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

[Caliban]

"Because real women are physically weaker than real men, and because physical strength should never be used as the measure of a person's worth (because it isn't), then demanding that all RPGs provide for fantasy women who are as strong as men, because if they do not, then you say that they are sexist because in the game women would be inferior to men, is itself sexist, because by that standard, real women really are inferior to men."

Ok...So who do you think is actually making this somewhat convoluted claim? It certainly isn't me. At least I don't think so, since it mostly sounds like gibberish to me.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to create a fantasy RPG where female characters can be as strong as men. I run such a game right now, which should have been the first clue that your statement of my position was wrong!

Ah yes, something I had no knowledge of before now should be my first clue that I'm wrong. Absolutely brilliant reasoning!

I am saying that if you claim a universal standard that any portrayal of women as on average physically weaker than men is sexist, then there is something very strange about how you are viewing real women that does not add up to what I'd consider a healthy and affirming view.

I think MechaPilots stance is that it is sexist if you are only applying gender based modifiers to a single gender. Not so much str in particular, but only giving women a penalty in the game mechanics so that (everything else being equal) they actually are inferior to men within the game.

For example, it would be equally sexist if you gave males a penalty to Wisdom (because males are inherently more prone to reckless behavior and risk taking - testosterone giveth, testosterone taketh away), but didn't give women any stat penalties.

If 5e made it so that women had a penalty to Str and men had a penalty to Wis, then it's probably not sexist (or at least equally sexist to both genders, which I guess is better?). But it would certainly make it less likely to ever see a male cleric or a female heavy weapon fighter.

No, because you would then be literally saying that if women can't compete with men on equal terms in physical strength, then that women are of less value.

If you are playing a game that places a premium on Str for certain in game activities (i.e. heavy weapon users in 5e), and men have no such limitation in any other area of the game...then yes, that is exactly what the game rules are saying. i.e. Men can do everything, women can do almost everything.

Game balance wise, men should have a similar limitation in a different area (if you really are going to limit women's physical strength in the game). But realistically - people (both men and women) will still object, because then you are pushing men and women into stereotypical gender-based roles. Which is probably why D&D quickly dropped the gender based modifiers - why lose potential players over something that is really minor in relation to the rest of the game?

And I confess, owing to the reoccurrence of them, that I'm having a certain difficulty believing that these strawmen you are throwing up to describe my position are actually based off of sincere misunderstandings, and not being offered out of ill will.

I'd probably object to this if I understood it.

 

[MechaPilot]

I think MechaPilots stance is that it is sexist if you are only applying gender based modifiers to a single gender. Not so much str in particular, but only giving women a penalty in the game mechanics so that (everything else being equal) they actually are inferior to men within the game.

For example, It would be equally sexist if you gave males a penalty to Wisdom (because males are inherently more prone to reckless behavior and risk taking - testosterone giveth, testosterone taketh away), but didn't give women any stat penalties.

That is a correct assessment. Asserting that reality, and the limitations thereof, should apply to one sex but not the other is definitionally sexist.

Now, that's not the whole of it. Let's say males and females are both given modifiers or differing abilities to reflect reality. It's very possible that those modifiers could still be sexist (depending on what they are). Here's a fine example: previously in this thread someone mentioned (by way of recollection) having read Len Lakofka's suggested fix that turned female characters' Charisma into attractiveness, gave them the ability to charm men and humanoid monsters, and provided a table of the attractiveness required for females of a given race to seduce male members of different races.

[SBLOCK=Found the table & seduction save rules]
[/SBLOCK]

That's obviously sexist even if it tries to compensate female PCs for their strength cap.

 

[Shasarak]

That's obviously sexist even if it tries to compensate female PCs for their strength cap.

So...one of the Womans Race choices is Woman. I presume that should have been Human?

 

[MechaPilot]

So...one of the Womans Race choices is Woman. I presume that should have been Human?

I would assume so. Likewise, there is a male race entry called "Men." I assume he used that for male humans.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Let's say males and females are both given modifiers or differing abilities to reflect reality. It's very possible that those modifiers could still be sexist (depending on what they are).

Real-life women do not get any obvious special ability which would be relevant in a fantasy adventure to compensate them for lower size and strength. They do get all kinds of features that are not relevant in a fantasy adventure but very relevant in real life -- that is, after all, why there's a difference in the first place. But any fantasy-adventure modifier or ability given especially to women is going to be, on the face of it, fictitious. Now, it can be fictitious and reinforce an existing stereotype, like these seduction rules. But that, as you say, is obviously sexist. And if it's fictitious but does not reinforce an existing stereotype, like, I dunno, fire resistance or something, it just feels random and weird, and is possibly still sexism-adjacent for making the difference between men and women seem bigger than it is. But I have hit upon one fictitious modifier that can perfectly compensate female PCs for having a Strength cap lower than 20:

Raising their Strength cap to 20.

Hey, if we're gonna make something up, it might as well be equality.

 

[MechaPilot]

Real-life women do not get any obvious special ability which would be relevant in a fantasy adventure to compensate them for lower size and strength. They do get all kinds of features that are not relevant in a fantasy adventure but very relevant in real life -- that is, after all, why there's a difference in the first place. But any fantasy-adventure modifier or ability given especially to women is going to be, on the face of it, fictitious.

If by "fantasy-adventure" you mean the stereotypical D&D adventure that relies heavily on dungeon-crawling murder-hobo-ism with no, or next to no, social encounters, I agree.

Now, it can be fictitious and reinforce an existing stereotype, like these seduction rules. But that, as you say, is obviously sexist.

On one hand I'm thankful it wasn't even worse. Afterall, Len could have suggested giving us a monthly rage ability with a % chance of resulting in a crying fit instead of a rage.

On the other, Len's seduction idea was fairly awful. The rules for the seduction ability indicate the female PC is as a matter of fact going to have sex with the target (see the use of the terms "laid" and the cleric "remaining celibate"). Given that one of the abilities was to seduce humanoid monsters, that ability is little more than fetish fulfillment for those who fantasize about female characters being bedded by the likes of ogres, bugbears, etc.

But I have hit upon one fictitious modifier that can perfectly compensate female PCs for having a Strength cap lower than 20:

Raising their Strength cap to 20.

Hey, if we're gonna make something up, it might as well be equality.

I agree. Equality is the easiest answer here.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta admit, I've never quite understood why the need for the caps.

It's not like the game is granular enough to explain the gaps. What's the point really? It's not like the gap in physical strength is that huge, without some serious mitigating factors (drug use, or perhaps training from childhood, I'm thinking something like a Sumo wrestler here).

I mean, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would we cap female humans, but, not elves? I mean, an elf is half the size of a human - at least by mass. Never minding small races like gnomes and halflings. Or, flip it the other way. A half-orc, on average, weighs in at 217 pounds. An average human clocks in at 165 pounds. Why is our 1/2 orc only getting a +2 Str modifier? Note, our Dragonborn clocks in at 238 pounds and is only +2 as well. Why aren't all humans capped at much weaker than either of those two races? I mean, when you're giving up SEVENTY pounds on someone, you're a HECK of a lot less strong.

The MAX size for a human in 5e is 190 pounds. That's it. The biggest human you can have, by the rules, isn't even in the Heavyweight boxing class. But, there's no cap on human strength? Seriously?

This is a deep dark rabbit hole that you start jumping down if you want to start applying science to D&D.

------------

I think part of the issue here is that people forget just how much bigger people have gotten in the last couple of generations. Let's not forget, once upon a time, this guy was Mr. Universe:

((That's Sean Connery for those who didn't know))

Or, take a look at Conan. Before the Boris Vajello images of Conan, this was a picture of a seriously strong guy:

(circa 1954 Tales of Conan Cover)

It's only been in the last couple of generations that we see the Schwarzenegger sized guys. Even in the genre art back then, humans just weren't that big.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If by "fantasy-adventure" you mean the stereotypical D&D adventure that relies heavily on dungeon-crawling murder-hobo-ism with no, or next to no, social encounters, I agree.

I'm including social encounters, but excluding any advantages or disadvantages in social encounters that may come from cultural gender norms, which can of course be profound but are particular to a given culture and thus can't readily be generalized to the core game's rules for gender. Think of it this way: proponents of the Strength cap saying it shakes their suspension of disbelief to see women perform the same feats of strength as the strongest men. And yeah, there's an element of realism to that complaint. But is there any feat of socialization that it would shake our suspension of disbelief to see a man perform, anything that would make us say, "No way, only a woman could do that!"? Because that's the level of difference we're looking for if we're looking for something equivalent to a Strength cap. And it's just not there.

Afterall, Len could have suggested giving us a monthly rage ability with a % chance of resulting in a crying fit instead of a rage.

Yeah, but how many DMs keep track of the campaign's calendar, anyway?

 

[Lanefan]

The MAX size for a human in 5e is 190 pounds. That's it. The biggest human you can have, by the rules, isn't even in the Heavyweight boxing class.

That sounds like yet another hole in the 5e rules.

Easy to fix, mind you; but come on - something like this should have been got right to begin with. Even in medieval times some people were robust or portly and still athletically fit.

All it needs is a bell curve for those who want to roll (say, 100 + 10d12*) and a range near the center of that bell curve within which you can just choose if you like (say, 140-180*). If the range of 110-220 still isn't wide enough you could always add a rider by afterwards rolling a d20 then flipping a coin whether to add or subtract this from your original roll (thus giving a range of 91-240, a bit wider).

* - this would be for human males; females do tend to be a bit lighter on average so maybe make all the constants 20 less for simplicity (thus 80 + 10d12 or a chooseable range of 120-160).

This is a deep dark rabbit hole that you start jumping down if you want to start applying science to D&D.

Maybe, but we can at least wave at it as it goes by.

Lan-"you can get much more complicated by throwing height, strength and constitution in as factors affecting weight - if you really want to"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

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).

It's not sexist unless it is specifically intended to target female players in a negative manner. An effort, even one that is poor, that is merely intended to model life, is not one that is intended to target female players negatively. Especially when it is one that affects both men and women and not women alone.