Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5564845" data-attributes="member: 22779">Fair enough.For me, if I'm going to make the nod to "realism" then I would go this way.  Ignore gender entirely, because there's an easier way.Link damage bonuses to body mass.  IIRC, Villains and Vigillantes did so with a calculation that went something like this:  (weight/10+Str)/x (and I have no idea what the x was, I'm basing this off a REALLY old memory).  For D&D, I'd do the same thing.  Damage bonus=(weight/10+Str Mod)/6, round down.There, now you have realistic damage bonuses (sort of) based on the size of the character without having to mess about trying to justify why the 300 pound orc with a 18 strength does the EXACT same damage as the 110 pound elf, just because the elf has the same strength bonus.And, you don't really need to mess about with skills.  Sure, it might be a bit unrealistic that the female character can jump as far as the male character, but, skill points and the die roll are likely going to have a bigger impact than base strength.  Female characters are no longer getting shafted out of attack bonus because of a Str penalty - which doesn't really make a lick of sense other wise.  Sure, Conan is stronger than Red Sonja, but, is he really more accurate?Trying to tie this to gender is a wrong approach in my mind.</blockquote>