[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.22261265 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

-4 STR

A long time ago, on a board known as /tg/
There lived some anons who an issue they did see
Both genders could have muscles that were strong
But to these anons this just seemed so wrong, wrong, wrong
Their games did not account for this
Something seemed quite amiss
They cared not about Cha, Dex or Wis...
But the strength of their adventuring sis.

This message has been passed along
Like a Bard's most legendary songs
And rarely questioned (like a cleric's prayer!)
If such a subtraction was quite fair
A minus four!
For lasses who would explore
Can't trust her to brace the door!
Or tussle with a Minotaur!
This isn't a matter for the lore!
The matter is realism at the core!

Though while the numbers indeed to show
Which gender can best lift and throw
We rarely check the other stats
Can a women at least be good at that?
DEX it has been said they have an edge (+2!)
Though INT... well let's not dredge
WIS is obviously not so
And CHA (but tits!) varies you know

I make the case for CON instead!
For those that most men choose to bed
Have to deal with pain abundant ahead
To birth the men that the two have bred

So let this be a question forth
Brave gentlemen of games mirth
Shall we give balance to our systems?
I appeal to your great wisdoms!

For every strength that we subtract
Should we add to DEX and CON a half?

>> No.22261285

tl;dr -4 STR thread

>> No.22261292

FATAL's -30% Strength is better and more accurate.

>> No.22261296

So, you want pictures of musclegirls then?

>> No.22261305

I want for nothing.
Do as you wish gentlemen.

>> No.22261325

Go on then

>> No.22261359

OP raises a valid point.
If we DO -4STR, what do we add?

>> No.22261384


+4 whoring
+4 gold-digging
+8 nagging

>> No.22261390

+4 CHA because everyone loves T&A

>> No.22261395



>> No.22261407


+10 to Craft (Sandwiches)

>> No.22261409

I would, but alas I have none on this computer. I was just pointing out that -4 STR thread is usually code for "post musclegirls".

>> No.22261422

>elves, wizards, dragons, demons
>-4 STR

>> No.22261433

>All of these things affect human anatomy!

>> No.22261436

If races get penalties/bonuses, I don't see why gender shouldn't.

>> No.22261449

Congrats! You all get special characters with a +4 in idiocy.

>> No.22261460

And you get a +4/10 in RAEG

>> No.22261468


>> No.22261486

Arcanum had like +2 strength for males, +2 constitution for females.

>> No.22261488

Really, why should anyone care so damned much? In ADnD, PCs are capable of reaching levels beyond most NPCs and potentially challenge deities.

>> No.22261495

+1 for each would be more reasonable. There's a lot of variety among the sexes.

>> No.22261541

Really, why should someone care so damned little? In ADnD, PCs are commonly at levels equivalent to many NPCs and potentially the difference matters.

>> No.22261558

Mostly because it tends to have more to do with "lol superior men' instead of interesting game design.

>> No.22261576


I kind of like the idea. Not enough to impliment it on my own, but if someone told me any female characters I made got a +1/+2 con and males got +1/+2 str, I wouldn't bitch.

I wonder if anyone ever considered putting alternate changes for different races. Like Orc and Half-Orc women, as being primarily hand-to-hand fighters and mages according to some of the sidebooks, getting +1/+2 int instead of con.

>> No.22261583

>-4 STR
>+4 CHA
Minmaxed Sorcerer as fuck in here

>> No.22261590

It's like you didn't even read the OP!

>> No.22261606

If we're going to do this, are we going to take into account for the male ability to mentally render three dimensional objects and the female ability to be intuitive mathematicians?

>> No.22261608

Watch out, OP, according to 1d4chan -4 str is permabannable.

>> No.22261615


In time PCs will outstrip NPCs unless those NPCs are of some note themselves. Progression is relative however. I'm glad I've never played in the groups you have. Then again, I left most of my ADnD days 20 years ago.

>> No.22261655

If those are well researched and documented phenomena, yes.
Though how one can achieve that is honestly beyond me for DnD.
I certainly wouldn't make it a hit to INT, for example.

Perception pops into mind for the former, but there isn't a "logic" skill in DnD that I know of for the latter.

>> No.22261687

The day someone gets banned from /tg/ for posting poetry, comically bringing up a board-related meme, and asking an actual rules-based query is the day /tg/ dies.
It will be worse than the ribbon and touhou bans combined.

>> No.22261690

>DEX it has been said they have an edge

Women on average have poorer hand-eye coordination than men, so I'd be somewhat skeptical of this claim. It just seems like the kind of thing you'd say if you started by assuming a balanced point-buy system -- "the weaker guy must be more nimble than the stronger guy."

>I make the case for CON instead!
>To birth the men that the two have bred

The design compromises required to allow the female body to carry a child and unhinge to allow its bulbous head passage are indeed remarkable, but I'd wonder at the idea that it translates to gains elsewhere.

Is it the case that women can sustain greater injuries without dying, or march longer without collapsing from exhaustion, or hold their breath longer without fainting, or whatever other feats are associated with the Constitution score?

>> No.22261722

Good to see that poetry isn't quite dead.

>> No.22261724

I seem to recall people bringing up men having worse flexibility, as well as definitely recalling at least one denizen of /tg/ posting studies on how men have worse hand eye. I'm unsure, of course.

Threshold for pain seems to be the defining factor here.

>> No.22261754

To take the thread seriously, a Charisma bonus might actually be appropriate -- not because "everyone loves T&A" or anything stupid like that, but because women have a slight statistical edge in verbal abilities.

However, I'm not sure that D&D has sufficient granularity for this to matter.

>> No.22261756

if you had to take different approach with female character due to weaker physical stats it would be alot more interesting design

>> No.22261761


It's assumed that it gives them overall greater pain tolerance.

To be honest, I think there should be more scientific research on the difference between males and females. Everybody needs to get over the extremes of women being inferior in every way to men and women and men being perfectly equal.

>> No.22261769

Female bodies just drown themselves in endorphins during childbirth, the body spends many months preparing. I don't think it's quite the same.

Rather than -4 str, do something like Males have 2 bonus points to spend between str and int or something and females have 2 bonus points to spend between cha and con or some shit. If you really feel its necessary. Which it isn't and encourages even more gamey crap. People playing different genders just so they can minmax their character better.

>> No.22261775

Rhyming is pretty damn /tg/, from Bilbo's rhymes to /tg/'s rap battles.
You'll find a good respect for it here every so often.

>> No.22261788

not really, charisma is more of influence and leadership stat than verbal prowess. Don't see a lot of influential female leaders do ya

>> No.22261792

I think the idea isn't to make -4STR less of an impact, but to make it fair.

>> No.22261814

>Bitches still be talking about her influence

>> No.22261815

> Don't see a lot of influential female leaders do ya
I think you need to brush up on your history.

Reminds me of this funny little observation someone made to me a while back.
Magazines for men feature lots of pictures of women.
Magazines for women feature lots of pictures of...women. Whats up with that?

>> No.22261828

>Threshold for pain seems to be the defining factor here.

Threshold for pain before what? If you've ever been around a woman giving birth, they aren't exactly doing cartwheels.

It's not like it's a continued act of will on the mother's part to complete birthing -- quite the opposite, once begun it will finish will she or nill she.

>> No.22261833

Maybe a setting-specific -2 CHA in social situations regarding leadership should be put forth?
In Patriarchy the female would get it, while in a Matriarchy the -2 will go to males.

We could also give an attractiveness modifier to the lower class, a +2 CHA for attractive specimen on account of the sexualization of the gender, assuming that is sociologically relevant.

>> No.22261847


I'd have to agree with the last statement. Unless you're playing an ultra realistic campaign, it's assumed the PCs are the paragons of their species/gender.

As for averages, I think we'd have to bring in the statistics into question. Are females on average weaker than males because of biology or because of society? Males generally being shoehorned into more physical activity from an early age that would build up strength than women, because it's not a female thing to do.

Doing this would certainly bring the average strength of females down below men.

>> No.22261848


The best way is to either just not include it, or have a +4 bonus on something else, which is just going to lead to even worse possible bullshit in the form of lvl 1 female casters with 22+ in CHA and either sorceresses or (if I remember right with these being a CHA-based class) favored souls. I don't think men feeling big and tough is a fair trade off of "And then Susan got access to nearly a half dozen spells in the first game"

>> No.22261853


>> No.22261864

>Maybe a setting-specific -2 CHA in social situations regarding leadership should be put forth?
>In Patriarchy the female would get it, while in a Matriarchy the -2 will go to males.

Naturally GURPS already has advantages/disadvantages that represent this.

>> No.22261873

Mythbusters study seems to indicate they win out. Other studies saw the same result.

>> No.22261877

>As for averages, I think we'd have to bring in the statistics into question. Are females on average weaker than males because of biology or because of society?

The answer is clearly both -- there's some biological element, which is exaggerated by herding people into roles where strength is needed / not needed.

>> No.22261891

GURPS just needs to factor in -4STR now.

>> No.22261905

ASCII strippers are now my new kink.

>> No.22261941

Ahohohoho! Your mixed gender party stands no chance of escaping my devious dungeon! Not when I show you the vague direction of the exist, and then plunge you into my Endless Maze of Despair!

Oho! So you found the exit? Well no matter, for you will never correctly identify the red berry that, when ingested, will release the lock on the door! Did I mention the other, slightly different coloured berries contain a lethal poison? MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!

>> No.22261960

There is also the Women Are Wonderful phenomenon.


In general, women will have more positive, virtuous traits assumed of them by being a woman.

(Of course on the flip side that means a woman who violates those traits will deal with a harsher backlash.)

>> No.22261968


Does that mean women should have the strength of an 8 year old and get 30 extra points to spend? What if it's an 8 year old female? They're not strong enough to hold up their own weight and can't walk?

>> No.22261978

>implying women aren't full of design compromises to allow for the von Neumann factory

>> No.22261991

The -4STR meme comes from looking at bodybuilders, actually.
You see a significant drop between genders in maximum weight lifted (on average) of about 25%.
Since a stat of 18ish was the human limit in ADnD, they lowered it by 4 from there; lowering your +4 to a +2. The anon who did this analysis figured this was the best result, and proposed -4 STR.
Arguably, one could say it should only be a -2. Unfortunately I lost the screencap of that thread a while back, and can't recall why he justified that particular number.
Anywho, the -4 stuck.

>> No.22262008

>The inferior model without the Y upgrade
Yeah buddy we da bes

>> No.22262011


What about naturally weaker races? Does any race take a strength penalty?

If you're an eight year old elf or bird-person, does that mean you're too weak to breath on your own volition and require an iron lung?

>> No.22262016


>> No.22262019

I have been informed that females are better at seeing colours and are significantly less likely to be colour blind and have eye problems, but I can't cite a study on that. That would be kind of an esoteric mechanical feature though; perhaps it would manifest as a bonus against illusions or some such thing. On the other hand, less colour awareness actually makes your eyes adapt more quickly to the dark.

I kind of want more Wildly sexual dismorphic races in games. One thing I heard /tg/ as an offhand suggestion that I really like is Orcs being male and Goblins being females of the same species. Stuff like that would be cool.

>> No.22262021

>von Neumann factory

>> No.22262031

I would have no desire to impose a strength deduction because I would have to counter it with one of the stats your proposed. I might be convinced to impose a Dex bonus but I wouldn't impose a Con one because child birth is not a means to justify more hit points and better resurrection rolls. There is a great disparity in how women handle child birth. In the end any parties just ridicule muscle women as freaks so its never really a problem. I think Gygax and Wizards both avoided the subject because they already had christian groups on there asses, Feminists would jump at anything related to this.

>> No.22262039

The system equivalent of -4STR.

>> No.22262045

Reminds me of my high school IT teacher. She was also a PE teacher, and was all into her bodybuilding.

One day she left the class long enough for her screensaver to activate, whilst her screen was projecting onto the whiteboard. Turns out it was a slideshow of her in a bunch of 'look at me muscles' poses, without any clothes on against a matt black background.

I don't care if musclegirls are your fetish or whatever, it was not at all appealing. Also pretty damn narcissistic of her.

>> No.22262054

lol "females"

>> No.22262071

Dude I wish my high school math teacher had projected her nudes to the class.

>> No.22262072

10/10 for effort and presentation.

Nice work.

As to the question at the end, yeah, whatever, it's cool. I don't really care, because the -4 str is usually a joke. Even if it isn't and there are some people that actually take this seriously, I have not played with them, because my games are not super-serious reality simulations. I'm fighting monsters, slaying dragons, solving mysteries, and acquiring MacGuffins. I don't fucking care about -4 str.

>> No.22262075

>One thing I heard /tg/ as an offhand suggestion that I really like is Orcs being male and Goblins being females of the same species.
I'd rather the contrary, hyena-style. Orcs are now females with reversible vaginas.

>> No.22262081

What happened when she found out?

>> No.22262085

You must have heard of Fenoxo.

>> No.22262087

>not my fetish, so it's not at all appealing

>> No.22262092


10 is average, 9 is considered 14 year old strength. The system equivalent to -4 str would be 10. Just like every other character.

>> No.22262096

Not at all.

>> No.22262100

Play pretend with us?
Assuming it was serious, what then?

>> No.22262102

>implying women aren't full of design compromises to allow for the von Neumann factory

For example, their hip configuration is simply worse for running. The fastest woman in the world wouldn't have qualified to compete in the men's division in the last Olympics. It requires more energy for women to run than men, and their legs move in a way that is more likely to injure their knees and hips.

>> No.22262105

Problem solved.
Perhaps you could do a high end cap better showing the 25%.

>> No.22262116

What is the origin of man story in D&D anyway? There are deities and shit, something tells me early tribes wouldn't have separated the sexes quite as much as it occurred in the real world anyway.

Or maybe females adapted to childbirth through natural magic instead. It only shows up in pregnant women and is mostly useless except as a Great Fortitude type thing.

And BBEGs have a reason to kidnap and impregnate virgins for their evil, ridiculous schemes.

>> No.22262118

I thought it was from some old letter in Dragon Magazine

Male strength comes from puberty, males just get more testosterone and thus body/muscle mass then. Before that, the sexes are roughly equal. So they'd both have -4 strength, probably minus a few more because of size and how even females get some testosterone and muscle growth in puberty.

>> No.22262126

mean have a higher percentage of color blindness

>> No.22262133

She just casually moved the mouse. No fucks given.

No, not a matter of fetishes. She was just not pretty.

>> No.22262136


Well, she is/was a bodybuilder. There is some sort of narcissism associated with being one, considering you're aiming for artistic perfection with your body. If you've attained that, and you see aesthetic beauty in that, why wouldn't you have pictures of yourself like that?

Alternatively, it could be a chase for perfection, the pictures updated regularly as a constant reminder of what flaws you need to work on.

>> No.22262141

..I meant men*

>> No.22262145

Poor them. Well, at least they make my dick hard.

>> No.22262153

That would be kind of awesome too, but I think I'd stick that as a Gnoll niche as to differentiate the two 'tribal monster races' more

>> No.22262155

Just another service provided by the rape factory!

>> No.22262163

Yeah but to have them on a school computer and to set the screensaver as the slideshow? Damn son.

You know I did originally have a point. I forgot what it was now. Something about how she could probably snap all our teenage spines with her pinky.

>> No.22262173

Personally I've always viewed bodybuilding as an iherintly male pastime. A guy with fuckhuge muscles in the right proportions looks good, a woman not so much.

>> No.22262174

Dare you enter the magical realm?

>> No.22262181

a) not play as a female character. I'm a dude anyway, but I mix it up from time to time. I don't think I've ever done a very effeminate female character, although I have done effeminate male characters before.
b) play as a female, but in a class that doesn't need str. I've wanted to do a female sorcerer who's a daughter of a warrior who was never gifted at magic, and was eventually slain by it, so she took up the calling to succeed where her father had failed. Haven't gotten a chance to play that character yet, been doing sci-fi RPGs lately. A con or dex bonus might be nice.

I don't really like systems that penalize you for making choices. A system designed to give someone a penalty for choosing something, instead of giving them a bonus for choosing something else is probably a system that has false options and will seek to punish you for playing it.

In other words, I think I would prefer if the system was designed to give not-females +x str, instead of giving females -y str. Ideally there would be a bonus for choosing to play as a female character too, but maybe that's asking too much.

>> No.22262195

No, wait hold up.
I mean like...
pretend this is a huge mechanical issue that is a big deal for you. And then discuss it as one. That's the fun!

>> No.22262215


Can I pretend to be that guy and do it? But pretend he's also an Elf Wizard? I'd like to be an Elf Wizard with serious feelings about how he'd play -4 STR female humans, even if he found the idea ridiculous.

>> No.22262218

>A system designed to give someone a penalty for choosing something, instead of giving them a bonus for choosing something else is probably a system that has false options

My way of thinking is that a "false choice" is when a system presents you with options but it doesn't matter which you choose.

(Like in a CRPG, where you decide whether to be male or female and what your character is named and what they got for their 7th birthday, but the rest of the game plays out exactly the same regardless of what you chose.)

>> No.22262230

>In other words, I think I would prefer if the system was designed to give not-females +x str, instead of giving females -y str. Ideally there would be a bonus for choosing to play as a female character too, but maybe that's asking too much.

What is the difference between...
System A:
You have a maximum 18 Strength, and then receive -4 STR for being a woman.

System B:
You have a maximum of 14 Strength, and then receive +4 for being a man.

...Outside of the fact that I just used a different mathematical symbol?

>> No.22262252

Yes, that's perfectly allowed. In a game of pretend you can be anything you want.
I'm currently pretending to be the little girl during this exercise.
Layers of pretend on pretend.

>> No.22262277

+4 is retarded.
Point buy system should alleviate any shenanignans.
Women do have a lower max muscular growth, but most of them are weak because they don't work out correctly and eat properly.

Most men at the same time, who don't work out and aren't endomorphs just are skinny and weak as shit.

Thus point buy. Your character is as good or bad at onething or another based on past experience and training, not necessarily on wonky genetics.

Most I would inherently give is -1 str, +1 con.

>> No.22262296

That pic makes me want to run a character with 'baby armor'.

>> No.22262300


>> No.22262316

these seem both accurate, fair, and appropriate

>> No.22262318

Fueled by pregnant magic?

>> No.22262341

Baby armor is best armor

>> No.22262343

Who let the sarcasm bottle dripping on this post?

>> No.22262351

-4 str

It's like you're not even playing Dungeons the Dragoning

>> No.22262362

Best system.
I remember the day it was posted...

>> No.22262425

Halfling: -2 str (or no minus if we're talking 4e)
Woman: -4 str?

That seems way out of whack. If halflings get -2, then women should get -1 at the worst. (-4 and -2 could work though.) I don't buy women having a better constitution though. I mean, a lot of that is your resistance to getting knocked around, and there sheer mass helps a lot. Charisma doesn't work either, because while women may be more empathic and better at manipulating people, they don't have the same sort of forceful leadership that guys do. Dexterity makes sense to me though, as women tend to have greater flexibility, and a woman that measures up to a man in battle is probably going to be more agile and less strong.

>> No.22262439


When World of Warcraft was in development, there was no bonus on XP after you logged in. Instead, there was a penalty on XP if you stayed logged in too long.

The tester's hated it, they thought it was arbitrarily limiting their play time and restricting them. So the programmers made the rate at which you earned XP with the penalty the default, and re-frame the 'normal' XP as short-term bonus you get after logging off for a while. After that it was much better received, because people then saw it as a reward.

Re-framing something, even if not mechanically different, can alter their perception a lot.

Of course this change can effect things later on. For example, if you added in a race other than humans, then male humans having +4 strength would effect how that race works.

>> No.22262488

She's probably going to train much more to have a similar strength level you mean.

>> No.22262532

So even knowing it is a trick of perception and nothing more, you'd still prefer the mechanics to work that way?
Ok, assume that's how it works then.
Since it's a matter of perception only, you literally only need to change the way you look at it, and then actually answer the question posed by OP: how to balance that change.

>Of course this change can effect things later on. For example, if you added in a race other than humans, then male humans having +4 strength would effect how that race works.
Not really, no. The gender bonus of +4 for male could just as easily affect every race in the game, as could any female bonuses. The game developers could move these bonuses around or remove them for a race to emphasize them, but it isn't an intrinsic thing unless you arbitrarily assume that other races WOULDN'T get gender assigned buff, or that the actual race buffs wouldn't put them on par with humans.
14(base)+4(Male)=18 is either near universal or...
14(base)+4(race bonus, no str difference between genders in this race) =18
These end up being the same figures.

The only difference between this is a) you have to add in this equalization for every race. In terms of coding, you're better off throwing in -4 str, and just making the interface say otherwise to normalize "perception".

>> No.22262555

I know right?

>> No.22262563

In general, I think that women are going to have a lower strength to dexterity ratio. Thus, if you assume both are equally important in combat, a woman who is the equal of a man is going to have a higher dexterity but lower strength. If she trains to the point where her strength is equivalent, then either she is going to be better in combat than the man, or she is diverging from the standard pattern.

>> No.22262577

>In general, I think that women are going to have a lower strength to dexterity ratio.
But that's not how it works. Your conclusions will be wrong if you base them on false premises.

>> No.22262594

There is no realistic bonus women can have, so for game balance purposes they can have a bonus to magic ability, which is unrealistic already.

>> No.22262631

>Your conclusions will be wrong if you base them on false premises.
Unless I get lucky, yes. But you're not being very clear with your dissent. Are you contending that women aren't, in general, weaker than men? Because that would give them a lower strength to dexterity ratio, if they have comparable dexterity. Or do you think they have correspondingly lower dexterity? Or are you saying that while an average woman has lower strength and comparable dexterity, one that measures up to the average man on the battlefield is going to tend to have increased strength for her gender, without seeing any increase in dexterity?

>> No.22262666

>Imaginary realm
>Full of imaginary things
>Playing an imaginary story
>With magic, dragons, etc
>complain about realism

Magically, all those imaginary women are of roughly the same strength on average as men.

Also, there's no reason a women can't be as strong as a man, even if it's an outlier possibility, so to enforce -4 str in..oh, right, no one who believes this is important could get a woman to play with them. Silly me.

>> No.22262671

No, I'm saying that there is no fixed "strength to dexterity ratio". And that separating strength and dexterity in the first place is already contentious. See: practitioners of breakdance, gymnasts where strength leads to dexterity and agility (not only, but strength is a huge part of it).

>> No.22262686

As much as I hate the -4 str fags, balancing it ith that could make it mechanically and culturally interesting. If women are better at magic, more women will be mages and wizards and such.

So women would be more broadly powerful than men, because of the broad application of magic.

So, women would fill many important roles historically filled by men, and could magically augment themselves in order to match men in other areas.

So women win.

>> No.22262687

Oh, I wasn't the person you were responding too. I was just noting that.

Other races being other races, there is a strong chance they would get different buffs. For example, elf males might get only a +2 strength while females don't get a bonus. Halflings might have a child's build, and have few to no real gender differences. Gnolls could be inverted, since female hyenas are bigger and stronger than the males. Female dwarves might be identical to males.

Furthermore, a larger difference is that now the baseline for all stats would be 14. You can't just arbitrarily say '18 is max, except for strength which is 14.' Knocking strength down means that the human max for intelligence and wisdom are now also 14. Even if you gave both genders a +4 to most stats, that would still effect how stats are generated.

>> No.22262698

>breakdancing not merely requiring eual amounts of strength and dexterity
>gymnasts not increasing strength and dexterity simultaneously

Why is gaining strength causal to gaining dexterity, instead of both being effects of gymnastics training?

>> No.22262714 [SPOILER] 


>> No.22262721

Because you can't do shit like pic related if you're not strong. And that also falls in the realm of dexterity. Basically, I'm saying that this shit is holistic.

>> No.22262736

Why couldn't you knock the STR baseline down to 14 while leaving the others at 18?
This is all a shitty, overcomplicated hypothetical regarding "perspective" that in this case is useless anyways, but still.
Not reason you can't.

Alternatively I could give humans +4s to all the relevant stats.

>> No.22262746

>No, I'm saying that there is no fixed "strength to dexterity ratio".
I'm not arguing that anything is fixed. I'm talking averages. Just because the IQ of the average college graduate is higher than the IQ of the average high school dropout, that doesn't mean that a college graduate is always going to be smarter (even if we were to accept that IQ = intelligence). All I'm proposing with the ratio is that if you divide the average strength of all women to the average dexterity of all women, you'd end up with a lower number than if you did the same thing for men.

>And that separating strength and dexterity in the first place is already contentious.
Sure. Of course mass also comes into it. If you're not as heavy, you don't need as much strength to do the same thing. But regardless, strength isn't the only thing contributing to dexterity (there's flexibility, coordination, and so forth), and we're dealing with a RPGs that don't tend to link strength and dexterity.

>> No.22262750

So it takes both strength and dexterity to do.

I'm still failing to understand.

Let's take bodybuilders, who bench and bench and bench to build muscles and strength.

Are they any more dextrous because they're stronger? If not, then it may be that an increase in strength does not equate to an increase in dexterity.

Approaching it holistically makes no sense. Why not take the separate parts and apply them both? There seems no compelling reason to approach it holistically.

>> No.22262761 [SPOILER] 


>> No.22262768

Ever think, that in roleplaying games the 30% difference between HUMAN males and females falls within the same whole number?

With ya know, 18 strength being herculean?

>> No.22262781

“Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.” -Betty White

>> No.22262786

>I'm still failing to understand.
Yeah, I see that.
>Let's take bodybuilders
They become better at doing what they do. They also become more flexible (doing a good squat requires a lot of hip flexibility for example) and shit. I'm saying that there is no "dexterity" jauge in our body. There are only muscle fibers, sinew and "muscle" memory (which is really a training of the CNS). Dexterity is an entirely abstract concept invented when we didn't know as we do know how the body worked.

>> No.22262787

5 star post

I love betty white

>> No.22262790

Building physical fitness in a balanced way encourages flexibility, endurance and power.

A agile person is more likely to be strong then a clusmly person. To be successful in some sports that nearly define agility to modern mind you must have a high strength to mass ratio.

Being strong and small is good, and allows you to perform acrobatic and gymnastic acts with greater skill. The smaller the gymnast, the less weight they have to move around when jumping, tumbling or working rings or bars. It's even easier for them to balance.

>> No.22262792

Simply put, the calculation was:
Assume 25% difference (see Olympic lift records).
18 * 0.75 = 13.5
Round to 14.
-4 Str.

Honestly, best would be -25% STR, but that gets unfeasable when you start adding magic from leveling and items and such.

>> No.22262796

Dexterity also covers fine manipulation and such. Does being strong help you with Jenga?

>> No.22262806

Basically, what I'm saying is that you train to become better at what you do. Sometimes it requires all-around balance, sometimes only for specifics poses or movements, sometimes it requires muscle mass, etc.

Does gif related helps you with Jenga?

>> No.22262811


Pretty sure bodybuilding itself doesn't focus on strength or physical athletic ability. They aren't nearly as strong or fast or agile as they could be, because the point is aesthetic.

>> No.22262812

Acutely manual dexterity is a real thing. It's how well you can perform fine manipulation, generally with your hands.

It's part gift and part skill and improves considerably with training. It's important for people like surgeons, whom must be able to do things like tie a knot one handed. Flexibility and agility are part of physical fitness, but are distinct from raw muscular power. While someone that has a high degree of fitness will have a measure of both, they can have different extremes that justify them being different statistic in games.

>> No.22262817

But below 10 is a penalty, so wouldn't it be 25% of 8; ie 2?

>> No.22262828

In D&D 3.x a -4 reduces the lift ability by half, not by 25%.

>> No.22262834

That is, every 4 points of STR doubles your ability to lift weight. So someone with 14 STR is twice as strong as someone with 10, and someone with 18 is twice as strong as someone with 14.

>> No.22262840

No, because those 10 points still represent muscle mass.

Believe originally the calculations were for ADnD.
You might have to change it for 3 or even 4, obviously.

>> No.22262854

>Flexibility and agility are part of physical fitness, but are distinct from raw muscular power.
Depends on what movement you're talking about. Some of those movements showcasing flexibility and agility can't be performed without raw muscular power. Keeping one leg up with your foot higher than your head requires raw muscular power. Holistic.

>> No.22262855

Dexterity mainly affects, balance, hand eye, reflex and acrobatics.

Balance is strictly abdominal strength; the stronger your abs and core get the stronger your balance becomes.

Hand eye coordination i'm not very sure, thats one of the aspect i know less but, i'm pretty sure alot of sportsman train the matter by catching balls and whatnot. Videogames as well but, thats different hand eye coordination.

Reflex is mainly muscle memory, your body does not react faster to any stimulus unless being conditionned. If i recall well this study i've seen a few years back, having good physical health helps your reaction time thanks to having a better nervous system.

Acrobatics is all muscle, whetever you're talking about launching yourself into the air, flipping or whatever it all boils down to being very fit.

Imo, dexterity is a myth.

>> No.22262867

>A concept encompassing overall ability in these traits is a myth!

>> No.22262878

A concept is useless if it doesn't describe reality accurately.

>> No.22262880

>Balance is strictly abdominal strength

This is brilliant! Let's get you to train the shit out of your core, then give you an awful ear infection. This will perfectly prove your point.

>> No.22262908

I would argue on that gentleman. I'm not sure if going back to DnD is appropriate for your argument but, DnD views Dexterity as an attribute and attribute are supposed to make you able to do things thanks to these attributes. For instance, being strong gives you the ability to carry x weight. Having x Dexterity does not make you able to write or tieing a knot with one hand for instance. These things are learned through repetition aka muscle memory.

>> No.22262938

>muscle memory is a stat in DnD

Dexterity gives you a bonus to certain skills, and also an AC bonus when not encumbered by heavy armor, to represent evasion.

>> No.22262962

Thank you captain OCD, i dont even feel like explaining how retarded your post is, i just want you to know you are unbelievably stupid, even if you think you are right.

>> No.22262965

>what is inner ear

>> No.22262981

But it doesnt exist, every aspect of dexterity can be associated to conditionning or plain strength.

>> No.22262986

>what is not having a inner ear

>> No.22262990

Fine manipulation of objects?

>> No.22262996

Burn the mutant!

>> No.22263045

Don't forget aim and spacial awareness and junk

>> No.22263046

The problem with the math to get -4 only works at a max strength, If you take a man and a woman and have them do the same work out. Simple work outs to stay in shape not to gain more muscle mass. They would be just about the same.

A max weight lifting between a man and a women doesn't make them weaker in general. It just makes them have a lower max. So you could say where a man has a starting max of 18 for strength a women would only have a max of starting with 14.

>> No.22263071

Obviously being stronger makes you more spatially aware. You have stronger eyes!

>> No.22263091

Use Rope
Pick Pocket
Escape Artist
Slight of Hand
Open lock

That has nothing to do with conditioning or plain strength. That's fine motor skills.

Also bonus to AC
Move Silently

Have nothing to do with plain strength they are skill and muscle memory. which one could say is conditioning your body.

>> No.22263134


>> No.22263151

>But it doesnt exist, every aspect of dexterity can be associated to conditionning or plain strength.
Flexibility. Sense of balance. Kinesthetic sense. None of these are derived from strength.

>> No.22263240

Aim is conditionning and strength; you need to be pretty fucking strong to stay steady holding a bow. Spacial awareness, i dont know, i've never done thorough researches on that and i wouldnt advance anything on that aspect.

Use Rope, i never understand that skill i'll be frank, making a knot is not a complicated task, you know the pattern and execute it, theres absolutly no reason why its linked to Dexterity. You either made the right knot or you didnt.

Pickpocket is something i couldnt say either how exactly it works i've never done it.

Escape artist if we are talking about ropes you just need to excert some strength to try to loosen the knot or whatever to try and make some room for you to slip out lets say your hands, again its one of these skills i dont understand why its in the dexterity ability modifier.

Sleight of hand to me boils down to not wobbling around (Having strong shoulders and back muscles), if for instance you had to disarm something and had to disarm something and not touch the other parts of the mechanism then you would need to do it slowly and steadily, you would need to be strong, very strong.

Open lock is just execution really, magical locks i dont know they dont exist but, really its just mechanics, you just have be steady or not it really doesnt matter whatever you touch, just dont break the pin.

AC bonus be mobile, be swift on your leg, i guess.

Move silently tip toeing etc, i dare you to do what ballerina's do.

Hide shouldnt exist, it only matters if you are out of sight or for some reason something makes you hard to see. I dont understand why you can be skilled at being behind objects or in the dark or why anything matters in the creation of a character. Except maybe your choice of clothing.

>> No.22263302

I think your problem is that you are trying to put anything that requires you to exert force on something under the rubric of strength. Obviously any movement you make is dependent on your muscles. But strength as its being used here (and is commonly used) is a subset of "things you do with your muscles". Think of strength more as how much weight you can lift than how precisely or quickly you can move. Yes, a ballet dancer needs to be very fit, and even capable of lifting a good deal of weight, but past a certain point, extra lifting capacity is mostly extraneous.

>> No.22263344

Pickpocketing has nothing to do with strength. Assuming you have the strength of an average person. it all comes down to having fine motor skills to be able to slip your hand into someones pocket and pull something out.

Try to tie a knot without having fine motor skills. sure you could tie a shoe lace but more complex knots require fine motor skills.

Escape artist. Yes you might have to use some strength to help you loose the rope. But unless you are strong enough to just break the rope from pulling on it. you will need the fine motor skills to actually untie the knot.

Sleight of hand look at pick pocketing

Open lock. Again fine motor skills to be able to be able to move the pins the right amount up to lock the pin in place.

Move Silently. moving silently isn't walking on your tip toes. yeah you could do that but no person in the military does that yet they move very quietly. It's how you walk. The muscle memory which would be associated with dexterity.

Hiding requires you to stand still with out moving and keeping your balance. Usually in a crouched position. That's a balance issue with is dex.

I'm not saying every skill fits only in one thing but it fits mainly in one. Yes some things you do with dex requires strength. they never require just str

>> No.22263421

I guess i can dig that.
Strength being excentric strength.
Dexterity being isometric strength.

Still not very convinced because of the wording in DnD but, that makes sense atleast.

>> No.22263470

Jesus, why do I suck at everything my gender is supposed to be good at, and be good at everything the other gender's supposed to be good at?

I'm not even transgender.

>> No.22265502

Are you sure about that?

>> No.22267876

Let's see how evening /tg/ deals with this now.

>> No.22267932

They don't.
Obviously telling of the quality of night /tg/.

>> No.22268199

>why do I ... be good at
Which gender's bad at English? Zing!

>> No.22268240

-2 to Language checks.

>> No.22268594

>There's a missing link!
>My theory doesn't have room for biology!
Holy shit, kill me

>> No.22268617

Also, you assumed 'Aim' was automatically 'With a bow.' It does require a certain amount of strength to use a bow properly, but that's not the only thing you aim. A blowdart, for example, requires very little strength to use while actually hitting things with it can be said to require dexterity.

>> No.22268637

>But lung strength to blow the dart!

>> No.22268650

Girls use circular breathing, so they should have greater lung strength.

>> No.22268675


A hair trigger also requires a stupid amount of strength to pull

>> No.22268996

As a fan of ridiculous gimmick weapons, I would love blowguns to have +Con modifier to damage to represent lung capacity

>> No.22269927

that would only work if you were fighting jackie chan

>> No.22271303

I think you miss quoted >>22263344
That wasn't even from the same person who said aim would be strength based cause of the required strength to use a bow properly.

>> No.22271449

It wouldn't matter, Jackie would just beat the shit out of him while comically avoiding hurting the baby.

>Jackie Chan: capable of making child endangerment looks funny.

>> No.22271523

Jesus christ, norwegian scientists are horrible

>> No.22272364

woman have a lower pain threshold which is the point at which they feel pain but have a higher pain tolerance than men. so they feel pain easier but can handle more of it but men feel less pain but handle it less well.

>> No.22275811

What did they say? I can't see youtube videos.

>> No.22275885

>Ignoring evidence
>Claiming fields of science exist solely to challenge other fields
>Confirmation bias up the face

Name of the video is "The Gender Equality Paradox" if you wanna go watch it.

>> No.22275909

Which pretty much factors well into HP, ergo CON.
How much damage you can take before passing the fuck out.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.