs, but for this one where they're all human, it seems like a cool idea to at least playtest, what do you think?

In the campaign there are no non-human players and most NPCs will be human.

I would find it a bit questionable, to say the least. Honestly it seems like you're overthinking it (a lot like the people who like the new "change ASI at will" optional rule)—because that tiny little +1 or +2 doesn't matter that much in the long run. Players don't need a boatload of different stats, decisions, and options to have fun: class, subclass, and existing ability scores are already more than enough, and more relevant. Plus, you run the risk of offending people. I'm not sure I'd be offended, but I'd definitely be a bit discomfited.

I think this is a terrible idea, for numerous reasons. 

Bad idea. It plays into stereotypes and sexism. Just let people make the characters they want

Quote from Houligan >>

Bad idea. It plays into stereotypes and sexism. Just let people make the characters they want

 
Yeah that’s exactly what I meant :-)

Quote from NaivaraArnuanna >>

I would find it a bit questionable, to say the least. Honestly it seems like you're overthinking it (a lot like the people who like the new "change ASI at will" optional rule)—because that tiny little +1 or +2 doesn't matter that much in the long run. Players don't need a boatload of different stats, decisions, and options to have fun: class, subclass, and existing ability scores are already more than enough, and more relevant. Plus, you run the risk of offending people. I'm not sure I'd be offended, but I'd definitely be a bit discomfited.

 I get this, but for a campaign where everybody is human, it adds some more flavor and reskins race as gender, it's not sexist, after all it's a bonus not a penalty. They're both +3 total in relevant categories. That's the fun for house rules and variant campaigns "you can do whatever you want" Imma test it out and tell u how it went.

I know its not intentional, but it is inadvertently sexist. Take two players, both who want to play barbarians, and one is male and one is female. The male barbarian will be objectively better at being a barbarian. Same thing works the other way with spellcasters.  Women will be objectively better spellcasters.

Wizards is introducing rules in Tasha's specifically to address this problem with respect to races (which you have just changed to genders). Where racial (or gendered) stats creates unconscious bias.

Quote from I_Love_Tarrasques >>

Quote from NaivaraArnuanna >>

I would find it a bit questionable, to say the least. Honestly it seems like you're overthinking it (a lot like the people who like the new "change ASI at will" optional rule)—because that tiny little +1 or +2 doesn't matter that much in the long run. Players don't need a boatload of different stats, decisions, and options to have fun: class, subclass, and existing ability scores are already more than enough, and more relevant. Plus, you run the risk of offending people. I'm not sure I'd be offended, but I'd definitely be a bit discomfited.

 I get this, but for a campaign where everybody is human, it adds some more flavor and reskins race as gender, it's not sexist, after all it's a bonus not a penalty. They're both +3 total in relevant categories. That's the fun for house rules and variant campaigns "you can do whatever you want" Imma test it out and tell u how it went.

 I have to wonder if you really believe this, or are just trolling the forums the way a kid pokes a bee hive with a stick.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

It's the 21st Century and pretty much everybody has been taught that Gender Based Stereotyping is Not Cool.  The way you have the numbers screams out "Men should be Warrior types and women should be Casters."  That is Not Cool.

You don't even have things balanced to the extent that women get a +2 and a +1 the way males do.  A +2 bonus is a lot stronger in 5th Edition D&D than a +1.  Also there is no Caster class that really benefits from having a small bonus to two their mental stats, so the female side gets wasted points no matter what they take, while the male side does not if they choose to play a Warrior type.  You've got the males pigeon-holed and the females with wasted stat points.

This is not "more flavor" and it most certainly is Sexist.

Quote from Houligan >>

I know its not intentional, but it is inadvertently sexist. Take two players, both who want to play barbarians, and one is male and one is female. The male barbarian will be objectively better at being a barbarian. Same thing works the other way with spellcasters.  Women will be objectively better spellcasters.

Wizards is introducing rules in Tasha's specifically to address this problem with respect to races (which you have just changed to genders). Where racial (or gendered) stats creates unconscious bias.

Quote from Geann >>

Quote from I_Love_Tarrasques >>

Quote from NaivaraArnuanna >>

I would find it a bit questionable, to say the least. Honestly it seems like you're overthinking it (a lot like the people who like the new "change ASI at will" optional rule)—because that tiny little +1 or +2 doesn't matter that much in the long run. Players don't need a boatload of different stats, decisions, and options to have fun: class, subclass, and existing ability scores are already more than enough, and more relevant. Plus, you run the risk of offending people. I'm not sure I'd be offended, but I'd definitely be a bit discomfited.

 I get this, but for a campaign where everybody is human, it adds some more flavor and reskins race as gender, it's not sexist, after all it's a bonus not a penalty. They're both +3 total in relevant categories. That's the fun for house rules and variant campaigns "you can do whatever you want" Imma test it out and tell u how it went.

 I have to wonder if you really believe this, or are just trolling the forums the way a kid pokes a bee hive with a stick.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

It's the 21st Century and pretty much everybody has been taught that Gender Based Stereotyping is Not Cool.  The way you have the numbers screams out "Men should be Warrior types and women should be Casters."  That is Not Cool.

You don't even have things balanced to the extent that women get a +2 and a +1 the way males do.  A +2 bonus is a lot stronger in 5th Edition D&D than a +1.  Also there is no Caster class that really benefits from having a small bonus to all their mental stats, so the female side gets wasted points no matter what they take, while the male side does not if they choose to play a Warrior type.  You've got the males pigeon-holed and the females with wasted stat points.

This is not "more flavor" and it most certainly is Sexist.

 I see your point, but may I point out that most men are somewhat stronger, and tougher than their female counterparts, and most women are better at picking up social cues, staying under the radar and persuading others: It's not sexist it's biology. It also doesn't make the men significantly better for playing than women, since a 15 STR Barbarian vs a 17 STR Barbarian has the same difference in ability (remember you divide by 2 and round down) as a 16 DEX rogue and a 15 DEX rogue. I mean, yeah, if you want to minmax it does, but it would seem that women are better all around at spellcasting and skilled interactions, and men bring the hammer, as in real life. It's the difference between a dual threat quarterback and a traditional one, dual threats aren't as good passers inherently, but they improve as time passes and level the field with their legs.

The women's stats are not all mental, i personally thing INT is a throwaway stat (unless you're a wizard), I value DEX much more, regardless of the build and women are much more dexterous, and the +1 does in fact reflect.

To be fair this campaign is starting at level 5 with rolled stats, but a +1 doesn't necessarily make or break a character, especially at later levels.

If you want to do this in your game at your table and your players are fine with it, do it.

As a DM of a private game, and a homebrew one at that, you do not have to worry about what other people think. Since the players at your table know (I hope) that you are not actually sexist, and are fine with this rule. You don't have an "audience" to cater to, and you don't have to please anyone outside your group -- including, and I would argue most especially, the people on this forum, who are not playing in your game. And yes, including me.

I wouldn't personally do what you are suggesting, even in a humans-only game, but I don't think there's a particular problem with it, provided that it is not coming from a place of sexism. Only you and the people at your table know whether it is. Unlike the rest of the internet will probably do, I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is not coming from a place of sexism, and that you are just trying to do something you think will be fun. If nobody at your table minds, you're good. 

Let me re-emphasize: all that matters, or should matter, to you as a DM is your table. If the players at your table are OK with it, you're done. If not, then you need to re-think, re-design, and have a conversation with them.

But I will also say this - be careful with anything like what you suggest. It is easily possible that players at the table might all say it's fine, but one or two of them might feel secretly that it's not fine, and are afraid to say it because they don't want to anger the DM. You need to make it clear that this is just a fun idea you think they might like, but that if anyone doesn't like it, you're totally OK with ditching it and just going the variant human route or something.

Quote from BioWizard >>

If you want to do this in your game at your table and your players are fine with it, do it.

As a DM of a private game, and a homebrew one at that, you do not have to worry about what other people think. Since the players at your table know (I hope) that you are not actually sexist, and are fine with this rule. You don't have an "audience" to cater to, and you don't have to please anyone outside your group -- including, and I would argue most especially, the people on this forum, who are not playing in your game. And yes, including me.

I wouldn't personally do what you are suggesting, even in a humans-only game, but I don't think there's a particular problem with it, provided that it is not coming from a place of sexism. Only you and the people at your table know whether it is. Unlike the rest of the internet will probably do, I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is not coming from a place of sexism, and that you are just trying to do something you think will be fun. If nobody at your table minds, you're good. 

Let me re-emphasize: all that matters, or should matter, to you as a DM is your table. If the players at your table are OK with it, you're done. If not, then you need to re-think, re-design, and have a conversation with them.

But I will also say this - be careful with anything like what you suggest. It is easily possible that players at the table might all say it's fine, but one or two of them might feel secretly that it's not fine, and are afraid to say it because they don't want to anger the DM. You need to make it clear that this is just a fun idea you think they might like, but that if anyone doesn't like it, you're totally OK with ditching it and just going the variant human route or something.

 Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was going to go through with it anyways, I'm running it through PbP so everybody knows what they're signing on for.

It's just a fun idea i wanted to try. It's not sexist, men and women have biological differences, and this game highlights it in a way that other games don't die. It's not that I think that men or women are lesser, they're merely different and i think it would be cool to play a game where it's a factor.

I've gotta say, if I were looking to join a game and it had this rule, I would avoid it like the plague.

Humans already have a ton of diversity in a game where every player chooses to play human at session zero. Just go variant human... then everyone gets to distribute two skill points anywhere they want for the character they want to play, and they get a feat to further customize their character and give them a leg up on their build from day one. If you want to play a game with set ability score growths, just let players play as other races.

Again, it is your game. Do what you want.

But it should go without saying that if you state publicly that you are going to do this, outside of your game group, the nature of what you are doing will lead to a large amount of public posturing. You're better off just doing it privately and not making a post about it.

Quote from BioWizard >>

Again, it is your game. Do what you want.

But it should go without saying that if you state publicly that you are going to do this, outside of your game group, the nature of what you are doing will lead to a large amount of public posturing. You're better off just doing it privately and not making a post about it.

 You're probably right, but i believe that people should discuss things no matter how controversial they may be.

Quote from I_Love_Tarrasques

 I see your point, but may I point out that most men are somewhat stronger, and tougher than their female counterparts, and most women are better at picking up social cues, staying under the radar and persuading others: It's not sexist it's biology. It also doesn't make the men significantly better for playing than women, since a 15 STR Barbarian vs a 17 STR Barbarian has the same difference in ability (remember you divide by 2 and round down) as a 16 DEX rogue and a 15 DEX rogue. I mean, yeah, if you want to minmax it does, but it would seem that women are better all around at spellcasting and skilled interactions, and men bring the hammer, as in real life. It's the difference between a dual threat quarterback and a traditional one, dual threats aren't as good passers inherently, but they improve as time passes and level the field with their legs.

The women's stats are not all mental, i personally thing INT is a throwaway stat (unless you're a wizard), I value DEX much more, regardless of the build and women are much more dexterous, and the +1 does in fact reflect.

To be fair this campaign is starting at level 5 with rolled stats, but a +1 doesn't necessarily make or break a character, especially at later levels.

 Automatically assuming that differences in ability or aptitude between men and women have to have a biological basis is the definition of sexism.  We live in a society where men are expected to excel in physical activity and encouraged to perform actions that result in muscle development while they're growing, like weight lifting or playing football.  Women, meanwhile, are pressured into learning about emotional intelligence and acting as peacemakers and conciliators.  In societies that did not engage in such strong gender division of roles, differences are much less apparent.  For example, in Medieval Europe, roughly 40% of all blacksmiths (a job that requires a lot of muscle) were women, and records indicate that they tended to be just as good at it as men.  Meanwhile, in Ancient Greece, it was the men who were expected to have better skill at picking up social cues and persuading others, because men were Rational Beings and women were Ruled By Their Base Emotions.

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

I've gotta say, if I were looking to join a game and it had this rule, I would avoid it like the plague.

Humans already have a ton of diversity in a game where every player chooses to play human at session zero. Just go variant human... then everyone gets to distribute two skill points anywhere they want for the character they want to play, and they get a feat to further customize their character and give them a leg up on their build from day one. If you want to play a game with set ability score growths, just let players play as other races.

 I for one as a DM, when it comes to character build like to give players less leeway, otherwise i tend to get storm giant barbarians, Variant human axe murderer fighters, Vampire wizards, invisible stalker rangers, Succubus Bards, dryad druids, and worst of all balor warlocks.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from I_Love_Tarrasques

 I see your point, but may I point out that most men are somewhat stronger, and tougher than their female counterparts, and most women are better at picking up social cues, staying under the radar and persuading others: It's not sexist it's biology. It also doesn't make the men significantly better for playing than women, since a 15 STR Barbarian vs a 17 STR Barbarian has the same difference in ability (remember you divide by 2 and round down) as a 16 DEX rogue and a 15 DEX rogue. I mean, yeah, if you want to minmax it does, but it would seem that women are better all around at spellcasting and skilled interactions, and men bring the hammer, as in real life. It's the difference between a dual threat quarterback and a traditional one, dual threats aren't as good passers inherently, but they improve as time passes and level the field with their legs.

The women's stats are not all mental, i personally thing INT is a throwaway stat (unless you're a wizard), I value DEX much more, regardless of the build and women are much more dexterous, and the +1 does in fact reflect.

To be fair this campaign is starting at level 5 with rolled stats, but a +1 doesn't necessarily make or break a character, especially at later levels.

 Meanwhile, in Ancient Greece, it was the men who were expected to have better skill at picking up social cues and persuading others, because men were Rational Beings and women were Ruled By Their Base Emotions.

 which is incredibly sexist don't you think? Outside of training your base man, due to testosterone is stronger than your base woman, not to say that with some training a woman cant be as strong as a man, but don't tell me that if you don't randomly select 1 man and 1 woman that most of the time the man will be stronger, basic physiology, we're built different, and it should be celebrated and bring us together.

If you had said all your characters are human - they all have the same base stats - so you're going to add in some variance by creating some bonuses. Bonus A and Bonus B - the players can choose whichever they want based on their background and upbringing. I would have been totally down for that. But putting it based on gender - hell no.

Quote from I_Love_Tarrasques >

 which is incredibly sexist don't you think? Outside of training your base man, due to testosterone is stronger than your base woman, not to say that with some training a woman cant be as strong as a man, but don't tell me that if you don't randomly select 1 man and 1 woman that most of the time the man will be stronger, basic physiology, we're built different, and it should be celebrated and bring us together.

But adventurers aren't your "base man" or "base woman" - they're adventurers. The pinacle of their skills. What's average about that?

I mean... if you're letting players regularly play as unbalanced homebrew races, that's more on you than on your players.

Here's my thing about this concept... one of the most appealing aspect of playing a human in this setting is how customizable the race is. You don't need to worry about having ability scores that don't compliment the class you want to play. You don't have to worry about having a racial ability that you'll never use because it doesn't pair well with your personal playstyle. A human can be exactly what the player wants them to be without any fluff or technical issues getting in the way. If you're taking that away... why would anyone want to play as a human?

Quote from Emmber >>

If you had said all your characters are human - they all have the same base stats - so you're going to add in some variance by creating some bonuses. Bonus A and Bonus B - the players can choose whichever they want based on their background and upbringing. I would have been totally down for that. But putting it based on gender - hell no.

Quote from I_Love_Tarrasques >

 which is incredibly sexist don't you think? Outside of training your base man, due to testosterone is stronger than your base woman, not to say that with some training a woman cant be as strong as a man, but don't tell me that if you don't randomly select 1 man and 1 woman that most of the time the man will be stronger, basic physiology, we're built different, and it should be celebrated and bring us together.

But adventurers aren't your "base man" or "base woman" - they're adventurers. The pinacle of their skills. What's average about that?

 at level one? we're all level one characters really with our standard array slightly manipulated.