| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a statistical correlation between gender and upper-body strength.
However, as any statistician will tell you, there are always outliers.
So are you making a fighter who plays to the average performance of the entire sex? Or are you making a hero, who by definition is an outlier?
|
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does realism have to do with DnD?
I have a friend who is about 6'2", 250lbs, and has spent years studying many forms of martial arts and wrestling. I once saw him spare against a girl who was about 5'2" and 100lbs. As he's says "She was very nice and didn't break both my arms". She was on the US Olympics Judo team.
If you train enough for something, you can usually do it, no matter what sex you are.
I mostly am thinking of this as a GM. Sure, one PC female Barbarian with a 20 strength can be an outlier, but 100 of them is a little much.
Ah, so you're talking about how a culture with many women warriors would operate. That's pretty cool, actually.
|
|
Ok, I was thinking more along the lines of strength of:
Mind (patience, understanding a tactic, waiting for the right moment, evaluating an opponent)
Will (sort of endurence, not iving up, taking the bad, and getting past the pain)
Soul/Spirit (being able to adapt and use technique, not giving up, overcomming fear, stuff).
Physical Strength, females tend to have less of it in areas more useful to physical combat. Not all women, just generalization. Believe it or not, not all martial arts are focused on redirecting energy and finesse over strength, but if not all, most are about developing the mind and the body.
Check the women's weightlifting world records: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weightlifti ng
The super heavyweight record for women's clean and jerk is 187 kg or 412 lb. going by the rules for lifting a weight over your head, this corresponds to a strength score of 21.
I second the brianne of tarth comment.
Oh you were looking for historical examples... I got ninja'd and went to lunch. In that case spears should be up there with archery. There was a North African tribe who's women were evil shots with rifles and feared for their machettes. There is a town in Russia, I believe, that takes in victims of human trafficing (particularly women), and have some nasty fighting styles they teach, espcially with knives. In a gender equal world, I think that women would also favor sword and shield like men did.
I would point out that while a village of female barbarians might not have 100 women with 20 strength, but they are still a village of barbarians and not warriors. Why wouldn't they have high strengths and great weapons? In myth Amazons were generally feared by normal people, they just tended to fall when a Hero showed up.
BoudiccaDidn't she just destroy a roman town full of retires and then loose 100,000 men to a legion one third her size without delivering any casualties?
History is written by the winner.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BoudiccaBesides, 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.
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...
It's okay, we can discuss the types of battle tactics that would be favored by a predominantly female force without the thread becoming a sexist train wreck. We CAN. I Believe In This.
Please try.
|
Women can swing swords and axes. Women in general are just weaker than men in general. Exceptions exist. Strong women being stronger than weak men.
If you want to simulate this you could build any standard martial class and just use a lower strength to simulate a woman's general physique. That is still a viable build but will have a lower DPR. It will still work. Give her a higher dex or wisdom to make up for the lower stat and call it a day.
Why wisdom? Because women are generally more careful than men. That is why the proportion of males drops from 52/100 to 48/100 from childbirth to adulthood. Mostly because boys do crazy crap.
If I can throw in my two cents as someone who fights and choreographs fights for money...
If we're going by gender averages, women are nimbler of finger and wrist and have less body weight, meaning they excel more at acrobatics, fast-body movement and hand manipulation. I'd say rogues, archers, fencers, and any fighter who rely on maneuverability. Martial arts: Wing Tsun was invented by a woman and it takes advantage of what women do better naturally, so I'd look to the Ip Man movies to see that fighting style done well.
Men are stronger of upper-body and have more height and reach, meaning heavier armors, bigger weapons and strength-based combat.
Those are of course averages and there will be fighters of all types in both genders, but if a society is building to averages, women would probably go more for speed, agility and precision weapons. Also, women in most ancient societies made great assassins because they could get into place men couldn't, hide weapons in full, loose clothing men couldn't wear, and make people lower their defenses in ways men couldn't generally do.
The Amazon's technically never existed, but the myth of the Amazons is a great place to look. Check out the Amazon captain from the Aeneid for fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typically, female archers wither wore a special armor, or removed a breast for realism, too. .
The breast thing was almost certainly a myth. They actually don't get in the way much unless they are really big, and if that's the case you can bind them. No special armor or breast amputation is necessary. Some would rather wear the armor than bind their breasts, but that's a matter of comfort, not protection from injury.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Women can swing swords and axes. Women in general are just weaker than men in general. Exceptions exist. Strong women being stronger than weak men.
If by weaker you mean upper-body strength, then you're mostly right here.
Let's also remember that even in a predominantly female force, recruitment favors those who are well suited to war. Exactly as happens in a predominantly male force.
Because Pathfinder includes very good options for less physical and more cerebral persons, irrespective of gender, we can presume that ALL martial combatants in the female-exclusive force will be well suited to martial tasks, despite what averages in upper-body strength may be disparate. Those who aren't will contribute in a more effective way, like being Druids.
It's really kind of a silly policy to look at the curve for an entire species or gender and extrapolate the average performance of a subset on that basis. The women who fight will self-select for strength. It's really a non-issue.
Now, I think the GM in this thread is trying to create the cultural implications of an all-female force, which is great. We're all getting side-tracked with some perceived statistical disparity that is totally irrelevant. In a (for some reason) all female culture, you'd still have a bunch of noncombatants who would make up the lower half of the curve. The human average is 10 Str. This means that more than half of ANY force is not suited for martial combat.
(What the hell has gotten into the forums lately?)
If I can throw in my two cents as someone who fights and choreographs fights for money...
If we're going by gender averages, women are nimbler of finger and wrist and have less body weight, meaning they excel more at acrobatics, fast-body movement and hand manipulation. I'd say rogues, archers, fencers, and any fighter who rely on maneuverability. Martial arts: Wing Tsun was invented by a woman and it takes advantage of what women do better naturally, so I'd look to the Ip Man movies to see that fighting style done well.
Men are stronger of upper-body and have more height and reach, meaning heavier armors, bigger weapons and strength-based combat.
Those are of course averages and there will be fighters of all types in both genders, but if a society is building to averages, women would probably go more for speed, agility and precision weapons. Also, women in most ancient societies made great assassins because they could get into place men couldn't, hide weapons in full, loose clothing men couldn't wear, and make people lower their defenses in ways men couldn't generally do.
The Amazon's technically never existed, but the myth of the Amazons is a great place to look. Check out the Amazon captain from the Aeneid for fun.
I sort of included this as Finesse Martial Artist. I guess sense I'm looking for builds, the better bet is: Monk.
But we have all been over the monk thing before. They have a damage problem and if we are looking for the common female monk, and not a PC super strength outlier, what is the build?
I really do wish Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse were a single feat. Like I said, the grappler is a good archetype. How about for striking? How do you make a Weapon Finesse Monk good?
Technically, taking weapon finesse makes your trip, disarm and sunder attacks use Dexterity instead of Strength, it's only the other maneuvers that require the Agile Maneuvers feat.
I once made a finesse monk that rocked that way: master of many styles and finesse, taking crane and snake styles. His job was to disarm and trip the enemy (as monks use their level instead of BAB for maneuvers) while dodging every attack thrown at him with his high dex. He did damage through snake style attacks of opportunity and used Crane style to negate the few hits that managed to get through his defenses. Was great for setting up kills for other people, as he could jump into flanking position before disarming and tripping the enemy for the fighter to kill.
Women can swing swords and axes. Women in general are just weaker than men in general. Exceptions exist. Strong women being stronger than weak men.If by weaker you mean upper-body strength, then you're mostly right here.
Let's also remember that even in a predominantly female force, recruitment favors those who are well suited to war. Exactly as happens in a predominantly male force.
Because Pathfinder includes very good options for less physical and more cerebral persons, irrespective of gender, we can presume that ALL martial combatants in the female-exclusive force will be well suited to martial tasks, despite what averages in upper-body strength may be disparate. Those who aren't will contribute in a more effective way, like being Druids.
It's really kind of a silly policy to look at the curve for an entire species or gender and extrapolate the average performance of a subset on that basis. The women who fight will self-select for strength. It's really a non-issue.
Now, I think the GM in this thread is trying to create the cultural implications of an all-female force, which is great. We're all getting side-tracked with some perceived statistical disparity that is totally irrelevant. In a (for some reason) all female culture, you'd still have a bunch of noncombatants who would make up the lower half of the curve. The human average is 10 Str. This means that more than half of ANY force is not suited for martial combat.
(What the hell has gotten into the forums lately?)
Yes, but all societies build to their average. Yes, a female society could use heavy armors and strength weapons, but as soon as they met a male society and realized they had a disadvantage in strength and reach , they would design techniques to use what they did better to negate the other people's advantage.
The great sword: one of it's varieties was invented by German soldiers because they had better armor and could therefore survive long enough to use the heavier weapon with powerful overhead strikes. The solution? Invent the estoc to pierce through their armpits (the only opening in their armor) when they lifted their arms over their heads.
Men are stronger than women. The lady who invented Wing Tsun's solution? Combine attacks and defense into one move, using your speed and small size to negate the enemy's attack, step into him and hit him in the face all in one move.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My response to "realism re: sexes" is this.
Have you ever noticed how, in all of these games, no male ever gets his manhood gouged, stabbed, sliced, bashed and mangled beyond repair with a morningstar, or chopped off? Man, there's a lot of swordplay going on there, but I don't see it happening often. Not often enough to match the sheer amount of nonstop swordplay going on.
I think a simple d6 with a roll of "1" could be a "most critical of criticals" rule. But you rarely if ever see stuff like this.
Do the new optional combat rules for hit location include genitalia? If they did, would that make you more entertained by the game?
Anybody who rides a horse routinely in combat ought to at least have had a ruptured testicle, not to mention pinched nerves from destroying their intervertebral disks. I could come up with more of this stuff.
Why do you never see this? Why, in 30 years of gaming have I never encountered a male character getting gelded?
Because it's sucky. That's why.
Just like goofy rules about "make the girls weaker because they have less upper body strength on average IRL" are sucky.
|
In Spain a whole village of women, defended it form the Moors when there men wanted to run and they didn't as a reward for valiantly defending the city they were made knights. I can't remember the name of the order but look it up they took up swords, axes, knives, spears, bows, staves, even pots and pans!!
if I am a wolf and I can bite you really well at about where the number "20" is on the picture there, I can retreat a bit and wait for you to bleed out. Oh,.....wow. There's lots of good stuff to bite right there.......huh.
Another thing to think about is that, when your talking militaries in general, the individual's strength and weakness don't really matter as you are generally concerned with the strengths and weakness of the unit and their experience.
If you want to have an elite unit of female soldiers, you could easily come up with any weapon option you wanted. They're elite troops after all, does it really matter if they're wielding longbows or mauls? Chances are, you are talking about experienced warriors (5th or 6th level) at the worst. In a society that's gender neutral or matriarchal, you'll still probably end up with mixed units, unless that culture is really paranoid about pregnancy, and will probably favor spears, hand weapons and shields, massed ranged, or cavalry. If your looking for Amazons as a culture in a game then you're back at elite at least.
Arguements that women should be portrayed differently than men due to things like having less upper body strength never works out well , especially in DnD. With these kinds of arguements shouldn't humans be stronger than elves? What about their height and reach advantage over dwarves? Then you get into to Weapon Familiarity too. Shouldn't female gnomes favor differn't weapons then male ones?
If you're looking for concepts that play toward female strengths (that is, the typical bell curve of females), then these are what I'd suggest :
Two-Weapon Fighting (rogue, ranger, fighter, monk) : This is more of a finesse build, and you do damage based on hitting multiple times, not hitting hard. This suits a lower average upper body strength and higher dexterity.
Barbarian : Doesn't matter if you're 4 points behind the average guy if you're adding rage induced strength into the equation. At least not if you're talking about attacking average non-barbarians. Not only that, it fits well with the idea of a raging mother guarding it's cubs.
Bard : Females tend to have higher charisma than males, not just from looks, but from an ability to empathize with others. A bard would be an excellent combination of the two, especially finessing weapons.
Cleric : Since females tend to have greater wisdom than their male counterparts, and are more empathetic in general, a cleric makes a logical place for them to work. This gives them the ability to heal, which is a natural tendency (typically). It also gives them decent martial prowess and allows them to pick weapons that fit their physical makeup.
Druid : Given that the druid can shapechange to gain better physical stats, and that they can gain a big nasty protector and still cast spells, this is an excellent concept for females who are typically lacking in raw brute force.
Fighter : Most female fighters would likely be finesse fighters, working with light armor and light weapons. However, fighter training allows them to eventually ignore armor check penalties, so they'd gradually work up to heavier armors.
Monk : If any fighting style can work with agility over strength, it's the monk style, especially the maneuver master or martial artist archetypes.
Paladin : Since this sort of combines cleric with fighter, this is not a big stretch. You'd expect to see a finesse or ranged paladin typically for a female paladin.
Ranger : This is sort of a fighter/druid cross, and works well for female fighters types. They can take the bow or two weapon fighting variants, gain a big burly protector, and generally take on their favored enemies with guile and precision.
Rogue : Given the ability of this class to emphasize agility over brawn, this is an excellent class for a female combatant. Especially the sneaky assassin type, the acrobatic swashbuckler type, or the espionage type.
Sorcerer : Given the charisma of women, typically, they make excellent sorceresses. Magic doesn't care about how strong you are, just how well you can manipulate it. Thus this is the great equalizer on the gender chart.
Wizard : Similar to a sorcerer, plus women tend to have more patience for studying than males do (that darn testosterone). Again, the great equalizer though, given it's pure intellect.
Magus : This is a combination of wizard and fighter, and works well for the finesse fighter type, since the majority of the damage dealt is via spell, not hacking things hard. A magus just wants to hit with their weapon, and deliver a nasty spell through it, which means body strength is not a prerequisite.
Alchemist : Perhaps the best class for a female combatant, they can throw bombs, which do not care about upper body strength other than maximum range. They can self buff their own body with extracts, and generally emphasize intelligence and forethought over strength.
Cavalier : Although it may not seem it at first glance, a Cavalier really doesn't care about the upper body strength of the rider. The mount is the source of most of a cavalier's damage, using a lance or other charge weapon. The rider merely needs the upper body strength to race the lance for the charge.
Inquisitor : Mixing martial and divine casting, this is similar to a charismatic cleric/fighter or paladin. Again, a dextrous inquisitor who's backed up by her spell buffs and damage is not at a disadvantage against a stronger male opponent.
Oracle : See cleric. Spell casting ability makes for a large equalizer.
Summoner : Like the Druid, the summoner doesn't have to be a big nasty combatant, they summon up their own armies. And, if you really want a way for a woman to take on a man mano-a-mano, the synthesis summoner really does throw gender concepts out the window. It doesn't matter if the summoner can't do 10 chin-ups in her human form, her 6 armed, 6 clawed, fire dripping synthesis form can pick up a buick and toss it a block.
Witch : See wizard.
Gunslinger : The ultimate equalizer. All you need is enough strength to pull the trigger, and you can blow the brains out of the biggest raging barbarian with one shot.
My response to "realism re: sexes" is this.
[Good Points]
It also doesn't take into account all the punishment a body would take as an adventurer and its aggrigate effect. Adventurers would be up there with race care drivers, at least, for the punishment that they inflict on their bodies. Most adventures who survive would probably retire from that life by the equivilent of their 30s. Im sure you've all heard something along the lines of "40ft's only 4d6 damage, I can take that..." at some point.
The reason why your adventuring carreer isn't ended by an arrow in the knee is because it would be lame.
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.My response to "realism re: sexes" is this.
[Good Points]
It also doesn't take into account all the punishment a body would take as an adventurer and its aggrigate effect. Adventurers would be up there with race care drivers, at least, for the punishment that they inflict on their bodies. Most adventures who survive would probably retire from that life by the equivilent of their 30s. Im sure you've all heard something along the lines of "40ft's only 4d6 damage, I can take that..." at some point.
The reason why your adventuring carreer isn't ended by an arrow in the knee is because it would be lame.
True, but it doesn't reattach members. Especially when the wolf digests it.
My response to "realism re: sexes" is this.
[Good Points]
It also doesn't take into account all the punishment a body would take as an adventurer and its aggrigate effect. Adventurers would be up there with race care drivers, at least, for the punishment that they inflict on their bodies. Most adventures who survive would probably retire from that life by the equivilent of their 30s. Im sure you've all heard something along the lines of "40ft's only 4d6 damage, I can take that..." at some point.
The reason why your adventuring carreer isn't ended by an arrow in the knee is because it would be lame.
Rodeo riders and professional wrestlers are at the top I think.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The severed penis tangent is not adding much value to the thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
YAY! SOMEBODY GETS MY POINT!
It's so rare an occurance that, when it actually happens, it's ambrosia.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I don't see how it helps the GM OP at all.