D&D 5E 5E AD&D Restricitons

*Deleted by user*

Ganymede81 said:

What is this for? Is this like a nostalgia thing?

Click to expand...

It's turning into one more thread where people can virtue signal by pointing out how horrible it was that women couldn't be super-duper strong in 1E.

JonnyP71 said:

And why? Realism. Because women (shock, horror) ARE actually weaker than men in a purely physical sense. It ain't PC to say so, but it's true. They're also smaller, slower and mostly unable to consume 15 pints and a curry on a friday night.

Click to expand...

If I were interested in statting a "realistic" farm family, where the husband is out there raising barns and muscling around hoofstock while the wife's duties cover vegetable gardening, poultry, and other less strength-intensive work*, I'd just roll stats for both and put a higher number in his Strength than hers. Boom. Done. No need for a special cap or penalty. Sure, if I rolled 3d6 in order, I'd have even odds of the "unrealistic" result that the wife is stronger than the husband, but who rolls 3d6 in order these days, and why on earth would I do so here?

Furthermore, at the risk of stating the obvious, most D&D parties are not farm families "realistic" or otherwise. They are exceptional people doing exceptional things. So if you want to play a female character who doesn't rely so much on Strength, that's perfectly fine. Again, just put your high scores elsewhere, and there are plenty of class option where you can excel. But for the rules to say that women have a capped or penalized Strength, that you cannot play a female character who is exceptionally strong -- well, there's just no reason for that. It limits creative options and potentially alienates woman gamers for no upside.

*Also note that "less strength-intensive" does not mean "not strength-intensive". A lady who must wring goose necks with some regularity is not to be underestimated -- she could probably kick my scrawny male butt, for starters. And on a real farm, she's also going to lend a hand in the heavy work a lot more than portrayed in our quaint little division-of-labor picture.

There could also be race vs class restriction (like barbarian and monk only human, dwarf not wizard etc...

Oh also gender penalities for more AD&Dness

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

It's turning into one more thread where people can virtue signal by pointing out how horrible it was that women couldn't be super-duper strong in 1E.

Click to expand...

Okay. What are the people defending the 1E limit signaling, then?

*Deleted by user*

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

It's turning into one more thread where people can virtue signal by pointing out how horrible it was that women couldn't be super-duper strong in 1E.

Click to expand...

Considering race/sex hard-limitations were central to PC generation back then, isn't it a germane topic of discussion in a post about emulating those same hard-limitations in 5th Edition?

lowkey13 said:

As I pointed out upthread, the penalty varied by race; so that halfling women (for example) had a 3 point penalty hard cap difference. Which, you know, is pretty big. In addition, since many halflings doubleclassed as fighter thieves, and their fighter level was limited by their strength, that meant that a woman who wanted to play as a halfling had a de facto level cap as well.

I could keep going, but I think the better question from my perspective isn't that "this keeps coming up," but rather that people are jumping in to defend this rule? I mean, seriously? I love 1e and played it for decades, but it does have some bad, wrong, and mystifying rules. This isn't one I would ever defend or have at my table.

It doesn't add to the game. It alienates female gamers. This one thing doesn't accurately capture all the biological difference (assuming that's what you set out to do). It's just a bizarre Gygaxian element that was already removed by the time that 2e rolled around.

Click to expand...

All that's fine...I think you're overstating how many women were alienated by it; it exists on exactly one page in one version of the game; More people know about it now than people did then (because people keep bringing it up to attack old D&D) it's got about as much impact on the game as the rule that one in 6 attacks were aimed at the head, which is also a rule only mentioned once in one easily missed place in the rules . And the hard cap as opposed to a penalty is important...in AD&D you didn't decide your class and race first. You rolled your stats first. Nobody had to play something affected by the cap unless they chose to--assuming you were actually playing a game that used the cap--which I doubt was all that often (never happened at any table I ever played at)--probably less often than speed factors and weapon vs. armor penalties.

The thing I saw more than the actual hard cap was the, so common it got made into t-shirts "-1 Strength, +1 Charisma" (used to see those about as often as you see the "Yes these are natural" D20 shirts on nerdy young ladies at cons) so many teenage boys thought was in the rules, but wasn't. Even this rule didn't alienate the lady gamers I knew at the time. Most of them thought it made complete sense that men should have higher Strength scores than women. A lot of them thought they should get the aforementioned charisma bonus, or constitution bonus (women have higher pain tolerance) or dexterity bonus--which they usually got if they really wanted--young men really like having young women interested in their hobby.

You're absolutely right though; it's an unnecessary rule and I'm glad it's gone away. I preferred B/X D&D anyway, which never had the rule. It's definitely not something worth bringing back, even in a "Hey, let's all play Old School!" way--especially since Old Schoolers didn't really use the rule.

TheCosmicKid said:

Okay. What are the people defending the 1E limit signaling, then?

Click to expand...

Disregard for negative peer pressure?

Joy in simulationism?