Gender modifiers: the other side of the coin

Well, yes. It was ironic. It was also poking fun at the stupidity of making such stat bonuses and penalties, if you read it carefully. Because frankly, +6 Wisdom isn't nearly enough if you want to reflect real life.

Honestly, I wouldn't give women a positive modifier to any mental stat except for maybe Charisma based off of this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY]"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?" Rex Harrison - YouTube[/ame]

Red Sonja is a Barbarian, not just a Fighter. She shouldn't be in "proper armour" at all. I imagine you would crawl away worse for your effort if you tried to strap Conan into proper armour too...

But I completely agree that the chainmail bikini is over the top, down the table leg, and probably staining the carpet. It was, after all, created to appease drooling comic book fans.

But I completely agree that the chainmail bikini is over the top

Click to expand...

I too will admit that the chainmail bikini is over the top. Or to be more precise, over her top.

And, luckily for the SFW, over her bottom too

There is most definitely a difference in the genders between how armor is designed and worn, as explained here.

"I once sold a winsome young lass a headband that was more effective than plate."

Ah, OOTS, how we love you.

Ashtagon said:

Ironic that you argue against gender-specific modifiers (a supposedly sexual-equality idea), then post some cheesecake of an alleged warrior.

Real women fighters wear armour. Proper armour, not that silly chainmail bikini stuff.

Women Fighters In Reasonable Armor

Click to expand...

They can fight in realistic armor or not. It's D&D, it's fantasy. Some of my highest AC characters have had no armor at all or padded (ie...clothing...). And as was said, she's a Barbarian. I never hear people cry about Conan not wearing full plate, only females. Strange.

Also, this thread was started by the guy who wrote a Barbarian guide that advises you repeatedly on how to defend against all attacks, both physical and magical, by blocking with your massive chest.

Dandu said:

Yes, I am the master of irony.

Click to expand...

No! I am the Master of Irony! Now I need to go Irony my shirt...

Dandu said:

Alright, I think we're all pretty familiar with the idea that females in D&D should receive modifiers to differentiate them from males, usually in a way that makes playing them a pain in the ass.

I'm not going to argue that there are no differences between the sexes in real life, but I would like to point out that for gender modifiers make little sense in a fantasy world. PCs by definition are extraordinary individuals, and to have a female who is as strong as/stronger than her male counterpart seems appropriate in that regard...

Click to expand...

I agree. In a standard Fantasy setting, such differentiation actually seems illogical. In a Historical campaign, or one based on the real world, there is some rationale...but from reading the recent threads on this subject, it really I really don't think it's worth the trouble.

But, from a game mechanics standpoint, applying an ability score penalty does not make sense in any logical way. Applying a penalty forces female characters to be more in line with average physical abilities as compared to male characters. And as pointed out, adventurers are not average.

What makes more sense is a cap. There is a real biological difference in maximume physical abilities between males and females. Since female adventurers are the top .000000001% of the population, just like male characters, they should be able to have any score right up to the actual physical limit. A Female Adventurer is just as likely to have a higher Strength than the Male characters as the Male characters are likely to be stronger, the Female adventurer just can't exceed their physical limit (the cap). A penalty at character creation does not accurately model that.

As to Abilities, I believe males and females have the same capacities as pertains to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. In general, Men and Womans brains work differently, but neither is better than the other in general, and there is no mechanic in place to model the differences that do exist, and from individual to individual there is a lot of crossover in ability. The differences are too general to accurately quantify in absolute mechanics. And such a mechanical modelling would likely be so overly complicated as to make the game unplayable anyways.

Dexterity and Constitution wise, I don't believe there is any real difference either.

The only area where there is a real scientifically quantifiable difference is in Strength. In the real world, the strongest Man in the world based purely on Strength, tops out at a score of 25. The strongest Woman in the world tops out at a score of 23.

But, if we are going to impose realism on one set of scores for gender differences, logic says we should limit all Ability scores. 3.x rules don't. You can ability increase all they way up through whatever level you play to, dumping those increases into the same stats until the reach near god like levels. So, by the cap logic, we should choose a cap for all scores. If we did this, I'd personally limit all "Mental" abilities (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) to 20 (I like the clean and easy idea of calculating Intelligence as IQ, with the Intelligence score x10 equal to one's IQ). I'd limit all Physical skills to 25, except Strength for Woman would be limited to 23. And these limits would apply to all Human PC's.

And though logical, it seems to me to be way more trouble than it's worth.

Good thing it's not a Chainmail thong- those chafe and are difficult to clean.

"What's a woman?"

- anonymous gamer, overheard at the table