D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Celebrim]

Anyway, I'm bothered by the loss of spear proficiency -and all the simple weapons- despite not even playing 'real' combatants. the spear meant a lot. It was a symbol of the peasantness of sorcerers, how they can come from anywhere, how deep down they are just common folk like you and me, in short how they are a part of the world as opposed to the ivory tower wizards that deliberately shun the world in order to pursue power. Losing it was heartbreaking (also Hermit as default bg, no familiars and very little utility spells?).

That's interesting. I don't have a lot invested in the spear accept that I feel it ought to be more effective of a weapon than it is traditionally represented as. But I suppose I ought to think about peasantness of weaponry more. I have all the polearms up in the restricted martial section because they are just so darn effective, but many of them are basically plow shears beaten into swords in origin - pruning blades, cleavers, knives, pitchforks - that have been weaponized.

Nothing wrong with playing a weak vulnerable girl, as long as it is my choice and not something imposed on me.

Wait??? What?!?!? No!!! That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you should be forced to play a "weak vulnerable" girl. I'm not suggesting at all that girls are weak! Far from it. What I'm suggesting is that if your definition of strong is limited to physically strong, and if your acceptance of women is based on the idea of physical strength, then fundamentally you are saying that women are weak and second class, because in reality they will always measure up second best if that is the ruler you are choosing to use. I'm not suggesting that women should be weak! I'm not even suggesting that women can't be warriors. I'm suggesting that a healthy acceptance of women needs at some level to be based on women as they actually are and not as fantasy demands them to be if they are forced to find their worth on the basis of a physical strength.

Even in a realistic system, there would be room for a female warrior. But that warrior would need to find some way of dealing with the fact that often as not, the person that they are fighting is bigger and stronger than they are. There are builds were you can do that, even in a hyper-realistic gritty non-magical world.

And fundamentally, I think there is a wrong-headed measurement going on here. We ought not be judging worth by judging men against women at all. Even if it were the case that men were better than women (they aren't) and that is something we could actually measure (we can't), that wouldn't make Bob better than Jane. Bob can take rightly no satisfaction from belong to the class of men just because he is a man, and trying to lord it over someone who isn't. Or identity is fundamentally not just a list of the classes of persons we are listed as. Bob can only be judged on Bob's merits. Nor should Jane take some shame from being a woman. What matters is their actual worth as individuals. If Bob is weak and pudgy, how silly and stupid would it be for him to swagger about lauding the strength of men! Even were it the case that men made better warriors than women, Jane might be a better warrior than Bob and that worth ought to be recognized and celebrated for what it is. So what that Serena Williams, though the best women's tennis player in the world, is only the 500th or 2000th best tennis player over all, because some men are capable of being better at tennis than all women. She's still a phenomenal tennis player and better than almost everyone in the world. Nor for that matter is ability to play tennis the sole standard by which we ought to judge worth.

And I also want others to be able to choose.

I understand that sentiment, and I feel that for a game like D&D - and most RPGs that are heirs of D&D - that is entirely right and proper. But I also recognize that in reality, we don't get to choose. And that at some level, I think it is important to be OK with what is actually real, and not just what is fantasy.

 

[Caliban]

So, if I understand Celebrim's stance on this: Because real women are physically weaker than real men, and physical strength should never, ever be used as a measure of a woman's worth (because that's sexist), wanting a fantasy woman in a fantasy game to be as strong as a fantasy man is also sexist?

Because you are devaluing real women by having fantasy women who can compete with fantasy men on equal terms in areas that rely on physical strength in your fantasy game?

 

[Arilyn]

...so, because real women are physically weaker than real men, and physical strength should never, ever be used as a measure of a woman's worth (because that's sexist), wanting a fantasy woman in a fantasy game to be as strong as a fantasy man is also sexist?

Because you are devaluing real women by having fantasy women who can compete with fantasy men on equal terms in areas that rely on physical strength in your fantasy game?

I believe this is his argument, yes. In real world, fine, I agree. But let's look at two examples using a hypothetical warrior named Tara.

In real world Tara takes up the longsword. She is muscular enough to wield the weapon, but will never be as strong as the muscle-bound guy in her training class. However, Tara learns to use her agility to her best advantage to hit really accurately. She also incorporates some martial arts type moves to use her opponents' strength against them. She learns to hit hard and fast, but will never hit as hard as the stronger men, but doesn't need to because she is hitting hard enough to do terrible bleeding wounds.

Now, let's look at Tara in DnD. She too is training with a longsword, but her accuracy is purely based on Str. Her dexterity, for some strange reason has nothing to do with her melee skill. She can never be as strong as her strongest male counterpoint, but what number can she reach realistically, since we are attempting realism in our game. 12? 14? 16? Also, in this world getting sliced by something sharp is not going to cause your opponent to bleed or even wince in pain. No, your opponent will be unaffected until he drops unconscious suddenly. Now poor Tara is at a bigger disadvantage than her real world counterpart. She can't rely on accurately hitting vulnerable spots, or getting a good first blow to cause her opponent to bleed. All she can rely on is her strength and a handful of manoeuvres that all the other fighters have too.

So, in DnD restricting female strength is a bad idea. Game is too abstract to handle it.

 

[MechaPilot]

...real women are physically weaker than real men, and physical strength should never, ever be used as a measure of a woman's worth (because that's sexist). . .

Yes. But, to be perfectly clear, physical strength should never be used to measure anyone's worth as a person. As an athlete? Sure. But not as a person.

. . . wanting a fantasy woman in a fantasy game to be as strong as a fantasy man is also sexist? Because you are devaluing real women by having fantasy women who can compete with fantasy men on equal terms in areas that rely on physical strength in your fantasy game?

Real women are not devalued by female PCs not having strength penalties. That is an absurd thing to say, and anyone who takes that stance should be embarrassed by the logical contortions they had to make to even conceive of it. Especially since, by that logic, real men are devalued by male PCs not having penalties that reflect men's real world limitations.

Edit: Edited to clear up any potential misunderstandings.

 

[Caliban]

You are literally the only person who has asked, said, or otherwise implied that.... No, real women are not devalued by female PCs not having strength penalties. That is an absurd thing to say. You should be embarrassed by the logical contortions you had to make to even conceive of it. Especially since, by your logic, real men are devalued by male PCs not having penalties that reflect men's real world limitations.

Er....I think that's exactly what Celebrim is saying. I was trying to restate the argument they put forth in their last post in simpler terms to see if I understood it correctly.

I've edited my post to make it a little clearer.

 

[MechaPilot]

Er....I think that's exactly what Celebrim is saying, if I understand them correctly. I was trying to restate the argument they put forth in their last post in simpler terms to see if I understood it correctly.

I've edited my post to make it a little clearer.

Ah. I may have misunderstood the tone of your post then. I have edited my own response as is appropriate.

 

[Maxperson]

Real women are not devalued by female PCs not having strength penalties. That is an absurd thing to say, and anyone who takes that stance should be embarrassed by the logical contortions they had to make to even conceive of it. Especially since, by that logic, real men are devalued by male PCs not having penalties that reflect men's real world limitations.

Edit: Edited to clear up any potential misunderstandings.

Nobody is devalued by a PC having or not having a penalty. PCs are fictional and limitations or not, have nothing to do with their players. I don't want gender penalties in the game, but it's not sexist to have them or not have them.

 

[MechaPilot]

Nobody is devalued by a PC having or not having a penalty. PCs are fictional and limitations or not, have nothing to do with their players. I don't want gender penalties in the game, but it's not sexist to have them or not have them.

It is sexist to have them if you only apply them to one sex, with the other being enshrined as the "default" and having no penalties.

If you have both males and females getting modifiers for their sexes' limitations, then fine. There is certainly debate to be had as to what those limitations should be (if one were inclined to have them, and I am not), but at that point you are treating them equally in that you are not penalizing one in the name of "realism" without also doing the same for the other (even if the penalties are different for each sex).

 

[Pauln6]

I thought we were talking about a strength cap rather than a strength penalty? In a points buy game, you can spend those points elsewhere so you'll only be at a disadvantage on certain niche builds that revolve around very high strength and low everything else. Your dwarf with a dex cap of 17 is in a similar but different position. The issue is only that these kinds of caps tend to channel players away from certain atypical builds towards more stereotypical builds such as your short sword wielding female Fighter. And in the case of 5e possibly not even then, since you can be very viable with 16 in your main stat.

There is nothing inherently wrong with nudging players towards fantasy tropes but it also isn't really required for the game to function perfectly well.

 

[MechaPilot]

I thought we were talking about a strength cap rather than a strength penalty?

For a character with a Strength dependent class, a Strength cap is a Strength penalty because it directly limits the things at which they are supposed to excel.

In a points buy game, you can spend those points elsewhere so you'll only be at a disadvantage on certain niche builds that revolve around very high strength and low everything else.

I wasn't aware that the barbarian class, the paladin class, and any fighter using a non-finesse melee weapon were considered niche builds.

The issue is only that these kinds of caps tend to channel players away from certain atypical builds towards more stereotypical builds such as your short sword wielding female Fighter.

So, the issues are that they disincentivise player choice and they promote stereotypes so we see more of the same kinds of characters again and again. Sounds like a bad idea to include it in the base game to me.

There is nothing inherently wrong with nudging players towards fantasy tropes but it also isn't really required for the game to function perfectly well.

There is when "because realism" is only being applied to act as a limit to one sex, to stereotype and pigeon-hole one sex. If realism is that important, give proper "reality-reflecting" penalties to male PCs as well.