How can a woman be a good warrior when their menses attract bears?
Seriously folks its not all upper arm strength, its how you shift your body and put your weight behind blows.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I don't see how it helps the GM OP at all.The severed penis tangent is not adding much value to the thread.I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, it is the only thing in the entire thread that has any value whatsoever, and I would resent your dismissive tone regarding my opinions, but I've gotten over myself enough that I'm able to not care.
My point is this:
"girls aren't strong" realism seems to be a recurring trope, but if you can personalize other sorts of realisms i.e. the "penis tangent," and you can actually live with that sort of realism not even being addressed.....which I think a lot of us can, well.....you can get over the fact that, although in real life an average 20 year old female human is about as strong as an average 60 year old male human, my human barbarian that I wrote an "f" next to sex on on the character sheet can have a 16 strength and mighty cleave with a ridiculously huge axe that wouldn't really work in real life.She doesn't have to use a buckler and a rapier, and everything is okay in the world.
.
|
I guess my feeling is that adventurers ARE outliers. Thats the whole point of the hero thing isn't it? The realistic woman in your "common group" is the village seamtress. And so no one calls me sexist, her husband is the cobbler...
Besides, even if she was great, she's still just an outlier individual. I'm more interested in how to model realistic female fighters that could appear in common groups.
This. A thousand times this.
This might seem like an odd question, but are we only looking at humans and not other races? Half-orc women may be as strong as half-orc men. Same with dwarves and elves and all the other races.
I think it would be better to just work out an interesting culture, figure out what their fighting would be like, then say that it's a matriarchal society. It wouldn't be that difficult and would make much more sense.
Okay, Spanky, I understand now. Sorry to give you a hard time. I was feeling pretty outnumbered for a while there.
Okay, Spanky, I understand now. Sorry to give you a hard time. I was feeling pretty outnumbered for a while there.
right on.
Incidently with regards to the penis you've obviously nevered played in my games, I...
Good; I also want gangrene and pulmonary embolisms, because combat isn't real enough without internal thromboses detaching and moving to your lungs.
And falchions should work great against chainmail, but do nothing against guys in plate armor......for that you need a warhammer.;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have bleed damage, which is a start in the right direction.
Now what we really need is a sucking chest wound table to see what that arrow is doing to the thoracic cavity.
While we're OT: Player-centrism is right up there with anthropocentrism and martial-centrism when it comes to "common problems with RPG design" that I see around here.
I see a lot of rulesets that would be phenomenal for a world full of human martial PCs. Running a group of NPCs with those rules would be too complex, interactions with magic are poorly explored, and none of the hit location tables include wings, tales, or extra eyes. :)
Fighter/Rogue->Duelist. Our group has encountered a pirate queen a few times who uses Crane Style and the Duelist block with tons of preparation to simply out play us. Gets low on health? Uses the feat that allows you bloodline powers to pop greater invisibility and runs away.
Or, alternately, you can go the SnuSnu build. Drop Cha/Int into the ground. Make her a grappler with choke hold and enlarge person. Maybe a few levels of barbarian. "LELA MAKE SNUSNU WITH TINY MAN." *starts dragging away.* Going to be honest, I've seen women in the real world who aren't far from this build.
|
For a good historical group of women fighters there are the "amazons" who were the 4,000-strong elite bodyguard of the king of Dahomey in the 1700s and 1800s. There's a great book I read on it called "Amazons of Black Sparta : The Women Warriors of Dahomey" by Stanley B. Alpern. In full scale battle they served as feared shock troops who often led the assault. By all accounts they were disciplined, courageous, and effective in battle.
If not Archers, i´d think of the Fighter-Archetype Phalanx Soldier, because it´s only sensible to have a long stick and a shield between yourself and the enemy. Strength 13-14, Dex 16, lighter armor, Scale or breastplate, longspear or bill, Int 13 for Combat Expertise, opening volley with short-spears or javelins, Teamwork Feats !
Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc was more of a banner then a warrior.
|
You need adventurers for the same reasons adventurers can endure the damage you guys are talking about. The gods are messing with mortals. Any adventurer who takes an arrow to the knee just has a cleric pray for the minor miracle of instant recovery.Oh, I'm not talking about just one injury, I'm talking about repeated injuries. Getting stabbed with swords, bitten, poisoned, falling from 40ft, and even dying seems like it would add up quickly, considering magic healing really only works faster than normal healing, not differently. One could easily say that those injuries would add up like they do in a normal person that receive good, modern medical help. So what's to say that after taking an arrow to the knee that adventurer might find that knee to stiff to run from hungry trolls now? It would be lame is my answer.
Magic healing does work differently. There is still nothing in the "real world" (even with all the benefits of modern technology) like what regeneration spells can do (Missing an arm? No problem...)-- not to mention the insta-zap for almost everything of 'Heal'. And Remove Blindness (doesn't matter if you're permanently blind and you've had your eyes gouged out and maybe popped back in), Remove Deafness, etc. And then there's Resurrection and True Resurrection.
Yes, you can play it like magic healing doesn't do all those total fixes for injuries-- or you can play it the way most folks I've seen (in many years of gaming) play it-- the reason your adventurers can carry on year after year without feeling like I do after 20+ years of being a Soldier, is because magic healing does wipe away all that lingering/on-going damage from all those old injuries. Age'll catch up with you, but stiff shoulder 'cause you caught an arrow there once, won't. (And what I'd be tempted to give, if there were magic in the real world to fix my aching feet, ankles and knees after too many years of marching with flat feet...)
|
|
Well, martial arts should be a no brainer.
I'm not sure why realism and gender put together has anything to do with a fighter, with a few possible exceptions of something like zweihander fighting.
Typically, female archers wither wore a special armor, or removed a breast for realism, too. . .
Typically, females have less tactical patience, less physical strength/toughness and endurence than males, but also tend to be more agile (or rather more limber), more concerned about risk taking, and have a smaller frame and different center of balance, so combat styles tend to be slightly less expected.
Additionally, female combatants tended towards defensive styles, shield bearers, for example.
The 'breast removal' bit is only in myths and legends (although, yes, that's still a valid inspiration for games)-- I'm not aware of any known historical female archers who actually did that just to clear the way for their bowstrings, and it's just not necessary. Someone else has already pointed out, that even if the lady is 'well-endowed' in that department, she can bind her breasts (or wear armor that flattens and protects them, or many other such solutions). Female archers wearing special armor-- now, at least in a fantasy world, that sounds quite likely.
Regarding typical female combatants-- seems about right. However, you've probably seen at least a few female Soldiers out there who defy the 'typical' mold and who are really good to have around if the enemy comes calling. I know there were a few that I served with when I was in the ranks, that were better than a lot of the male Soldiers I served with-- not necessarily the 'typical' Soldier, but as keeps getting pointed out and rightfully so, Adventurers are not typical people.
(tagging this extra point for others, not necessarily in response to Beckett's post):
For that matter, in the military (at least in my experience, which is reasonably extensive), the average female Soldier can still handle herself reasonably well in combat-- maybe the 'typical' male soldier is a little better(?), but any Soldier (even the supply clerks and cooks) is going to be quite a bit better than someone who hasn't had that kind of training. Training and preparation makes up for a lot of deficiencies. Something most games miss, is that whatever may be said about average strength and coordination-- you can build up strength and endurance through training and exercise.
@Finn and Liam: You're missing the point. There are lots of little things that you could do to simulate a more realistic game. Aggrigate injuries would be one of them. Spanky went on to list several more. Apparently in the game Burning Wheel you can spend months trying to heal a sword wound and still die from infection with some of the rules. DnD is not realistic and trying to put such levels of realism as aggrigate wounds or strength variance by gender would just bog everything down and wouldn't be fun.
I'll give a very similar example, overall build should affect strength. I'm "stronger" than many people who weigh 50lbs or less than me. I have more mass to throw around than they do, so shouldn't that be calculated. Height and Weight could become very important stats then with,say, a +1 to strength per 50lbs or so.
Joan of ArcJoan of Arc was more of a banner then a warrior.
This is going OT, but she did ride into battle on horse, in full armor. That suggests she had some training (if not simply to keep herself from getting hurt). The records don't say how much she participated herself in battle but if she rode in with the soldiers, chances are she saw some action.
She wasn't necessarily a warrior first, nor a great soldier--and she certainly was there primarily to lead and boost morale--but she had to have had some martial skill to do what she did.
Joan of ArcJoan of Arc was more of a banner then a warrior.This is going OT, but she did ride into battle on horse, in full armor. That suggests she had some training (if not simply to keep herself from getting hurt). The records don't say how much she participated herself in battle but if she rode in with the soldiers, chances are she saw some action.
She wasn't necessarily a warrior first, nor a great soldier--and she certainly was there primarily to lead and boost morale--but she had to have had some martial skill to do what she did.
My understanding is that she did not fight, and was actually against the idea of women in war (her visions exempted her from this), kicking out women she found in the ranks of her forces. At least, that's what I've read.
I got thinking about this reading the "Character Gender / Game Play" thread. If I were going for realism in a setting, what sort of fighting can women excel in to a point where they can kill men and monsters?
. . .
You know what, for some reason I was inclined to stay away from the thread, but I think I know now how to give a decent enough example to deal with the OP. I will just give some notes, as I am inclined to actually read the full article. It is fairly well done, overall. Certainly some hearsay and possible bias is in there, but better than a lot of similar writings. I will add italics and bold for emphasis of ideas I find particularly relevant. Mabey add some links inside too.
Full article here
These are just some sections of the writing, none is my own creation.
. . .
There is a common image of Japanese femininity based on the accounts we have of women of the Imperial Court, swaddled in layers of kimono and rigid custom, preoccupied with poetry and moon viewing. But such a picture obscures just who the bushi women were during the ascendancy of their class. They were originally pioneers, helping to settle new lands and, if need be, fighting, like women of the old western territories in American history. Some bushi clans may even have been led by women.
. . .
Bushi women were trained mainly with the naginata because of its versatility against all manner of enemies and weapons. It was generally the responsibility of women to protect their homes rather than go off to battle, so it was important that they become skilled in a few weapons that offered the best range of techniques to defend against marauders who often attacked on horseback.
. . .
A strong, lithe woman armed with a naginata could keep all but the best warriors at a distance, where the advantages of strength, weight, or sword counted for less.
. . .
Feudal domains were sometimes stripped of almost all healthy men, who hired themselves out as nobushi (mercenaries), were drafted into armies, or slaughtered in battle. As a result of this rampant warfare, women were often the last defense of towns and castles.
. . .
However, as Yazawa Isao, a sixteenth-generation headmistress of Toda-ha Buko-ryu wrote (in 1916), the main weapon of most women in these horrible times was not the naginata, but the kaiken, which Bushi women carried at all times. Instead, she was required to kill herself in a manner as wrapped in custom as the male warrior's seppuku. This was known as jigai. In seppuku, a man was required to show his stoicism in the face of unimaginable pain by disemboweling himself. In jigai, women had a method in which death would occur relatively quickly. The nature of the wound was not likely to cause an ugly distortion of the features or disarrangement of the limbs that would offend the woman's dignity after death. The dagger was used to cut the jugular vein.
. . .
Women did not train in using the kaiken with sophisticated combat techniques. If a woman was forced to fight, she was to grab the hilt with both hands, plant the butt firmly against her stomach, and run forward to stab the enemy with all her weight behind the blade. She was to become, for a moment, a living spear. She was not supposed to boldly draw her blade and challenge her enemy. She had to find some way to catch him unawares. If she were successful in this, she would most likely be unstoppable. More often than not, however, a woman could not expect to face a single foe nor, even then, to have the advantage of surprise. If she were captured alive, even after killing several enemies, she would be raped, displayed as a captive, or otherwise dishonored. In the rigid beliefs of this period, women would thereby allow shame to attach to their name. The only escape from what was believed to be disgrace was death at one's own hands.
. . .
The mother of one of my instructors told how when she was a small girl in a village in Kyushu, the southernmost major island of Japan, men were often gone from the village in certain seasons to join up on labor crews. When there was a disturbance at night or a suspicious character entered the village, the women would grab their naginata, which hung ready on one of the walls of the house, and go running outside to gather and search the town for any danger.
. . .
Some of the kata, featuring both naginata and short sword, are very realistic about the limitations of the long weapon. Since the naginata is not very effective in close fighting, it is thrown aside as the swordfighter gets inside its arc. The short sword is quickly drawn and used to stab the swordfighter. This type of form harkens back to two sources: combat grappling, in which fighters would use small weapons on the belt, and the use of the dagger by women fighting an opponent who attempted to use his greater mass and skill at close combat to overwhelm her.
. . .
Some of the senior practitioners still train in the other weapons of the school. These include techniques with the chain-and-sickle, a five-foot staff that simulates the haft of a naginata with the blade broken off, and some very intriguing forms featuring two swords.
. . .
What do we gather from this. From the OP's "realism" women would be primarily geared for self-defense. Spears and bows for defense of the community and themselves, a last resort knife to either kill an enemy or oneself to prevent rape. There is your real-world realism.
Really, it all is a social issue. Does the society say that greatsword fighting is womens work, then that land will probably have produced some fine greatsword using women. If there is a social class of women expected to take a level of warrior, they will produce more female warriors of skill.
Really though, in a larger context, spears and bows is what EVERYONE . . . EVERYWHERE took to doing. Massed arrow volleys and reach weapons in clusters are the best way for about any regular group of low end npcs to deal with men and monsters alike.
I trained in martial arts for 10 years, and of the top 10 elite in my school, 4 of them were Malaysian girls, all sisters. They were small, but believe me it didn't matter. Each had a "gimmick"
1: Precision technique on joint locks, and vicious follow-through. Never EVER lost her cool. Despite being so cutsey-happy, she has the mindset of an assassin.
2: Natural athlete - deadly striker, high agility and killer plyometric power/speed.
3: Strong... deceptively so. She's such a gentle and considerate person, but her tensile strength was startling. Her judo was top-notch.
4: An odd, almost monkey-like acrobatic talent, combined with high durability. She shrugged off some really hard hits and nasty falls.
Anyhow, if you want to see just how the biomechanical disparity of the sexes can affect martial capabilities, take martial arts. You'll find that it's not so much of a difference.
|
|
@Finn and Liam: You're missing the point. There are lots of little things that you could do to simulate a more realistic game. Aggrigate injuries would be one of them. Spanky went on to list several more. Apparently in the game Burning Wheel you can spend months trying to heal a sword wound and still die from infection with some of the rules. DnD is not realistic and trying to put such levels of realism as aggrigate wounds or strength variance by gender would just bog everything down and wouldn't be fun.
I'll give a very similar example, overall build should affect strength. I'm "stronger" than many people who weigh 50lbs or less than me. I have more mass to throw around than they do, so shouldn't that be calculated. Height and Weight could become very important stats then with,say, a +1 to strength per 50lbs or so.
Skaorn--
Actually, I didn't miss the point you're getting at. Although I guess I should have been more clear about that. I'm not advocating a "more realistic" game (a hopeless task with any descendant of D&D).
I was, however, responding both to a specific post (the part right after the quote from Beckett's post) and making a general point at a whole lot of posters, who were discussing some related issues from the standpoint of realism and/or historical practice. And I'm going to keep doing that where I know something about the subject, without it necessarily meaning that I advocate a game that is "true to realism" (or some other such game-design/practice theory).
Not all strings of debate within a single posting thread are necessarily part of the same argument that you are meaning to discuss. I think there's at least 3 separate arguments (if not more) ranging through this thread already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
dotting thread. this is good stuff.
Pole-arm type builds seem to suit women the best imo - in history the Naginata was actually created specifically as a 'woman's weapon'
One of the problems is the "Universal" weight for the different Items, armors and Weapons.
One of the problems is the "Universal" weight for the different Items, armors and Weapons.
In 3E, weapon size rules were simpler and more varied. You could wield weapons up to one size category larger than yourself, and there wasn't a restriction for reach-weapons based on size.
So if you wanted to wield a "small longspear" as a human, you could do so as a one-handed weapon. It would weigh half as much, you could use a shield, or wield it 2 handed at your option, and it would have a d6 damage instead of a d8.
Most people took advantage of this with dual-wielding, since you could wield a lighter version of your favorite blade or weapon in your off-hand, while still being able to have Weapon Specialization and similar feats aid you.
They complicated things significantly with the move to 3.5, as now a large longsword, while statistically identical to a greatsword, is not the same thing, and you take a -2 penalty for trying to wield the ogre's sword as treasure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason for a 'difference' would be the 'grip.'
Picture the hand of an ogre. It's BIG. Then picture the size of the hilt it would take to wield a weapon comfortably. In comparison, it'd be like holding a baseball bat by the hitting end instead the handle. In addition, the balance would be different because the Large creature has a heavier arm and fist to offset the weight of the weapon.
Ditto a small weapon...it would be thinner and more slender then would comfortable for a medium creature to easily wield, and that would also affect balance, etc.
===Aelryinth
Isn't the whole idea that PC's are exceptional. I get the whole upperbody strength areguement and so forth but letting a PC play what they want to play I think is more important than nerfing female PC's.
Pole-arm type builds seem to suit women the best imo - in history the Naginata was actually created specifically as a 'woman's weapon'
Not actually true. It had already existed as an infantry and samurai pole arm. It did gain immense popularity in the role however.
Isn't the whole idea that PC's are exceptional. I get the whole upperbody strength areguement and so forth but letting a PC play what they want to play I think is more important than nerfing female PC's.
To save the op from having to answer this again it's about female NPC fighting units not player characters.
The op wants to know what weapons play to female strengths and negate male advantages in upper body strength and height and reach.
The op wants to know what weapons play to female strengths and negate male advantages in upper body strength and height and reach.
Except none of those advantages are written into the rules.
Don't get me wrong, if you want put together a low strength, high damage NPC there's dozens of ways to do it. Cranewing's examples look pretty good to me after a quick once over. However, the fact that said NPCs are female rather that male is nothing but fluff.
The op wants to know what weapons play to female strengths and negate male advantages in upper body strength and height and reach.Except none of those advantages are written into the rules.
Don't get me wrong, if you want put together a low strength, high damage NPC there's dozens of ways to do it. Cranewing's examples look pretty good to me after a quick once over. However, the fact that said NPCs are female rather that male is nothing but fluff.
Sure rule-wise it's fluff, but if you are looking for a certain level of real world in your game, then it's fine.
I would say professional units would tend to be taller and stronger then average. Survival of the fittest.
Non professional mobs - terracotta roof tiles accounted for many a Greek hoplite, Persian warrior and Roman legionary (as well as a few generals).
Sure rule-wise it's fluff, but if you are looking for a certain level of real world in your game, then it's fine.
I would say professional units would tend to be taller and stronger then average. Survival of the fittest.
Non professional mobs - terracotta roof tiles accounted for many a Greek hoplite, Persian warrior and Roman legionary (as well as a few generals).
So you're saying professional military training is a better differentiating factor than gender?
That's an honest question, not just me being sarcastic.My larger point is, it's fine to ask for realism, but I'm not all that sure what this thread is asking us to model realistically. Men have better upper body strength than women? Fine, but that only seems really pertinent if you're encounter is based around arm wrestling, or maybe grappling.
Both the above examples give a feat progression to sixth level, which means we're talking about professionals. If you don't like the idea of big brawny chicks that's your business, but I can't see trained fighters with skinny little girl arms. Wizards of either gender, sure, but no one who trains for physical combat.
@ cranewings
I will restate the main thrust of my personal offering to this. What will determine how women warriors are armed and how they fight is purely a social construct with only the barest nod to physical differences.
So consider the social circumstances of wherever your female fighters are operating in.
If there is zero social stigma regarding women training as combatants in the same way that men have no social stigma, then you will get them as a whole just choosing one of the most effective weapon for their circumstances and getting good with it. If they just need to defend themselves from thugs, daggers. Soldiers get pole arms and maces and swords etc.
In a vacuum, without deeply ingrained social forces having ever affected the circumstances, a woman would be able to make a dandy boxer against a man. Whatever differences are present from sex, they are many magnitudes less important than who is the better fighter.
Basically just write them up however you like, but don't expect it to be really grounded in gender. Just go ahead and don't give them power attack and cleave. If you are asking what is realistic, well . . . power attack is what warriors would do, regardless of gender.