D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Stormonu]

Personally I like a mixture of demihumans in the MM. I like having evil bandits, but also you need merchants and pilgrims to give a broad range of encounter types. And some things, like snooty Elven aristocrats, just work

The more stat blocks the better.

But I would have even settled for a table with traits to apply to the basic NPCs to give them a bit of customization/flair.

What they have currently goes back to the days of 1E where you'd get like "in large groups they are led by a 4th level warrior and have a 20% chance of a shaman of up to 5th level" genericness, which I don't think is a feature.

 

[Scribe]

So let's be realistic. Give men a small penalty to certain saving throws and ability checks. Nothing big. Just something that that amounts to a -2 or so on some rolls based on the fact that they decided their character didn't have a vagina. It uses real-world facts, so it's fair, right? If they don't want that penalty, they just have to play a woman.

Sure.

I'm not sure flexibility is the end all be all of Dexterity, but I also don't watch a lot of Gymnastics.

If you wanted to provide a bunch of sex based caps on either side, and species level ones, all of which are logical?

Go nuts.

 

[ezo]

Why do we need this cap when it's a fantasy game, and maybe my female character has a giant in her bloodline, or was blessed by faeries at birth, and can thus carry as much as a man?

Why do we need this cap when there's going to be at most four to six women in a party, and of them maybe only one or two are going to rely on Strength, and the GM controls every single male NPC in the world and can make them as strong as they want them to be?

But OK, sure, it's "realistic" to assume that women aren't as physically strong as men. Sure. I recall a letter in an old Dragon Magazine from the 1e days--maybe in the letter column, maybe in the forum, can't remember--that went along the lines of: Women are healthier, hardier, can handle disease better, can give birth, and live longer, so men should have a cap on Constitution. Women are more flexible than men, so men should have a cap on Dexterity. Women are better at problem solving and paying attention to small details, and everyone knows men do some really dumb stuff, so men should have a cap on Intelligence and Wisdom. And, of course, women are just prettier than men, so men should have a cap on Charisma.

Some of the above is actually quite true. I can provide links, if you like.

So let's be realistic. Give men a small penalty to certain saving throws and ability checks. Nothing big. Just something that that amounts to a -2 or so on some rolls based on the fact that they decided their character didn't have a vagina. It uses real-world facts, so it's fair, right? If they don't want that penalty, they just have to play a woman.

Somehow, if the game tried to be "realistic" by limiting men in this way, there would be an uproar, no matter how "realistic" it is. Somehow "realism" is only OK if it supports your (generic your) bigoted beliefs.

Given your tone, this isn't something that will lead to any further useful conversation. You asked, I answered. I could counter just about every point you make with one of my own, but that will not accomplish anything.

5E ability scores are too broad (and how they are used) to cap them based on male or female, which is why I specified I would do weight carried cap. I've made house-rules for women having a 0.7 weight-limit multipier (IIRC) while gaining advantage on saves vs. disease and to resist pain. I've run drow campaigns where the weight numbers were reversed due to females being physically stronger than males.

My point is this would be optional material for people who want to run their games with such considerations, the entire "sidebar" (or variant or appendix or whatever) route. IMO it is better than pretending such difference don't exist, but that is just my preference.

 

[abirdcall]

It was a problem then, for me. It's more of a problem now, for me, because we've extended the number of creatures excluded from the MM, and very inconsistently so, at that. To me, it is very weird that you can't find an elf or an orc in the MM.

Not sure why you ask what I am removing? I'm not seeing this as a zero sum situation. I like the generic stat blocks, and I would also like to see a few bespoke entries for every playable species. Why do goblins and lizard folk get them, but not humans and orcs? Seems arbitrary.

I think you are making some assumptions about my position.

I think the underlying problem is the alignment system. It just creates havoc and now is leading to some weird publishing choices. Don't assume any sentient being has to be a particular way, let story drive everything, and problem solved.

There are limited pages.

If you are adding in pages you need to take some out.

 

[Dire Bare]

Why do we need this cap when it's a fantasy game, and maybe my female character has a giant in her bloodline, or was blessed by faeries at birth, and can thus carry as much as a man?

Why do we need this cap when there's going to be at most four to six women in a party, and of them maybe only one or two are going to rely on Strength, and the GM controls every single male NPC in the world and can make them as strong as they want them to be?

But OK, sure, it's "realistic" to assume that women aren't as physically strong as men. Sure. I recall a letter in an old Dragon Magazine from the 1e days--maybe in the letter column, maybe in the forum, can't remember--that went along the lines of: Women are healthier, hardier, can handle disease better, can give birth, and live longer, so men should have a cap on Constitution. Women are more flexible than men, so men should have a cap on Dexterity. Women are better at problem solving and paying attention to small details, and everyone knows men do some really dumb stuff, so men should have a cap on Intelligence and Wisdom. And, of course, women are just prettier than men, so men should have a cap on Charisma.

Some of the above is actually quite true. I can provide links, if you like.

So let's be realistic. Give men a small penalty to certain saving throws and ability checks. Nothing big. Just something that that amounts to a -2 or so on some rolls based on the fact that they decided their character didn't have a vagina. It uses real-world facts, so it's fair, right? If they don't want that penalty, they just have to play a woman.

Somehow, if the game tried to be "realistic" by limiting men in this way, there would be an uproar, no matter how "realistic" it is. Somehow "realism" is only OK if it supports your (generic your) bigoted beliefs.

Love it! If we cap Str for women, we also have to cap Wis, Con, and Dex for men.

The stereotypical differences between men and women are just that, largely stereotypical. The differences that do exist are mostly cultural, rather than biological.

On average, men do tend to be stronger than women, but not by much. Representing this with a Strength cap in D&D is really stupid. As we have PLENTY of examples in the real world of men who aren't that strong and women who are. Anyone who regularly watches women's athletics and feels putting an arbitrary cap on their abilities in an abstract game . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

Given your tone, this isn't something that will lead to any further useful conversation. You asked, I answered. I could counter just about every point you make with one of my own, but that will not accomplish anything.

5E ability scores are too broad (and how they are used) to cap them based on male or female, which is why I specified I would do weight carried cap. I've made house-rules for women having a 0.7 weight-limit multipier (IIRC) while gaining advantage on saves vs. disease and to resist pain. I've run drow campaigns where the weight numbers were reversed due to females being physically stronger than males.

My point is this would be optional material for people who want to run their games with such considerations, the entire "sidebar" (or variant or appendix or whatever) route. IMO it is better than pretending such difference don't exist, but that is just my preference.

Their tone?

I think your tone speaks volumes in this thread. Ick.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok, since we've now hit the rationale for gender based ability differences (thankfully skipping the halfling vs goliaths and going straight to women aren't as strong as men) there is only one last rail to touch. So I'll say it.

Bring back Thac0 you cowards!

 

[Phaezen]

Ok, since we've now hit the rationale for gender based ability differences (thankfully skipping the halfling vs goliaths and going straight to women aren't as strong as men) there is only one last rail to touch. So I'll say it.

Bring back Thac0 you cowards!

Bring back hiding racial, class and monster abilities in the middle of paragraphs of text

 

[Scribe]

Ok, since we've now hit the rationale for gender based ability differences (thankfully skipping the halfling vs goliaths and going straight to women aren't as strong as men) there is only one last rail to touch. So I'll say it.

Bring back Thac0 you cowards!

I was THIS close to calling out Halflings being capped at 14 or so Str....

 

[Parmandur]

You mean you missed the "both sides"-ing of gender-based Strength caps, somehow, still, in the year of someone's lord 2025? You must have incredible foresight. Or little patience.

...is there a correlation there?

I ha e the foresight to know that I have little patience.