Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5557391" data-attributes="member: 59506">First of all, if you'd read my entire post, I wanted to cap Female Human Strength at 21.  There is no edition of D&D, that by RAW allows the rolling up of a Human character with 21 Strength at 1st Level.  None.  And personally, short of Magical enhancement, I've never seen a built-up character with a higher than 21 Strength...Ever.  Again: different tables, different experiences.  There is no "One" D&D experience.  Secondly, I also don't believe that limiting Strength scores to a mortal 23 and 21 respectively, is "negatively" impacting anything.  It is however, defining the limits of my campaign world in a realistic manner.  Is it necessary to be that way for every campaign?  Of course not.  Should it be a part of the official rules?  IMO, No.  Does it destroy the "Fun" of the game?  For me and my group: No.  If it does for you then don't use it. But I'm getting damn tired of people in this thread describing those who want to use such a mechanic, as Sexist.  I believe everybody here is quite aware of the rules of this Forum and the ettiquette expected here.  I think it's high time for people in this thread to start exercising some self control as concerns this. In the entire history of the world, there has never been a recorded instance of any woman being able to execute a feat of strength greater than what's allowed by a D&D Strength of 21.  Likewise for men and a Strength of 23.  Wanting to run a game where this makes a difference, pointing out that difference, and establishing a mechanic to model that, is not sexist.  It may not be a mechanical philosophy you like, or a type of game you want to play (i.e. attempting realism), but it's not sexist, and I'd appreciate it if you and everybody else who's so casually throwing that about will stop and take a good look at their own motives and actions.  A Cap is different than a Penalty, and you know it.  For example: a player wants to make a Female Human.  They roll an 18 Strength.  With a -2 penalty, they now start the game with a 16.  Yeah, that sucks.  With a 21 Cap, they still start the game with an 18 - exactly the same as the Human Male 1st level character that rolled an 18.  It's just that in a game with Caps, all Human characters (both Male and Female) cannot surpass a Strength that is not mortally possible.  It's a significant difference. Now, your example of what the results of the penalty in 1E meant would have been far more interesting if I cared one whit about 1E - especially as I made it quite clear in my post I'm talking about 3E.  This means a maximum Strength bonus of +5 and +6 respectively - both of which are serious bonuses in both 3E and 4E.  A character with a +5 Strength bonus is far from anemic or weak.  Nice try, but comparing apples and oranges isn't going to score you any points with me.  I'm not making anyone a "second class" player.  And again, I'd appreciate it if you'd remember the rules and ettiquette of this forum and exercise some self control. Also again, if you had read my entire post, I pointed out how I've taken the concept from 4E, of being able to use Strength or Dexterity for Attack Bonus (players choice at character creation).  If you're only argument is that a Female character can't be as mechanically effective as a Male character because of a Cap, then you're simply flat out wrong.  In my houserules and in 4E, with the application of a Cap, all characters would still have the exact same attack and damage bonus potential.  Let me say that again: the EXACT same attack and damage bonus potential.  If a player wants a Female character that has the exact same mechanical combat bonuses as a Male character, then all they need to do is make a Dexterity based character.  Easy Peasy.  All the Cap does is limit maximum lifting capability to real world limits.  Period.  No character, whether male or female, is mechanically limited in their potential efficiency or penalized in combat.  Saying otherwise just isn't true.  D&D is not only a fantasy game.  It can be full blown fantasy, but it can also be gritty realism, and everything in between.  Whatever you want it to be at your table, it can be.  There is no wrong way to play D&D.  If you're using this as logic and support for why you can't have a mechanical difference between sexes, you should try again. Since the statement isn't correct, any conclusions based off it are also incorrect. But, back to D&D not being only a Fantasy game: I'm pretty sure you know this already.  I'm pretty sure I've seen you saying similar things yourself in other threads where someone tried to say that D&D was a specific thing, and any thing outside of that is just bad/wrong/fun.  Why are you now saying the very thing you've argued against in other threads?  Perhaps you should take a look at your motives in this discussion if you're willing to purposely say something you don't agree with, just to validate another position you feel strongly about...    Done and Done. I've read through this thread, and realised that a flat penalty just doesn't accomplish what I was looking for.  A Cap does.  As to affecting gameplay, I've asked the Female gamers in my group (that also exclusively play Female characters) what they thought about this, and they have no problem with a Cap.  Therefore, no negative results.  As with anything, YMMV.  You're more right than you knew (read above)...except that it was two sentences...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification