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

[MechaPilot]

You do realize that you just very literally argued that women are inferior to men in real life, right? That's the only way that a penalty in game could be sexist due to inferiority.

Not really.

The only gender penalties that were ever officially part of the game and then removed, and thus fodder for some people missing them, were female specific. If only the female characters have a penalty applied to them, and no benefit to compensate for the penalty, then by definition the female PCs are inferior.

If females had benefits and weaknesses that roughly canceled out, that would be different. It would however still feel weird and off-putting to me because leaving the males with no modifications would enshrine maleness as the default, with femaleness being some "other" factor to be accounted for.

Also, naturally, if both genders had modifications that reflected their respective strengths and weaknesses, then that would be different (even if I think it's not worth modeling in a game about dragon- and demon-slaying heroes & heroines).

 

[Obryn]

Not really.

The only gender penalties that were ever officially part of the game and then removed, and thus fodder for some people missing them, were female specific. If only the female characters have a penalty applied to them, and no benefit to compensate for the penalty, then by definition the female PCs are inferior.

Yep; Strength is the only line on the table which is different for men and women, and it is lower for women across the board. (Although in some cases, only lower in the exceptional strength categories.)

Again though - this is one edition in 40+ years which included this.

 

[Maxperson]

Never mind

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. Given the current imbalance between males and females in this game, I'd like to know how all of you who are so against inferiority of sexes corrected that imbalance. Currently, females can have all the same stats, be the same classes, have all the same racial abilities, and use the same items as males, yet only female PCs can have babies and produce milk. That blatantly sexist imbalance makes males in D&D inferior.

What did you do to fix that sexist imbalance? I suggest +2 to strength for males or -2 for females, but I'm open to ideas on how to correct this issue.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, perhaps I have misunderstood.

You're not ok with:
Male PCs: no stat change
Female PCs: -1 STR, +1 CON

You're ok with:
Male PCs: -1 CON +1 STR
Female PCs: -1 STR +1 CON

And to throw in another wrench:

Are we talking just about game-world Humans here, or game-world anythings?

I ask because there's space within the non-Human core races to have all kinds of fun with this sort of thing and other gender-by-race stuff.

Elves - oftentimes you can't tell their genders apart anyway and the stats reflect this: no changes due to gender.
Dwarves - no stat changes but male Dwarves outnumber female Dwarves about 2-1 thus adventuring Dwarven females are extremely rare
Gnomes - the exact reverse of Dwarves; females outnumber males about 2-1 and are also slightly larger on average
Hobbitses - unlike Elves, it's easy to tell a male Hobbit from a female, but their stats etc. are the same
Orcs - I have these actually change gender on an irregular basis in my game; the only time any particular Orc's gender is guaranteed to be anything is that in the few days around giving birth it will always be female (and yes, during pregnancy it can in all other respects be male for a while - they're something of a biological freak show)
Dragons - those huge ancient beasts lining the covers of so many fantasy and RPG books - with the notable exception of Smaug they're all female. The males are the much smaller ones left guarding the lair.

Lanefan

 

[Caliban]

Okay. Given the current imbalance between males and females in this game, I'd like to know how all of you who are so against inferiority of sexes corrected that imbalance. Currently, females can have all the same stats, be the same classes, have all the same racial abilities, and use the same items as males, yet only female PCs can have babies and produce milk. That blatantly sexist imbalance makes males in D&D inferior.

What did you do to fix that sexist imbalance? I suggest +2 to strength for males or -2 for females, but I'm open to ideas on how to correct this issue.

No, that's just stupid. You are using crunch to balance fluff, and that never works.

The balancing factor for that particular ability is already in place. Females need males in order to have babies, otherwise the baby making ability simply doesn't function.

And on top of that, females shed their uterine lining once a month - an inconvenience males simply don't experience.

Besides, a female PC has to take several months off of adventuring in order to produce a healthy baby, which means a considerable loss of XP and income.

But seriously - what the hell man?

 

[guachi]

Here is why:
1) It treats the genders equally by giving each a penalty and a bonus.
2) It doesn't enshrine maleness as the default by forcing all of the modifiers (regardless of there being a mix of bonuses and penalties) on the females.

Since humans get +1 to every stat your complaints don't actually apply. No humans would actually get a penalty.

In addition, if you are giving women a constitution bonus over men equal to the strength bonus of men over women you'd have to actually show that the differences in constitution (however you define it) is equal to the difference in strength (however you define it).

I've shown that grip strength, a good proxy for over all muscular ability, is hugely different between men and women. 90% of women are weaker than 95% of men. The strongest woman is equal to an average man. Do you have any evidence that 90% of men have a worse constitution (however defined) than 95% of men?

 

[MechaPilot]

Since humans get +1 to every stat your complaints don't actually apply. No humans would actually get a penalty.

Humans don't always get a +1 to every stat.

Also, humans aren't the only race with males and females.

Further, having your racial bonus to a stat negated by a gender penalty to a stat is still a penalty (because it takes away what you otherwise would have if gender were not a factor), even if the net effect of a racial modifier and a gender modifier = +0.

Sounds pretty darn applicable to me.

 

[guachi]

In addition, if you are giving women a constitution bonus over men equal to the strength bonus of men over women you'd have to actually show that the differences in constitution (however you define it) is equal to the difference in strength (however you define it)

I'll partially answer my own question. The game gives endurance as an example of an ability check that might be Athletics (Constitution) rather than Athletics (Strength). A quick search shows that as distances (and therefore times) increase women greatly close the gap with men or even beat men. The data was inconclusive. This says to me that, at least on this measure of Constitution, men and women are equal and that there is no justification for giving women a Constitution modifier two higher than men.

 

[Sadras]

Orcs - I have these actually change gender on an irregular basis in my game; the only time any particular Orc's gender is guaranteed to be anything is that in the few days around giving birth it will always be female (and yes, during pregnancy it can in all other respects be male for a while - they're something of a biological freak show)

I like a variant of this idea. Where the babies are all born one one sex (say female) and only after a few weeks do they develop in males or permanent females. SF elements creeping in, I like