A story from one of my campaigns:
> Wakes up
> Kills 17 bandits in 36 seconds
> Refuses to elaborate further
> Goes back to sleep
We held a real nice chokepoint (A village gate) and the DM realized to his horror that the bandits could not hit my character unless they rolled a crit, because I was a UA Warforged.
Sorcs can elaborate too, but usually it's something like "well, I just felt like it. You wanna argue? Well, I have some Spellslots left, if you really want to make a fuzz 😏"
I mean it's definitely something when you remember most events in combat in game happen nearly instantly after each other because combat is yeah very hectic
Jesus, you’d need someone to either get Power Word Killed or get absolutely blasted in the first round to die and get revived in that time.
Sounds like a balance issue to me
30 seconds is 5 rounds of combat which is about average for probably most 5e groups.
Not every death is going to be Knocked down > 3 separate failed death saves > Dead
A lot will either be death effects or enemies attacking downed players. And if the party can revive them without too much issue, it's not a balance issue at all
Depending on the number of people at the table, the curve of how often people go down changes a lot. Fighting a 6 person crew the DM should be outnumbering them, and if the enemies are particularly intelligent they just gang up on someone squishy and knock them out in a round or two. It's not necessarily a balance issue if people go down frequently.
I guess I should expand on my previous comment, then. I used to play with this guy, Brenden. Brenden would constantly end up dead.
“There is a pit of spikes, the distance is too far for you to jump across.” “I wanna jump!”
Ridiculous shit like that, constantly.
If you are at low health to begin with, then maybe you should stop the murderhobo bullshit and attempt another path. You know you don’t have to fight _everything_ you come across, right?
1. Literally no one was talking about murder hobo bs.
2. RaW athletics checks can be used to jump greater distances than your strength allows (though it does not specify how much farther).
3. If you think you can just opt out of any combat until you are full hp as your previous comment suggests then your DM is terrible.
4. This still just further convinces me your opinion is worthless as you seem to take offense to people not playing exactly the way you think they should.
Summary: Quit while you're ahead as your foot is currently so far in your mouth I can't see your ankle.
On 2, it was a 40 pit we opened up. It was clear he couldn’t make the jump. The DM told him, it doesn’t matter if you got a 20, you can’t make the jump. He jumped anyways.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to be downed, but if it’s a death and revive then you need to be at least level 5, and at that level you are seriously doing something wrong if you dying in 5 rounds of combat.
0hp does not mean death
ETA: and combat is always avoidable, unless your DM is terrible. If you DM forces you to have combat be the only option, that’s a terrible DM
Nice job devouring the rest of your leg, but the real surprise was when you got the whole ass in there, but I guess it explains how so much crap can come out of your mouth.
I don't care how you play dnd, I don't care about how you think dnd should be played, I will not tell you how to play dnd. The only point I will make is that you should also not tell people things such as ALL combats are avoidable. They are not. Maybe they are at your table but you truly are naive if you think everyone plays like you.
Players have choice and players have agency. Sure, some combat is more difficult to avoid than others, but there is always a way to avoid it.
You can just avoid the obvious ambush, you can talk to other folks to find an alternate route, you can just not do that particular quest that says “go do the combat,” or you can prepare an escape to avoid it. There is always a choice, that’s how TTRPGs work. Your lack of imagination or planning does not mean there is a lack of choice.
I understand that D&D was built on war gaming bones, so mechanically it doesn’t really offer you the incentive to choose other options. But combat doesn’t always need to happen, and when initiative rolls [it doesn’t mean you have to always fight](https://youtu.be/zgoWMFOfLMU?si=5gGEEgQwyyMUC9JM)
That happened with my group. Two session long fight against a superpowered lich, his 3 separate hordes of undead, and their 4 additional helper npcs, was only 4 rounds of combat, so about 24 seconds. They looked like I was lying to them.
"A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventures and monsters are a cut above average in most abilities"
In other words, adventures are just better than the average dude
There is a more accurate explanation, simply, think of the average human in ancient times, from the age of ancient greece, through rome and all the way to the medieval ages.
It was survival of the fittest, only the strong survived, the result is having a stronger average human, think how long the footman, lowest class of soldiers, had to marsh on foot while carrying all of his camp and battle supplies on his back, live in shitty living conditions, any one of us living in these conditions would've died of disease in a week, and he had to fight a battle after all of that.
Nowdays advancements in medicine allow weak humans to survive and reproduce reducing the average strength of humans lower and lower every generation.
So, an advise to all pro-realism DMs out there, compare to old times, not current times.
> think how long the footman, lowest class of soldiers, had to marsh on foot while carrying all of his camp and battle supplies on his back, live in shitty living conditions, any one of us living in these conditions would've died of disease in a week, and he had to fight a battle after all of that.
???
1) Modern soldiers have heavier kit than even platemailed knights back then.
2) Nutrition and lack of crippling diseases (especially from vaccines) is so much better now that humans are identifiably larger or smaller based on generations in developing countries.
> Nowdays advancements in medicine allow weak humans to survive and reproduce reducing the average strength of humans lower and lower every generation.
The average human is definitely far, far healthier now than they were even 100 years ago, let alone 1000. Yes, there are chronically ill people who would have died but survive now - that doesn't mean the average person is "weaker" now. The average person from 2024 would be a friggin' superhuman in 1024, even with the west's issue with excessively sedentary lifestyles.
Don't forget that all of those genetic diseases *existed back then, too.* Someone with Celiac's in 1200 AD France isn't going to die from it, they're just going to be horrifically malnourished and underweight from effectively starving all the time. Someone gets a bad back injury, welp, that's it they're not going to be able to work the fields any more due to a lack of physiotherapy and now they're going to be lame (as in the archaic meaning) and doing menial inside work, getting weaker and frail all the while. So on and so forth.
I think you're just biting into the glory of the past propaganda that conservative types like to throw around. You may want to reconsider your media sources.
But you are not going to compare the character to them. that's the point.
When you look back, you will compare the character to people who can survive in a healthy manner despite bad nutrition and medicine.
However, if you compare your character to someone with the same description now days they are considered average because advancement made it the norm, i am not saying people now are weaker, i am saying people now have easier time surviving. the minimum toughness and general health required to survive is less. but these advancements are not helping your character in-game. your character should reflect not only surviving without any help, but surviving **as an adventurer** without any help.
So you look at high score and then look at record breaking humans and think that your character should not be compared to these and should be compared to the average human who is barely surviving.
Which is stupid, Your in-game mechanics allow you to do stuff that puts you in Guinness World Records easily now days, but when it comes to something that is not mentioned in the rules which someone who can already be that incredible should do easily, it somehow breaks realism and needs to be compared with the average person.
“An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability.”
Even if someone believes a particular character is inherently less strong than others, the ability score doesn’t just look at raw strength (or intelligence, or charisma, …). It also looks at how well you can use what strength you have.
It’s more visible with higher weights. I can lift 150lbs with only moderate effort. My coworkers can lift almost double that with the same amount of effort.
When the us army came up with the acft, they tried to make a universal score for men and women and found out *real quick* that the weakest man and the strongest woman was not as significant an overlap as they expected.
They would have lost something around 70% of the active duty female soldiers if the original plan had gone through.
Usually just call . A period and , a comma. Commas are pauses and periods are full stop. But based on today’s society, no-one will ever know cause they don’t use punctuation at all.
I still have the voice of my former math / physics teachers in my head saying "2.5 what? Apples, Pears, Bananas...?" whenever someone left out the unit in their answer. Save to say it left a lasting impression on me.
Nah, *weird* is that in India they don't group by threes. 10,000,000,00.00 = 10 crore. THAT is a mindfuck (as a USian who has to read Indian newspapers daily.)
Also, there are areas of the world that are offset from regular timezones by 30 minutes? Some parts of India (as well as the island of Newfoundland) are 30 mins offset (in addition to however many hours). It's a trip.
I have had the displeasure of talking to someone who found it perfectly reasonable to suspend disbelief for magic and dragons, but to whom the concept of a woman being as strong as a man was absurd.
That's not how the game works. Either someone has both terrible intuition and senses, or they don't. Wisdom is mostly senses, so if someone has good senses then they're going to have good wisdom. Similar to how someone can be both good at aiming a bow, knitting, balancing on slippery ice, and reacting to stimuli, as these are all under dexterity.
Wisdom can also be seen as common sense vs intelligence's book smarts. A young person can be very book smart and lacking the common sense and intuition that comes from experience. Speaking from my personal experience.
Int and Wis are the only stats where people can tell you explicitly what they do and people will just be like
"Ignoring that! Int is only book smarts, Wis is common sense and experience and intuition and more, speaking as a very booksmarts high int no-common-sense man I can say that!"
So weird how all the booksmart people here never seem interested in reading the rules book which will tell you exactly what Int and Wis means and does.
Yeah right, and then people wonder why int is such a bad stat unless you're a wizard or artificer. It basically treats int as fun facts, and wis being able to do everything int could do, and more, through experience. If we're going off of real life, wisdom is a combination of experience and intelligence. You can't be wise without critical thinking, and knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence.
Dnd wisdom is more, in the moment vibes. You may not consciously know things, but you can sense when things feel wrong. However this isnt the same thing as street smarts, which still require a certain level of intelligence to know things. And experience is not, wisdom or intelligence. Its proficiency.
Common sense is also something that relies on critical thinking, a lot of what's called "common sense" isn't so common, a deer will stand infront of a moving car and be crushed. Despite deer having good wisdom (dnd definition), they lacked the common sense to get out of the way.
You jest but CoC does have stat penalties that come with playing older characters that are balanced chances for more skill improvements due to learning more over time. It’s fine to have a system that seeks to quantify things like that.
If they go down that route, shouldn't woman have a boost to constitution since they are said to have a higher pain tolerance? Try that question next time you meet someone like that. Use their logic against them.
If you actually mapped it out to have consistent bonuses and penalties across both sexes it could work out, so long as it isn’t just being used to dunk on one. This is how it is in games like Morrowind.
Women generally have a lower acute pain tolerance, so they'd do worse in a battle but better with like a broken bone. Men also tend to be more resistant to intoxicants like alcohol, as well as things like temperature, so overall men would still probably have the higher con
Aren't men physically more durable though? The whole, muscle and bone thing. I would think the more durable one, not the one with good pain tolerance would have the higher con
Either way, attributing ability scores to sex is best left back in the days of AD&D. I don't think people miss having only Human and Half Orc Women even able to reach 18 str
https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Gender
Going off of this page, in 1st edition and AD&D they had str caps lower then men and the only thing they get is Beauty instead of Charisma in 1st
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1cdggx3/short_explanation_adventurers_are_not_average/l1h35bu/?context=3) has been removed because your Comment Karma is very low. This action was automatically performed to prevent bot and troll attacks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, I was talking as Custodes, since Astartes *do* go through normal puberty (at least partially), but they have their own set of reasons why "women are weaker than men" is a dumb thing to say (stares at the Blood Angels).
Oh, I could've sworn it was the other way around. I thought space Marines get augmented as children which negates normal puberty, whereas the bananas are just heavily genetically augmented, so they just go thru a heavily augmented version of puberty.
I guess this mix-up just goes to show how much of a fake fan i am 😭
I don't even hear this argument being made in the Femstodes debate. It's because they've done a complete retcon and didn't even acknowledge that it was a retcon and they then started banning everyone and their mother for asking why, even the ones asking respectfully. It's the attitude of Games Workshop that has most people who are pissed, pissed. Only dipshits are arguing that the God Emperor of Man couldn't have made a female Custodes the equal of a male. Some may argue, correctly even, that making female super soldiers is less efficient from an economical perspective because you'd have to put more work into the process to figure out how for marginal returns, but I haven't heard the argument OP presented.
I've seen exactly this argument being made at least a dozen times just in the past week on Twitter. It's even more common when people discuss female Space Marines.
As for "it's because they've done a complete retcon and didn't even acknowledge that it was a retcon", bullshit. The "it has actually always been like this" excuse is so common for changes to 40k lore that you could probably fill a small novel with all of them. They have never cared about acknowledging retcons in the past, why should they care now?
I didn't know James was banning people for asking why they weren't acknowledging the retcon. It's a weird thing to bother trying to cover up, considering how many known retcons there are in 40k. But yeah no i don't believe you when you say you "haven't even heard" people spouting about muh sexual dimorphism in the genetically augmented supersoldier debate.
Even back in the earliest days women never had a strength penalty, they only ever had a lower strength cap (18/50 as opposed to 18/99 for men) and while 3d6 straight down was not so prevalent back then as some people seem to think, even using more the most generous roll methods at the time 98% of fighters would be identical regardless of gender.
Do men get a penalty to Wisdom then? Wisdom is your "don't do stupid things that get you killed" stat. And everyone knows guys are more likely to do stupid shit that gets them killed.
Politicians aren't stupid, they are smart enough to know that well-advertised stupid acts with strong narratives gets them tons of support from stupid people.
In my world Sexual dimorphism in humanoids doesn't affect body size. Some people are big, some are smol.
Although I do rule that if you have high strength thou shalt be cut.
I always ask my players for body dimensions and weight. And take them into account when determining the DC of a skill check. For example if your character has 20 strength and is the size of Shaw, the DC to push or move objects will be much easier than if you were avarage size.
HOWEVER if you were a chungus like Shaw the DC to climb a wall would be muuuuch higher.
And I include weight limits to certain structures.
Generally being big is always going to be an advantage for raw power.
But being small it gonna give you lots of unconventional advantages.
Hmm. I don't know if I'd do that as a DM (I mean, I don't, but even considering it I don't think I would.) I don't think most players would build their characters with that in mind, and I know I want players to build around their concept and not necessarily for optimization in those respects - and it also feels like it would be hard as a DM to remain consistent in application. But I'm glad it works for you, it's a cool idea.
Yes. A strength 18 female fighter joins the party because she wants a tall boyfriend is a legit backstory quest.
Backstory:
All her life she was the odd one out, no one in her village thinks she will ever marry, the men treat her like one of the boys and the women treat her like a freak of nature.
Sad, very sad.
There’s a great book on measuring humans called “the mismeasure of man”
In it, the author states that even if you were able to find differences between groups reliably and accurately, it still wouldn’t matter because the differences WITHIN groups are so large.
For example, a man may be stronger on average than a woman, but in a fight between a malnourished, scrawny, short man and a 6’ tall Amazonian woman bodybuilder, who do you think will win?
In other words, value the individual more than the group they belong to
Sure women can have a penalty to Str but men will take one to charisma, wisdom and intelligence. And then nonbinary people get extra charisma because obviously. Are we just doing variant human now?
Pardon the use of the wayback machine, but had to find an actually sensible Article to cite for this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210918010149/https://www.bostontheatrescene.com/Articles/she-kills-monsters/Gallery/Gygaxs-Game-Of-Life-Dungeons--Dragons--Probability/
Gygax was a biological determinist, believing men and women, and different races, were capable of, and limited to, different things. Citation for that explanation: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/how-a-new-generation-of-gamers-is-pushing-for-inclusivity-beyond-the-table
>Gygax was a biological determinist, believing men and women, and different races, were capable of, and limited to, different things.
So are 90% of normal human beings and so were most Americans at the bloody time, male and female. You speak as if biological determinism is a bloody conspiracy theory when it's a confirmed fact IRL and the opposite opinion is a fad unique to the English speaking world. Different "races" in D&D are literally different species. Imagine if gorillas learned to speak English and you were trying to claim that humans could be just as strong as a gorilla. A full grown gorilla can lift and throw a friggin Volkswagen with no weight training. Can you not see that that's absurd?
Gygax's opinion is specifically described as relating to human, IRL races. as in, he thought a particular race had specific limitations or advantages over other, human, races.
Don't be this guy.
The average genetic distance between the 5 major human ‘races’ is nearly double the average genetic distance of the various species of canids
That is to say, IRL human races *do* have specific limitations and/or advantages over each other. This is not disparaging to acknowledge, unless someone is specifically choosing to *make* it so; where some populations may excel in one area, they are biologically determined to lag in others
While biological determinism was widely discredited in the late 70s and 80s, as we’ve come to better understand the human genome we are coming full-circle to appreciating the differences in our various populations.
I suspect it will be another ~20yrs before we can have this conversation without fear of racial discrimination clouding the facts of genetic predisposition
You're making a lot of unsupported conclusions here. I'd like to see your sources, if you have any. Differences in genetic loci cannot be immediately attributed to the claims you have made. [This paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/) concludes that while you can generally determine what population a person is from if you have enough genetic data, "individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."
You didn’t read your own source, that much is evident. Not to mention it is nearly 20 years old, and relies on papers even older than itself for many of its assumptions. You also misunderstood the conclusion; individuals are frequently *about as different* from others in their own population as they are from those in other populations. Not *more similar to others than their own*.
Nonetheless, the authors in your own source assert that relying on multiple loci creates a nearly-always correct model for determining population; if we are all the same, this would not be even close to possible.
I’m not going to argue the matter on reddit about this, without question this is going to devolve into racist rhetoric one way or another and that’s not at all what my comment is about.
My comment is pointing out that there *are* significant *and measurable* differences between the various major populations of Homo sapiens, and through mapping the human genome we have gathered strong evidence to suggest that “race” and gender play a huge role in determining many (if not all) our traits — that is to say, our biology accounts for most (if not all) our traits.
We also suspect, on the basis of strong evidence, that the microbiome within our gut drives many *if not all* of our personality traits, such as how social we are or how conscientious we are. Something as minor and environmental as bacteria in the foods we eat can alter our personalities, and yet somehow that is less controversial to say than even suggesting “0.002% differences in genetic makeup among various populations of Homo sapiens are likely responsible for physical, mental, and emotional differences”.
This is not a formal debate, however if you wish to do actual research and then have a constructive conversation on the matter I’m more than happy to do so privately. It’s not important to me for us to agree, I wasted enough time pointlessly arguing in college to last me a lifetime
You misinterpret my comment. It's a direct quote from the paper that says exactly what you are saying in your first paragraph; I'm not sure why you have decided I did not understand the significance. It would be pointless to argue that humans are a monolith, but I would also like to see your sources, given that you appear to be making conclusions that do not have sufficient evidence to back them up. My point was always that measurable difference does not necessarily indicate significance.
The rest of your comment gets into the nature vs nurture discourse. The findings on microbiota are of course less controversial because historically nobody has used the microbiome as a method of discrimination. Genetic differences in populations have been the excuses for many horrible acts, hence why it's a much more sensitive topic. I'd also love to see your source on the microbiome driving personality traits, as it's an area of personal interest. I've seen the research on it driving things like physical health and mental state, but not personality.
I think you have interpreted me asking for sources as an attack or an argument. I ask for sources because I am interested in these topics, and enjoy reading more about them.
Yeah. It's the same argument as with racial ability scores. Sure, most Gnomes are less powerful than most Orcs, but any individual Gnome could be stronger than many individual Orcs. And you are not playing the average Gnome, you are playing a specific Gnome who can be very much equal in strength to orcs if you want them to be.
That maybe true for this world's humans, but my world is different. Not to mention it has so many different species it would make no sense for all of them to follow that rule.
D&D doesnt base stats on Biological Data, its a fantasy game, men and women can perform the same acts of strength, same as a medium and small creature are treated the same.
This: when people ask why my character is that lucky 1 in a million to have X happen and survive. My character isn’t average so of course he survived it, also I just enjoy this character setup
Funfakt: you are not the average, I am not the average, noone is the perfect average in everything.
-> there is no reason a woman can not be stronger than a man. No need for a penalty.
Tldr: there are legitimate edge cases which are however not relevant
Of course edge cases could apply, the strongest man is significantly stronger than the strongest woman, but we are talking about adventurers and not body builders whose only reason in life is to lift heavy weights.
Im my preferred system (TDE, DSA in german) this would mean: when reaching strength of 20 (which is absurdly high) I would think about capping it there for women. However at that point you look at costs that could get you so much more when invested into different skills. I never had a player have a stat above 20 (if at all, and that was one singular special case adventure one shot) so this really is an edge case.
One could argue that the "cost" for a woman to get the same strength as a men is higher due to hormonal differences. Hormonal differences that are present between men as well. Then it is a question of leveling desicion. However it is not like there is a human that a player chooses to get strong but a human in game gets strong because of need and genetics. So all strong PC get strong because of lucky genetics (not because a Player chooses that), any intelligent character as well -> a character with bad genetics wont be strong ever. If a player decides that the PC should get stronger ... seems like the genetics weren't that bad after all. And if a woman is very strong the only thing that this means is that it was unlikely to have such a person in a pool of people but again ... this is an individual PC and statistics dont mean anything about an individual ;-)
Edit: I dont really get why I am beeing downvoted. Could someone please explain this?
Adventurers are the according to the PHB above average and the best of the best, so any rules about average dont affect them. Also there are women on this World, who are stronger than men and that statista would still makes sense
Oh yeah I should have specified, that I just talked about how p&p characters in general should work. People homebrew a whole lot and if they don't think something is right, they will change that.
And since it is the case that the strongest men are significantly stronger than the strongest women it is in my Point of view important to acknowledge that thought and think about the implications.
Dnd specifically:
>above average and the best of the best, so any rules about average dont affect them.
That is a justification why adventurers are better than normal people.
The fact that the strongest men and the strongest women are not equally strong comes from statistics, that right. However
1. "Coming from statistics" and "any rules about average" are not equal in meaning and
2. There is a correlation between strength and gender (eg. Statistics) but this is not only a correlation but a causality.
Hence the discussion about the maximun strength is not about statistics but about the question if we want to acknowledge this fact by rules. And I came to the conclusion that it is legitimate to cap strength or something like that for females. But since that is such a rare edge case (after all, which adventurer actually only lifts weights the whole day and takes testosterone supplements?) that did not came up to me once, I don't think it is necessary to set a rule to something like that. But in case I play with a mixed gender group of top body building PCs I would think about doing something to reflect the real world situation.
Or I would not this is fantasy after all.
Yet I like overanalyzing such small problems as good as possible when they arise. Keeps the mind sharp and discussion skills up. To think about the points of the other side and then disproving them is one part of that.
66% agreed. But that part with the british cant be true, right? ;-)
Women can lift shit and I just laied out for you why the statisitcs of the real world are not relevant for p&p. I dont really get what you are arguing with me about.
I am not defending bad view. I am trying to look at the question of "strength difference in gender representation in p&p" and did my best to answer if there is a legitimate reason to use real world statistics of strenth distiribution to change how p&p Charakters should behave strength wise. And no there is no legitimate reason.
Not looking at the lrgitimate edge cases and evaluating wether or not they are relevant would leave something out dont you think?
I love my players' reactions when I tell them how in game long a fight was. "30 seconds?! People died and were revived during that!"
People forget that 1 min in combat is 10 rounds. It’s fun bringing that up
I like how in the Honor Among Thieves movie the fight scenes are actually choreographed so everyone does one action about every 6 seconds.
Without feeling like they're doing nothing for a few seconds. The fights were so damn good.
The movie was so damn good
Most of my dungeon masters tend to forget that💀
💀
A story from one of my campaigns: > Wakes up > Kills 17 bandits in 36 seconds > Refuses to elaborate further > Goes back to sleep We held a real nice chokepoint (A village gate) and the DM realized to his horror that the bandits could not hit my character unless they rolled a crit, because I was a UA Warforged.
Ukrainian warforged?
I fucking knew Zelensky was building they/them cyborg supersoldiers. I fucking knew it.
3000 warforged of zelensky
Oh no, r/noncredibledefense is leaking again.
We are everywhere!
hello biden, its zelensky. we need 3 billion devastation orbs to bomb donetsk children
53 6C 61 76 61 20 55 6B 72 61 69 6E 69 21
Two hundred thousand units are ready for deployment, with a million more well on the way.
Unearthed Arcana.
Thank you
Sorcerer: "Hold my mead" *fires a Fireball* *kills 17 bandits in less that 6 seconds* *is happy to elaborate further*
Elaborating is for wizards. You just put on sunglasses and slowwalk away from the explosion.
Sorcs can elaborate too, but usually it's something like "well, I just felt like it. You wanna argue? Well, I have some Spellslots left, if you really want to make a fuzz 😏"
Very good, but I prefer the Power Ranger Freeze Frame Pose ^^^TM
We had a fighter, paladin, warlock, and rogue. The only CC we had was the tentacle pit (Evard's Black Tentacles)
I mean it's definitely something when you remember most events in combat in game happen nearly instantly after each other because combat is yeah very hectic
Jesus, you’d need someone to either get Power Word Killed or get absolutely blasted in the first round to die and get revived in that time. Sounds like a balance issue to me
30 seconds is 5 rounds of combat which is about average for probably most 5e groups. Not every death is going to be Knocked down > 3 separate failed death saves > Dead A lot will either be death effects or enemies attacking downed players. And if the party can revive them without too much issue, it's not a balance issue at all
Depending on the number of people at the table, the curve of how often people go down changes a lot. Fighting a 6 person crew the DM should be outnumbering them, and if the enemies are particularly intelligent they just gang up on someone squishy and knock them out in a round or two. It's not necessarily a balance issue if people go down frequently.
Downed and Dead are very different statuses
Or just not be at full health when entering combat.
This
This
Ah, true. Always forget how dumb players can be
Every comment you've made here has helped paint a more vivid picture of why people should ignore your opinions.
I guess I should expand on my previous comment, then. I used to play with this guy, Brenden. Brenden would constantly end up dead. “There is a pit of spikes, the distance is too far for you to jump across.” “I wanna jump!” Ridiculous shit like that, constantly. If you are at low health to begin with, then maybe you should stop the murderhobo bullshit and attempt another path. You know you don’t have to fight _everything_ you come across, right?
1. Literally no one was talking about murder hobo bs. 2. RaW athletics checks can be used to jump greater distances than your strength allows (though it does not specify how much farther). 3. If you think you can just opt out of any combat until you are full hp as your previous comment suggests then your DM is terrible. 4. This still just further convinces me your opinion is worthless as you seem to take offense to people not playing exactly the way you think they should. Summary: Quit while you're ahead as your foot is currently so far in your mouth I can't see your ankle.
On 2, it was a 40 pit we opened up. It was clear he couldn’t make the jump. The DM told him, it doesn’t matter if you got a 20, you can’t make the jump. He jumped anyways. I’m not saying it’s impossible to be downed, but if it’s a death and revive then you need to be at least level 5, and at that level you are seriously doing something wrong if you dying in 5 rounds of combat. 0hp does not mean death ETA: and combat is always avoidable, unless your DM is terrible. If you DM forces you to have combat be the only option, that’s a terrible DM
Nice job devouring the rest of your leg, but the real surprise was when you got the whole ass in there, but I guess it explains how so much crap can come out of your mouth. I don't care how you play dnd, I don't care about how you think dnd should be played, I will not tell you how to play dnd. The only point I will make is that you should also not tell people things such as ALL combats are avoidable. They are not. Maybe they are at your table but you truly are naive if you think everyone plays like you.
Players have choice and players have agency. Sure, some combat is more difficult to avoid than others, but there is always a way to avoid it. You can just avoid the obvious ambush, you can talk to other folks to find an alternate route, you can just not do that particular quest that says “go do the combat,” or you can prepare an escape to avoid it. There is always a choice, that’s how TTRPGs work. Your lack of imagination or planning does not mean there is a lack of choice. I understand that D&D was built on war gaming bones, so mechanically it doesn’t really offer you the incentive to choose other options. But combat doesn’t always need to happen, and when initiative rolls [it doesn’t mean you have to always fight](https://youtu.be/zgoWMFOfLMU?si=5gGEEgQwyyMUC9JM)
That happened with my group. Two session long fight against a superpowered lich, his 3 separate hordes of undead, and their 4 additional helper npcs, was only 4 rounds of combat, so about 24 seconds. They looked like I was lying to them.
Elves are on average 100% less likely than humans to exist
Ehhhhh….. 99.9%
100% chance elves have existed according to the infinite monkey theory.
100% chance that this is a lie according to the infinite monkey theory.
100% chance that the infinite monkey theory was the Redditors we made along the way
That’s not how that works, but I appreciate the enthusiasm!!!
and what does page 173 say for the context of the joke?
"A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventures and monsters are a cut above average in most abilities" In other words, adventures are just better than the average dude
So kind of like that one kid in school who was good in track and got straight A's. Just built different.
Have you tried being born privileged? Sounds like a skill issue.
I was born plenty privileged. I'm just a professional fuck up thank you very much.
I'd recommend it. It's pretty great.
There is a more accurate explanation, simply, think of the average human in ancient times, from the age of ancient greece, through rome and all the way to the medieval ages. It was survival of the fittest, only the strong survived, the result is having a stronger average human, think how long the footman, lowest class of soldiers, had to marsh on foot while carrying all of his camp and battle supplies on his back, live in shitty living conditions, any one of us living in these conditions would've died of disease in a week, and he had to fight a battle after all of that. Nowdays advancements in medicine allow weak humans to survive and reproduce reducing the average strength of humans lower and lower every generation. So, an advise to all pro-realism DMs out there, compare to old times, not current times.
> think how long the footman, lowest class of soldiers, had to marsh on foot while carrying all of his camp and battle supplies on his back, live in shitty living conditions, any one of us living in these conditions would've died of disease in a week, and he had to fight a battle after all of that. ??? 1) Modern soldiers have heavier kit than even platemailed knights back then. 2) Nutrition and lack of crippling diseases (especially from vaccines) is so much better now that humans are identifiably larger or smaller based on generations in developing countries. > Nowdays advancements in medicine allow weak humans to survive and reproduce reducing the average strength of humans lower and lower every generation. The average human is definitely far, far healthier now than they were even 100 years ago, let alone 1000. Yes, there are chronically ill people who would have died but survive now - that doesn't mean the average person is "weaker" now. The average person from 2024 would be a friggin' superhuman in 1024, even with the west's issue with excessively sedentary lifestyles. Don't forget that all of those genetic diseases *existed back then, too.* Someone with Celiac's in 1200 AD France isn't going to die from it, they're just going to be horrifically malnourished and underweight from effectively starving all the time. Someone gets a bad back injury, welp, that's it they're not going to be able to work the fields any more due to a lack of physiotherapy and now they're going to be lame (as in the archaic meaning) and doing menial inside work, getting weaker and frail all the while. So on and so forth. I think you're just biting into the glory of the past propaganda that conservative types like to throw around. You may want to reconsider your media sources.
But you are not going to compare the character to them. that's the point. When you look back, you will compare the character to people who can survive in a healthy manner despite bad nutrition and medicine. However, if you compare your character to someone with the same description now days they are considered average because advancement made it the norm, i am not saying people now are weaker, i am saying people now have easier time surviving. the minimum toughness and general health required to survive is less. but these advancements are not helping your character in-game. your character should reflect not only surviving without any help, but surviving **as an adventurer** without any help. So you look at high score and then look at record breaking humans and think that your character should not be compared to these and should be compared to the average human who is barely surviving. Which is stupid, Your in-game mechanics allow you to do stuff that puts you in Guinness World Records easily now days, but when it comes to something that is not mentioned in the rules which someone who can already be that incredible should do easily, it somehow breaks realism and needs to be compared with the average person.
“An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability.” Even if someone believes a particular character is inherently less strong than others, the ability score doesn’t just look at raw strength (or intelligence, or charisma, …). It also looks at how well you can use what strength you have.
What does "2,5 less" mean? Assuming it's the same as 2.5, then 2.5 what's?
It's 2.5x
So of my wife can lift 30 kg im expect to Lift 75? Im not sure who this take would be sexist towards, lol
It’s more visible with higher weights. I can lift 150lbs with only moderate effort. My coworkers can lift almost double that with the same amount of effort. When the us army came up with the acft, they tried to make a universal score for men and women and found out *real quick* that the weakest man and the strongest woman was not as significant an overlap as they expected. They would have lost something around 70% of the active duty female soldiers if the original plan had gone through.
I think it's related to muscle mass.
So still wrong not for different reasons? https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81#
Yes
In some countries they use a comma instead of a full stop for decimals.
And some countries call a period a full stop! Although I guess it’s technically a decimal point, do you guys have a different term for it?
Usually just call . A period and , a comma. Commas are pauses and periods are full stop. But based on today’s society, no-one will ever know cause they don’t use punctuation at all.
Yeah, I've seen that. But the lack of any units or other identifying information made me not entirely sure.
I still have the voice of my former math / physics teachers in my head saying "2.5 what? Apples, Pears, Bananas...?" whenever someone left out the unit in their answer. Save to say it left a lasting impression on me.
And they use decimals instead of commas to group threes. So 100,000.5 would be 100.000,5 Weird.
I am from the U.S., but moved to Brazil 2 years ago. Numbers and dates fuck me over. US - MM/DD/YYYY - 1,000.1 Brazil - DD/MM/YYYY - 1.000,1
As a brazilian I can concead the numbers, but not the dates
Nah, *weird* is that in India they don't group by threes. 10,000,000,00.00 = 10 crore. THAT is a mindfuck (as a USian who has to read Indian newspapers daily.) Also, there are areas of the world that are offset from regular timezones by 30 minutes? Some parts of India (as well as the island of Newfoundland) are 30 mins offset (in addition to however many hours). It's a trip.
Weird? Personally, I‘m always confused with the English system, but neither is weird. They’re just different
I don't mean weird as an insult. What's weird to me can be normal to you and vice versa. It's all about perspective.
Ah yes, agreed.
Probably 2.5%
That would be an extremely small estimate. It's not even close to the average weight difference.
Okay
2.5x, so 250% or +150%.
Honestly if anyone tried to enforce that "women are weaker" thing at dnd i would not play with them lol
Has anyone genuinly argued that in this decade?
I have had the displeasure of talking to someone who found it perfectly reasonable to suspend disbelief for magic and dragons, but to whom the concept of a woman being as strong as a man was absurd.
Cool, then if they play as male, make them have a dex penalty. Because women have better hand control than we do.
Also if they play as someone under 25 (or their race equivalent in human years) give them a wisdom penalty because their brain isn't fully formed yet
*int dnd wisdom =/= real life wisdom. DnD wisdom is senses and intuition. A newborn dragon has more wisdom than an old adult commoner.
Under 25s have shit intuition, tho. Good senses, but no idea what to do with them. lol. So, maybe a -1.
That's not how the game works. Either someone has both terrible intuition and senses, or they don't. Wisdom is mostly senses, so if someone has good senses then they're going to have good wisdom. Similar to how someone can be both good at aiming a bow, knitting, balancing on slippery ice, and reacting to stimuli, as these are all under dexterity.
Thank you for illustrating my point. /ohohohoho!
Wisdom can also be seen as common sense vs intelligence's book smarts. A young person can be very book smart and lacking the common sense and intuition that comes from experience. Speaking from my personal experience.
Int and Wis are the only stats where people can tell you explicitly what they do and people will just be like "Ignoring that! Int is only book smarts, Wis is common sense and experience and intuition and more, speaking as a very booksmarts high int no-common-sense man I can say that!" So weird how all the booksmart people here never seem interested in reading the rules book which will tell you exactly what Int and Wis means and does.
Yeah right, and then people wonder why int is such a bad stat unless you're a wizard or artificer. It basically treats int as fun facts, and wis being able to do everything int could do, and more, through experience. If we're going off of real life, wisdom is a combination of experience and intelligence. You can't be wise without critical thinking, and knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence. Dnd wisdom is more, in the moment vibes. You may not consciously know things, but you can sense when things feel wrong. However this isnt the same thing as street smarts, which still require a certain level of intelligence to know things. And experience is not, wisdom or intelligence. Its proficiency. Common sense is also something that relies on critical thinking, a lot of what's called "common sense" isn't so common, a deer will stand infront of a moving car and be crushed. Despite deer having good wisdom (dnd definition), they lacked the common sense to get out of the way.
You jest but CoC does have stat penalties that come with playing older characters that are balanced chances for more skill improvements due to learning more over time. It’s fine to have a system that seeks to quantify things like that.
\*sleight of hand
If they go down that route, shouldn't woman have a boost to constitution since they are said to have a higher pain tolerance? Try that question next time you meet someone like that. Use their logic against them.
Female babies survive more than male babies too, and they live longer in old age. More water to the mill for higher CON
females get a bonus to lifespan checks.
Barbrarians be op
If you actually mapped it out to have consistent bonuses and penalties across both sexes it could work out, so long as it isn’t just being used to dunk on one. This is how it is in games like Morrowind.
Women generally have a lower acute pain tolerance, so they'd do worse in a battle but better with like a broken bone. Men also tend to be more resistant to intoxicants like alcohol, as well as things like temperature, so overall men would still probably have the higher con
Alcohol depends on body weight, which is already a separate stat. Or do 70kg men have better average tolerance than 70kg women?
Aren't men physically more durable though? The whole, muscle and bone thing. I would think the more durable one, not the one with good pain tolerance would have the higher con Either way, attributing ability scores to sex is best left back in the days of AD&D. I don't think people miss having only Human and Half Orc Women even able to reach 18 str
As I recall it used to be that male characters had a higher strength cap, and female characters had a higher dexterity cap.
https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Gender Going off of this page, in 1st edition and AD&D they had str caps lower then men and the only thing they get is Beauty instead of Charisma in 1st
It was a Charisma bonus actually, IIRC.
I knew it was something else, I went with Dex because I figured it would be the other physical stat.
Wtf
Make the first trap they step into a ballcrusher 3000 and now they too get the penalty due to lack of testosterone :D
Freakin neck beards, man. It’s sad.
That reminds me. I need to shave mine. It's getting a bit bushy.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1cdggx3/short_explanation_adventurers_are_not_average/l1h35bu/?context=3) has been removed because your Comment Karma is very low. This action was automatically performed to prevent bot and troll attacks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
(glances at current Warhammer 40k discourse) Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"Yes, tell me more about how the puberty these people don't even go through affects their physical strength relative to one another."
"when they then have a dozen artificial organs crudely stitched into their ribcage"
Oh, I was talking as Custodes, since Astartes *do* go through normal puberty (at least partially), but they have their own set of reasons why "women are weaker than men" is a dumb thing to say (stares at the Blood Angels).
Oh, I could've sworn it was the other way around. I thought space Marines get augmented as children which negates normal puberty, whereas the bananas are just heavily genetically augmented, so they just go thru a heavily augmented version of puberty. I guess this mix-up just goes to show how much of a fake fan i am 😭
I don't even hear this argument being made in the Femstodes debate. It's because they've done a complete retcon and didn't even acknowledge that it was a retcon and they then started banning everyone and their mother for asking why, even the ones asking respectfully. It's the attitude of Games Workshop that has most people who are pissed, pissed. Only dipshits are arguing that the God Emperor of Man couldn't have made a female Custodes the equal of a male. Some may argue, correctly even, that making female super soldiers is less efficient from an economical perspective because you'd have to put more work into the process to figure out how for marginal returns, but I haven't heard the argument OP presented.
I've seen exactly this argument being made at least a dozen times just in the past week on Twitter. It's even more common when people discuss female Space Marines. As for "it's because they've done a complete retcon and didn't even acknowledge that it was a retcon", bullshit. The "it has actually always been like this" excuse is so common for changes to 40k lore that you could probably fill a small novel with all of them. They have never cared about acknowledging retcons in the past, why should they care now?
I didn't know James was banning people for asking why they weren't acknowledging the retcon. It's a weird thing to bother trying to cover up, considering how many known retcons there are in 40k. But yeah no i don't believe you when you say you "haven't even heard" people spouting about muh sexual dimorphism in the genetically augmented supersoldier debate.
unfortunatly i've met some of them, somehow they still exist
Even back in the earliest days women never had a strength penalty, they only ever had a lower strength cap (18/50 as opposed to 18/99 for men) and while 3d6 straight down was not so prevalent back then as some people seem to think, even using more the most generous roll methods at the time 98% of fighters would be identical regardless of gender.
That makes more sense than a penalty.
Saw it on r/RPGhorrorStories a while back.
Yeah, very unfortunately grognards like this do exist.
Yes. Yeah they have. I’ve seen it within this month.
Incels exist, unfortunately
Yes, outside the context of D&D because it's true.
Do men get a penalty to Wisdom then? Wisdom is your "don't do stupid things that get you killed" stat. And everyone knows guys are more likely to do stupid shit that gets them killed.
They're adventurers. The penalty to wisdom is already factored in.
Men can and typically do overcome that flaw in their late 20s. The ones that don't tend to die or end up disabled.
False, politicians exist
Politicians aren't stupid, they are smart enough to know that well-advertised stupid acts with strong narratives gets them tons of support from stupid people.
In my world Sexual dimorphism in humanoids doesn't affect body size. Some people are big, some are smol. Although I do rule that if you have high strength thou shalt be cut. 
Brian Shaw would probably beg to differ. Basically any powerlifter really.
I always ask my players for body dimensions and weight. And take them into account when determining the DC of a skill check. For example if your character has 20 strength and is the size of Shaw, the DC to push or move objects will be much easier than if you were avarage size. HOWEVER if you were a chungus like Shaw the DC to climb a wall would be muuuuch higher. And I include weight limits to certain structures. Generally being big is always going to be an advantage for raw power. But being small it gonna give you lots of unconventional advantages.
Hmm. I don't know if I'd do that as a DM (I mean, I don't, but even considering it I don't think I would.) I don't think most players would build their characters with that in mind, and I know I want players to build around their concept and not necessarily for optimization in those respects - and it also feels like it would be hard as a DM to remain consistent in application. But I'm glad it works for you, it's a cool idea.
Me showing bro that his meme makes no sense because he was too lazy to give it a once over before shitting it out 💀
Yes. A strength 18 female fighter joins the party because she wants a tall boyfriend is a legit backstory quest. Backstory: All her life she was the odd one out, no one in her village thinks she will ever marry, the men treat her like one of the boys and the women treat her like a freak of nature. Sad, very sad.
"On average." A commoner can get 1-shot by a cat. Players are way above average at level 1, wtf.
A cat kills a commoner in 4 hits, they deal 1 slashing damage and commoners have 4 hit points
This is accurate to real life, most people cannot survive a 24 second attack from a cat
If you play woth variable monster HP, a commoner has 1d8 HP.
There’s a great book on measuring humans called “the mismeasure of man” In it, the author states that even if you were able to find differences between groups reliably and accurately, it still wouldn’t matter because the differences WITHIN groups are so large. For example, a man may be stronger on average than a woman, but in a fight between a malnourished, scrawny, short man and a 6’ tall Amazonian woman bodybuilder, who do you think will win? In other words, value the individual more than the group they belong to
Death by snu snu anyone?
my small 7lb owlin fighter with 19 str would like a word
...with common sense and realism?
Sure women can have a penalty to Str but men will take one to charisma, wisdom and intelligence. And then nonbinary people get extra charisma because obviously. Are we just doing variant human now?
Gygax is dead, leave his views of gender in the grave with him.
Wait, what?
Pardon the use of the wayback machine, but had to find an actually sensible Article to cite for this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210918010149/https://www.bostontheatrescene.com/Articles/she-kills-monsters/Gallery/Gygaxs-Game-Of-Life-Dungeons--Dragons--Probability/ Gygax was a biological determinist, believing men and women, and different races, were capable of, and limited to, different things. Citation for that explanation: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/how-a-new-generation-of-gamers-is-pushing-for-inclusivity-beyond-the-table
Why pardon the use of the wayback machine? was there some controversy
No, just can load slowly and isn't a currently inaccessible article can tend towards reduced credibility of the article itself.
Ah. Yikes.
>Gygax was a biological determinist, believing men and women, and different races, were capable of, and limited to, different things. So are 90% of normal human beings and so were most Americans at the bloody time, male and female. You speak as if biological determinism is a bloody conspiracy theory when it's a confirmed fact IRL and the opposite opinion is a fad unique to the English speaking world. Different "races" in D&D are literally different species. Imagine if gorillas learned to speak English and you were trying to claim that humans could be just as strong as a gorilla. A full grown gorilla can lift and throw a friggin Volkswagen with no weight training. Can you not see that that's absurd?
Gygax's opinion is specifically described as relating to human, IRL races. as in, he thought a particular race had specific limitations or advantages over other, human, races. Don't be this guy.
The average genetic distance between the 5 major human ‘races’ is nearly double the average genetic distance of the various species of canids That is to say, IRL human races *do* have specific limitations and/or advantages over each other. This is not disparaging to acknowledge, unless someone is specifically choosing to *make* it so; where some populations may excel in one area, they are biologically determined to lag in others While biological determinism was widely discredited in the late 70s and 80s, as we’ve come to better understand the human genome we are coming full-circle to appreciating the differences in our various populations. I suspect it will be another ~20yrs before we can have this conversation without fear of racial discrimination clouding the facts of genetic predisposition
You're making a lot of unsupported conclusions here. I'd like to see your sources, if you have any. Differences in genetic loci cannot be immediately attributed to the claims you have made. [This paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/) concludes that while you can generally determine what population a person is from if you have enough genetic data, "individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."
You didn’t read your own source, that much is evident. Not to mention it is nearly 20 years old, and relies on papers even older than itself for many of its assumptions. You also misunderstood the conclusion; individuals are frequently *about as different* from others in their own population as they are from those in other populations. Not *more similar to others than their own*. Nonetheless, the authors in your own source assert that relying on multiple loci creates a nearly-always correct model for determining population; if we are all the same, this would not be even close to possible. I’m not going to argue the matter on reddit about this, without question this is going to devolve into racist rhetoric one way or another and that’s not at all what my comment is about. My comment is pointing out that there *are* significant *and measurable* differences between the various major populations of Homo sapiens, and through mapping the human genome we have gathered strong evidence to suggest that “race” and gender play a huge role in determining many (if not all) our traits — that is to say, our biology accounts for most (if not all) our traits. We also suspect, on the basis of strong evidence, that the microbiome within our gut drives many *if not all* of our personality traits, such as how social we are or how conscientious we are. Something as minor and environmental as bacteria in the foods we eat can alter our personalities, and yet somehow that is less controversial to say than even suggesting “0.002% differences in genetic makeup among various populations of Homo sapiens are likely responsible for physical, mental, and emotional differences”. This is not a formal debate, however if you wish to do actual research and then have a constructive conversation on the matter I’m more than happy to do so privately. It’s not important to me for us to agree, I wasted enough time pointlessly arguing in college to last me a lifetime
You misinterpret my comment. It's a direct quote from the paper that says exactly what you are saying in your first paragraph; I'm not sure why you have decided I did not understand the significance. It would be pointless to argue that humans are a monolith, but I would also like to see your sources, given that you appear to be making conclusions that do not have sufficient evidence to back them up. My point was always that measurable difference does not necessarily indicate significance. The rest of your comment gets into the nature vs nurture discourse. The findings on microbiota are of course less controversial because historically nobody has used the microbiome as a method of discrimination. Genetic differences in populations have been the excuses for many horrible acts, hence why it's a much more sensitive topic. I'd also love to see your source on the microbiome driving personality traits, as it's an area of personal interest. I've seen the research on it driving things like physical health and mental state, but not personality. I think you have interpreted me asking for sources as an attack or an argument. I ask for sources because I am interested in these topics, and enjoy reading more about them.
Yeah. It's the same argument as with racial ability scores. Sure, most Gnomes are less powerful than most Orcs, but any individual Gnome could be stronger than many individual Orcs. And you are not playing the average Gnome, you are playing a specific Gnome who can be very much equal in strength to orcs if you want them to be.
... there are people who argue that? That's dumb
It is a FANTASY SETTING. Of course it's not realistic by our standarts.
That maybe true for this world's humans, but my world is different. Not to mention it has so many different species it would make no sense for all of them to follow that rule.
"So does that mean your character has -5 in CHA, then?"
D&D doesnt base stats on Biological Data, its a fantasy game, men and women can perform the same acts of strength, same as a medium and small creature are treated the same.
That's a dangerous line of thinking and the most unfortunate of all of us know ***exactly*** where it leads. The rest dare not learn.
I as a dm would make their chars completely stupid and bad at talking, for the rest of the journey. Play stupid games, win stupid prices.
Ah yes one of the important parts of min-maxing, choosing your sex for that sweet bonus
Anyone arguing that is probably misogynistic and likely wouldn't change their mind easily
-4 Str is for crackheads
This: when people ask why my character is that lucky 1 in a million to have X happen and survive. My character isn’t average so of course he survived it, also I just enjoy this character setup
This player reads FATAL lol
My only critique on this meme is that they'd be saying "females", not women.
2,5 less what? Helicopters?
OP inventing an argument with a fake person with an opinion that no one has had this decade.
Funfakt: you are not the average, I am not the average, noone is the perfect average in everything. -> there is no reason a woman can not be stronger than a man. No need for a penalty. Tldr: there are legitimate edge cases which are however not relevant Of course edge cases could apply, the strongest man is significantly stronger than the strongest woman, but we are talking about adventurers and not body builders whose only reason in life is to lift heavy weights. Im my preferred system (TDE, DSA in german) this would mean: when reaching strength of 20 (which is absurdly high) I would think about capping it there for women. However at that point you look at costs that could get you so much more when invested into different skills. I never had a player have a stat above 20 (if at all, and that was one singular special case adventure one shot) so this really is an edge case. One could argue that the "cost" for a woman to get the same strength as a men is higher due to hormonal differences. Hormonal differences that are present between men as well. Then it is a question of leveling desicion. However it is not like there is a human that a player chooses to get strong but a human in game gets strong because of need and genetics. So all strong PC get strong because of lucky genetics (not because a Player chooses that), any intelligent character as well -> a character with bad genetics wont be strong ever. If a player decides that the PC should get stronger ... seems like the genetics weren't that bad after all. And if a woman is very strong the only thing that this means is that it was unlikely to have such a person in a pool of people but again ... this is an individual PC and statistics dont mean anything about an individual ;-) Edit: I dont really get why I am beeing downvoted. Could someone please explain this?
Adventurers are the according to the PHB above average and the best of the best, so any rules about average dont affect them. Also there are women on this World, who are stronger than men and that statista would still makes sense
I think the only time when gender actually affects stats in the lore is with drow. No drow man can be as strong as a drow woman according to Loth.
Now where have I heard “divinity imposed sexism” before?
Oh yeah I should have specified, that I just talked about how p&p characters in general should work. People homebrew a whole lot and if they don't think something is right, they will change that. And since it is the case that the strongest men are significantly stronger than the strongest women it is in my Point of view important to acknowledge that thought and think about the implications. Dnd specifically: >above average and the best of the best, so any rules about average dont affect them. That is a justification why adventurers are better than normal people. The fact that the strongest men and the strongest women are not equally strong comes from statistics, that right. However 1. "Coming from statistics" and "any rules about average" are not equal in meaning and 2. There is a correlation between strength and gender (eg. Statistics) but this is not only a correlation but a causality. Hence the discussion about the maximun strength is not about statistics but about the question if we want to acknowledge this fact by rules. And I came to the conclusion that it is legitimate to cap strength or something like that for females. But since that is such a rare edge case (after all, which adventurer actually only lifts weights the whole day and takes testosterone supplements?) that did not came up to me once, I don't think it is necessary to set a rule to something like that. But in case I play with a mixed gender group of top body building PCs I would think about doing something to reflect the real world situation. Or I would not this is fantasy after all.
Buddy, this is a fantasy game about dragons
Yet I like overanalyzing such small problems as good as possible when they arise. Keeps the mind sharp and discussion skills up. To think about the points of the other side and then disproving them is one part of that.
Game has dragons, goblins, and british people in it dude, is it so hard to belive women can lift shit
66% agreed. But that part with the british cant be true, right? ;-) Women can lift shit and I just laied out for you why the statisitcs of the real world are not relevant for p&p. I dont really get what you are arguing with me about.
That's a lot of words for just agreeing with the OP but also weirdly trying to defend the bad view as "legitimate edge cases"
I am not defending bad view. I am trying to look at the question of "strength difference in gender representation in p&p" and did my best to answer if there is a legitimate reason to use real world statistics of strenth distiribution to change how p&p Charakters should behave strength wise. And no there is no legitimate reason. Not looking at the lrgitimate edge cases and evaluating wether or not they are relevant would leave something out dont you think?