Combat wheelchairs

[MaxWilson]

Yes, it's hard even when you are actively taking constructive critiquing onboard. Imagine how tough it is when someone is actively hostile towards anyone who disagrees with them and brands them harassers and bigots? I don't doubt there may have been some disgusting folk out there, it is the internet after all, but from what I've seen from the types of comments the author has been referring to as a toxic ableist backlash, much of it has been fairly innocuous and pretty standard PEACH style feedback.

To be fair, the author does make it clear up front in her homebrew's FAQ that she isn't interested in nerfing what she's written. Feedback from someone who wants a different balance point than you do is not useful to a niche homebrew author. In this case it's probably more productive to ignore than to critique unless she has asked you to PEACH.

In fact, that is one reason point buy vs. rolling debates are so contentious: different desired balance points.

[HolyDraconus]

This indicates that the Candlekeep buildings are wheelchair-accessible, not that the combat wheelchair rules will become official.

Current 5e doesn't have anything in an official setting that has wheelchairs or anything to do with. The closest is the prosthetics, which has rules. I just figured if they are going out of their way to mention it being wheelchair accessible then it stands to reason that they may implement wheelchair rules. Maybe not the very ones that the author mentioned earlier in the thread made, but surely similar. And for all i know, she could be lead to make her own setting like Eberron, which isnt that old, compared to dragonlance or faerun.

[Kvess]

The thing is, disabled athletes in real life don't have access to fully functioning limb prosthetics or exoskeletons, and while I can't talk for them nor pretend to, I do know that generally people want the option that allows them to do the most with the less downsides if it's available. Furthermore, "is not able to walk but has a device allowing them to" doesn't make the character any less disabled than "is not able to walk but use a wheelchair".

If the answer to that is "the combat wheelchair is more easily available than other means", then fair.

I don't think my last reply was entirely satisfactory, so let me take another quick stab as a bonus action:

From the conversations I have seen and heard, the argument is between a fantasy, for players, where disability is negated (functionally made able-bodied with magic robot legs), and one where someone who is unapologetically disabled can be a heroic figure (riding a combat wheelchair into battle).

The characters aren't real people, so my preference would be listening to the community that wants (some form of) combat wheelchairs.

[Unoriginal]

Current 5e doesn't have anything in an official setting that has wheelchairs or anything to do with. The closest is the prosthetics, which has rules. I just figured if they are going out of their way to mention it being wheelchair accessible then it stands to reason that they may implement wheelchair rules. Maybe not the very ones that the author mentioned earlier in the thread made, but surely similar. And for all i know, she could be lead to make her own setting like Eberron, which isnt that old, compared to dragonlance or faerun.

Pretty sure there are a couple NPCs in wheelchairs in the different modules. Might be wrong, though, but if anything this module is likely to introduce some more.

[MaxWilson]

From the conversations I have seen and heard, the argument is between a fantasy, for players, where disability is negated (functionally made able-bodied with magic robot legs), and one where someone who is unapologetically disabled can be a heroic figure (riding a combat wheelchair into battle).

Honestly I don't see what's wrong with the PHB rules for the latter scenario. You don't need special rules to make a GWM PAM Fighter (or Bladesinger, or whatever) in a wheelchair, because the PHB already imposes no penalties for sitting while fighting.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Honestly I don't see what's wrong with the PHB rules for the latter scenario. You don't need special rules to make a GWM PAM Fighter (or Bladesinger, or whatever) in a wheelchair, because the PHB already imposes no penalties for sitting while fighting.

I hope this doesn't read the wrong way but I think having rules acknowledgment on this ability might be the goal, I also don't see issue with it as far as simply allowing it since there already is no mechanical penalty but doing it that way wouldn't really acknowledge their disability.

My feelings are complicated on this, I mean absolutely no ill will but I think its strange to want such specific mechanical representation to call explicit attention to how disabled your adventurer is.

I guess maybe to phrase it better: I'm glad that this will be here for people who want it but I'm sad that they may feel like it has to be here for them to feel appropriately represented.

[MaxWilson]

I hope this doesn't read the wrong way but I think having rules acknowledgment on this ability might be the goal, I also don't see issue with it as far as simply allowing it since there already is no mechanical penalty but doing it that way wouldn't really acknowledge their disability.

My feelings are complicated on this, I mean absolutely no ill will but I think its strange to want such specific mechanical representation to call explicit attention to how disabled your adventurer is.

I guess maybe to phrase it better: I'm glad that this will be here for people who want it but I'm sad that they may feel like it has to be here for them to feel appropriately represented.

Sounds reasonable. Personally I'm neutral, not sad. I don't think it's strange per se for someone to want to homebrew their own wheelchair gear if they're into wheelchairs, but again, I think 5E is the wrong game for it--it would fit better into GURPS, which has a long history of low-tech, high-tech, and ultra-tech gadgeteering-for-cash. D&D is more about spells and magic items.

I guess what I'm saying is that to me this is no different in from TSR's The Complete Book of Halflings or the 1990s Internet's Book of Erotic Fantasy (IIRC that was the title) or homebrew rules for playing competitive golf in 5E. I have no interest in such products and no interest in making my D&D games about such things, but it's not sad, per se, that other people do. (It would be a little bit sad if people got sad about how other people run D&D though.)

YMMV.

[Kvess]

Wheelchairs are fairly common in our world, as far as assistive devices go. I don't think people who rely on wheelchairs only play GURPS and I suspect it might really bother a disabled person to compare representation in D&D with homebrew rules for playing competitive golf. I think it's more fair to say heroes in wheelchairs (not necessarily using the Combat Wheelchair rules) is of a piece with other pushes for diversity in gaming.

[MaxWilson]

Wheelchairs are fairly common in our world, as far as assistive devices go. I don't think people who rely on wheelchairs only play GURPS and I suspect it might really bother a disabled person to compare representation in D&D with homebrew rules for playing competitive golf. I think it's more fair to say heroes in wheelchairs (not necessarily using the Combat Wheelchair rules) is of a piece with other pushes for diversity in gaming.

That's not the point I'm making.

People who want custom tricked-out wheelchairs with lots of bonus-granting gear should play GURPS (or similar systems with a heavy emphasis on customizing mundane gear for more bonuses).

People who just want wheelchairs can play 5E with a self-propelled wheelchair using the mounted combat rules, but they won't get the bonus damage and bonus AC and bonus spells that this homebrew author has created for herself.

[Dr. Cliché]

I saw these rules before Christmas and I find them . . . strange. Specifically, the fact that even the basic chairs are powered by magic (so there's no need to keep your hands free t operate them) and can traverse terrain and even stairs with no difficulty whatsoever. It seems bizarre to me to encourage players to play disabled characters only to immediately handwave virtually all difficulties said characters might encounter as a result of their disabilities.

Surely these sort of difficulties represent exactly the sort of roleplaying scenarios that are appropriate for parties with one or more physically-disadvantaged characters? Otherwise, it seems like you might as well be playing a character with fully functional legs who just likes to sit down a lot.

Coming soon, rules for:
- Blind characters (with magic eyes that give 120ft True Sight)
- Mute characters (with hats not available to anyone else that grant 400ft telepathy)
- Armless characters (with fully-functional mecha-hands that come with built-in laser cannons)

[Rynjin]

The thing is, disabled athletes in real life don't have access to fully functioning limb prosthetics or exoskeletons, and while I can't talk for them nor pretend to, I do know that generally people want the option that allows them to do the most with the less downsides if it's available.

Maybe? I know there's a large enough contingent of deaf people who are adamant that deafness is not a disability somehow (and so are against things like hearing aids for the total or partially deaf) so you never know.

[TheMango55]

I like the rules and the idea is fantastic, but when I read them it seemed like they were a bit too powerful for their price.

Basically what I’m saying is everyone in the party should be using combat wheelchairs, not just disabled people.

[HolyDraconus]

Let me slightly change my question. What if 5e had rules for disabilities like 3.x did? Would having a character that had one be even more tempting to play? Like, 3x had penalties for lack of arms, legs, eyes, etc. What if 5e had those too? Currently, as far as I'm aware, 5e just has upside only and no real penalties to players: the closest I seen to a player penalty that was difficult if not impossible to remove was the stat penalty for select races, which, after Tasha's, don't exist anymore. Level drain only exists in one particular instance ( unless its been errata'd) and as such, experience can only go up. So what would introducing a new slew of penalties and modes of overcoming them be tempting to play? I guess I had more questions than just changing one..

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I have a problem with this as written two (or maybe more) distinctly different fantasies that feel incongruous are being presented in the same document.

The first is mostly in the description of the basic movement abilities that enable creating a character that while holding on to the appearance and identity of being disabled is able to ignore all of the disadvantages of the disability they insist on presenting. This approach would be more appropriate to a narrative game like Dungeon World, but would be completely acceptable to allow someone to represent a fantasy they identify with in the game.

The second fantasy is in the lengthy descriptions of mechanical options which seem to model the tropes of "the one in the wheelchair" which could be fun, but is a very different tone. A character that rather than being capable despite being in a wheelchair is defined by their wheelchair.

[MaxWilson]

Let me slightly change my question. What if 5e had rules for disabilities like 3.x did? Would having a character that had one be even more tempting to play? Like, 3x had penalties for lack of arms, legs, eyes, etc. What if 5e had those too? Currently, as far as I'm aware, 5e just has upside only and no real penalties to players: the closest I seen to a player penalty that was difficult if not impossible to remove was the stat penalty for select races, which, after Tasha's, don't exist anymore. Level drain only exists in one particular instance ( unless its been errata'd) and as such, experience can only go up. So what would introducing a new slew of penalties and modes of overcoming them be tempting to play? I guess I had more questions than just changing one..

I don't understand. Isn't the penalty for being blind already in the Conditions appendix to the PHB? You have disadvantage on all of your attack rolls, and everyone has advantage on their attacks against you, and you can't see anything so many spells are impossible to cast. What more do you need to model a blind character? (Alert is a good feat for blind PCs BTW, and together with Darkness can turn a weakness into a strength.)

Likewise, being deaf is just the Deafened condition.

There aren't any rules for paraplegia but a simple one would be simply: "you can sit, but cannot stand unassisted. Without a source of support such as a wheelchair or crutches, you fall prone." Boom, done. If you want to nullify the disadvantage in practice, allow magical self-propelled Medium-sized wheelchairs as mounts for Medium creatures, with an inherent speed of 15' (so they can Dash for 30' using the mounted combat rules, nullifying the disadvantage in practice).

What more are you looking for?

[HolyDraconus]

I don't understand. Isn't the penalty for being blind already in the Conditions appendix to the PHB? You have disadvantage on all of your attack rolls, and everyone has advantage on their attacks against you, and you can't see anything so many spells are impossible to cast. What more do you need to model a blind character? (Alert is a good feat for blind PCs BTW, and together with Darkness can turn a weakness into a strength.)

Likewise, being deaf is just the Deafened condition.

There aren't any rules for paraplegia but a simple one would be simply: "you can sit, but cannot stand unassisted. Without a source of support such as a wheelchair or crutches, you fall prone." Boom, done. If you want to nullify the disadvantage in practice, allow magical self-propelled Medium-sized wheelchairs as mounts for Medium creatures, with an inherent speed of 15' (so they can Dash for 30' using the mounted combat rules, nullifying the disadvantage in practice).

What more are you looking for?

Blind, as is Deaf, are both conditions that last until whatever is causing it ends. Thats different than a human that can not hear permanently or see, permanently. And that's still tacking on homebrew that may not fly at another's table. I meant in the capacity of it being an official work. Like, if you want to be flippant about it you could argue needing a wheelchair for life is the paralyzed condition, which isnt really whats being asked in the thread.

[Keltest]

Blind, as is Deaf, are both conditions that last until whatever is causing it ends. Thats different than a human that can not hear permanently or see, permanently. And that's still tacking on homebrew that may not fly at another's table. I meant in the capacity of it being an official work. Like, if you want to be flippant about it you could argue needing a wheelchair for life is the paralyzed condition, which isnt really whats being asked in the thread.

I mean, if you want to go that route for whatever reason, you can just have a permanent blinded/deafened condition all the time. Like, if your eyes dont work, whether because they were gouged out or you were just born with nonfunctional eyes, thats the cause of the blinded condition. You dont even need to houserule anything here.

[Kvess]

While I have issues with the homebrew, Sara Thompson's Combat Wheelchair clearly had influence on Critical Role (Dagen Underthorn) and Dungeons & Dragons (Talin Uran in Idle Champions). To give credit where credit is due, I don't think that would have happened if she had just tweeted that she wanted to see heroic disabled characters in D&D.

Coming soon, rules for:
- Blind characters (with magic eyes that give 120ft True Sight)

Hyperbole aside, blind heroes are a whole archetype in genre fiction. I think sighted players would be interested in playing a hero in the model of Zatoichi, Daredevil, or Montolio Debrouchee. Tasha's introduced the Blind Fighting style to 5e, which gives characters 10ft of blindsight. In the core rules, I've heard of players equipping a seeing eye familiar.

- Mute characters (with hats not available to anyone else that grant 400ft telepathy)

Why would speaking characters need that if they're constantly casting Message? Sign language and writing are both perfectly viable options for characters that don't talk. IIRC Nat, one of the urchin kids in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, was deaf.

- Armless characters (with fully-functional mecha-hands that come with built-in laser cannons)

AFAIK there's nothing stopping an armless character from playing a Sun Soul monk right now. Besides, 5e has long included support for unarmed strikes.

[Unoriginal]

Coming soon, rules for:
- Blind characters (with magic eyes that give 120ft True Sight)
- Mute characters (with hats not available to anyone else that grant 400ft telepathy)
- Armless characters (with fully-functional mecha-hands that come with built-in laser cannons)

I've seen a lot of forum threads about those, over the years.

Let me slightly change my question. What if 5e had rules for disabilities like 3.x did? Would having a character that had one be even more tempting to play? Like, 3x had penalties for lack of arms, legs, eyes, etc. What if 5e had those too?

5e *has* rules for disabilities. They're just in the DMG, p.272.

Lose an Eye. You have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight and on ranged attack rolls. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost eye. If you have no eyes left after sustaining this injury, you're blinded.

Lose an Arm or a Hand. You can no longer hold anything with two hands, and you can hold only a single object at a time. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage.

Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage.

Limp. Your speed on foot is reduced by 5 feet. You must make a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw after using the Dash action. If you fail the save, you fall prone. Magical healing removes the limp.

[Quaryon]

The Armorer Artificer from Tasha’s also addresses disability by replacing lost limbs with the Arcane Armor.

It sounds like introducing a light Disadvantages system into 5e (as in GURPS) might be worthwhile. They could come up with a list of permanent conditions that limit abilities or combat options in particular situations, and any character could take one at creation in order to get a bonus feat. Or for +1 ASI, and two disadvantages (or one very serious one) for a feat. I wouldn’t make it any more complex than that, or grant any further bonuses, or it’ll get minmaxy very quickly.

But I think people would feel encouraged to try out interesting options like one-armed paladins or blind assassins if they knew they could get a heroic bonus to balance things out.

[Amechra]

Maybe? I know there's a large enough contingent of deaf people who are adamant that deafness is not a disability somehow (and so are against things like hearing aids for the total or partially deaf) so you never know.

My understanding is that it's more of a fear that sign languages (and their attendant cultures) will die out as a result. Which, from the perspective of someone who is a native signer, is equivalent to a concerted effort to destroy your native language. Which tends to make people really angry.

My biggest question is how you'd use your awesome wheelchair in dungeons, especially ones that happen to be natural caves (unlike Candlekeep, it would make no sense if those were wheelchair accessible). The biggest challenge there isn't stairs - it's uneven terrain, narrow passages, and low ceilings. I guess it's collapsible, so you could lug it through with you when you crawl through those spaces? It's actually surprisingly hard to find anything on disabled cavers (who would be the best reference point), because everything I search just brings up wheelchair accessibility in caverns that happen to be open to the public.

Honestly, my biggest issue with these rules is that they assume a level of "ambient" magic that I'm not sure I would want to include into a setting? Beacon stones potentially have a massive impact on a setting (they basically make wheels obsolete) that the author kinda glosses over.

...

Wait, are there full rules for normal wheelchairs anywhere? There are a bunch of incidental comments about them in the document (like that they cost 5gp, or that combat wheelchairs are lighter), but I'm not sure what the normal rules would be for wheelchair use.

Within the normal rules... I'd probably go with a Gnome Battle Smith whose Steel Defender is a wheelchair (using it as a mount, of course) if I didn't want mobility issues to be something that came up that often, or I would just play pretty much any character and voluntarily avoid Dashing/moving through difficult terrain/jumping/Acrobatics checks. Just like how I'd model my own disability - I'd skip taking proficiency in Perception and I'd pick up Sunlight Vulnerability (I have prescription earplugs and sunglasses I wear in public).

(Anyway, back to lurking/not thinking about 5e all that much.)

[Contrast]

I saw these rules before Christmas and I find them . . . strange. Specifically, the fact that even the basic chairs are powered by magic (so there's no need to keep your hands free t operate them) and can traverse terrain and even stairs with no difficulty whatsoever. It seems bizarre to me to encourage players to play disabled characters only to immediately handwave virtually all difficulties said characters might encounter as a result of their disabilities.

Surely these sort of difficulties represent exactly the sort of roleplaying scenarios that are appropriate for parties with one or more physically-disadvantaged characters? Otherwise, it seems like you might as well be playing a character with fully functional legs who just likes to sit down a lot.

Coming soon, rules for:
- Blind characters (with magic eyes that give 120ft True Sight)
- Mute characters (with hats not available to anyone else that grant 400ft telepathy)
- Armless characters (with fully-functional mecha-hands that come with built-in laser cannons)

In fairness there is a difference in wanting to play as a character with a disability and wanting the game to focus on that disability.

I play with someone who can walk but has mobility issues and uses a wheelchair a lot. They play a character who can walk but prefers to go everywhere mounted. I suspect they like it because it gives them a greater sense of self-identification with the character and they enjoy seeing someone who they identify with be a big damn hero and save the day.

Not to speak for them or anything but wanting that representation doesn't necessarily mean they want to have a 10 minute conversation every time we come across some stairs about how we're going to navigate them. I'm sure they get enough of that in real life.

Obviously there is a balance to be struck.

[Vulryn]

The Armorer Artificer from Tasha’s also addresses disability by replacing lost limbs with the Arcane Armor.

It sounds like introducing a light Disadvantages system into 5e (as in GURPS) might be worthwhile. They could come up with a list of permanent conditions that limit abilities or combat options in particular situations, and any character could take one at creation in order to get a bonus feat. Or for +1 ASI, and two disadvantages (or one very serious one) for a feat. I wouldn’t make it any more complex than that, or grant any further bonuses, or it’ll get minmaxy very quickly.

But I think people would feel encouraged to try out interesting options like one-armed paladins or blind assassins if they knew they could get a heroic bonus to balance things out.

In my opinion, it is a very dangerous („munchkiny) road to grant Boni for disabillities. Players (such as myself) will find a way to exploit it. Stacking feats as an armorer, for example.

It does not seem very plausible to me, either. Why would I have more benefits from being in a wheelchair or having no arms/whatever.

[Quaryon]

In my opinion, it is a very dangerous („munchkiny) road to grant Boni for disabillities. Players (such as myself) will find a way to exploit it. Stacking feats as an armorer, for example.

It does not seem very plausible to me, either. Why would I have more benefits from being in a wheelchair or having no arms/whatever.

Hence the need to keep it simple. The bonus doesn’t have to be a feat, it could just be a +1 ASI or a skill. Plausibility isn’t really the point. The point is to encourage people to play characters with meaningful personal limitations while maintaining overall balance.

If you need an explanation, perhaps being in a wheelchair encouraged your character to get beefier arms, or to spend more time inside reading books. When people face adversity they do all kinds of things.

The Armorer currently encourages people to play characters with missing limbs by just cancelling out the disadvantage. I agree that if “one-armed” was a possible characteristic, the Armorer would basically let you take it for free. Winged Tieflings also obviate the need for a wheelchair in many situations. So some attention would have to be paid to those kinds of interactions. Or you could just rely on players not to be total munchkins in games among friends.

[Zhorn]

In fairness there is a difference in wanting to play as a character with a disability and wanting the game to focus on that disability.

Very much this.
There's a range of opinions and preferences on both how people want to play the game and how they want to have things presented within the game, and depending on where you sit on each of those sliding scales is going to alter your opinions on what what has been done in Sara Thompson's Combat Wheelchair homebrew.

The designer's goal in this case wasn't about accurately depicting what adventuring with a disability would be like, but rather making a system for there to be representation of disabled adventurers who's disabilities are forefront in the characters depiction, but not restricting them from competing at the same level as those not bound by such disabilities. It's about inclusion within the power fantasy, to which I cannot fault them for their efforts, as for that intent the Combat Wheelchair is good at doing what is intended.

Simulationists on the other hand would be aiming for mechanical representation of what such disabilities would do to their characters. It's not about being powerful enough to ignore challenges, but overcoming adversity and the challenges such disabilities would bring to an adventure that non afflicted adventurers would otherwise not have to deal with. For them it would be more about a fair and balanced set of mechanics that fit with the narrative of the game world, to which the Combat Wheelchair is unbalanced and narratively broken.

It would be the difference between;
Being given blindsight for free at 1st level so you can be a 'blind' character but mechanically have better vision than most other PCs,
vs
Investing the levels/spells into getting Find Familiar to overcome that disability's restriction through a use of mechanical interactions with both strengths and weaknesses.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I get why someone would want to play with the combat wheelchair. I do. It's all an identity thing. And I'd be cool with letting someone play with it on those grounds.

But... well, Greater Restoration is a thing. And in any D&D setting where advanced healing magic exists...

Mechanically, I think it's fine. Way more complicated than I would have gone with. But it's fine.

[Draconi Redfir]

But... well, Greater Restoration is a thing. And in any D&D setting where advanced healing magic exists...

Having your character just instantly be fixed is boring though. that's not an obstacle to overcome, that's a minor inconvenience. If you're going to lop my arm off, i expect it to dang well stay off for a substantial amount of time so i have to get used to it. Let me get a replacement with a lot of hard work and effort, or as a reward for doing something great, but don't just snap your fingers and say "Woop! Fresh new arm!", that has no meaning behind it. that's not fun, that's Deus ex magica.

[MaxWilson]

It would be the difference between;
Being given blindsight for free at 1st level so you can be a 'blind' character but mechanically have better vision than most other PCs,
vs
Investing the levels/spells into getting Find Familiar to overcome that disability's restriction through a use of mechanical interactions with both strengths and weaknesses.

Nitpick: Find Familiar is pretty crummy for blind characters because of action economy clog: you can't see and attack/cast in the same round unless you Action Surge. For an actual blind character I recommend Alert instead or if you're playing with Tasha's rules, Fighting Style: Blindsight.

There are also some potentially-interesting workarounds via spells (Clairvoyance and Arcane Eye, although the concentration issues are interesting) and invocations (Devil's Sight might be ruled to override lack of normal sight capability).

As a DM who's seen Krull more than once, I'd certainly be down for letting someone start as a blind 5th level wizard instead of a regular 1st level PC, and then letting the need for Clairvoyance/familiar/apprentice (Titch!) balance out the extra starting power. Of course we all know how that ended for the Emerald Seer. :-P

Ah, Krull. It is not a good movie but it reminds me quite a lot of a good D&D session--over half the party dies before the movie is over.

[Dr. Cliché]

Having your character just instantly be fixed is boring though. that's not an obstacle to overcome, that's a minor inconvenience.

As compared to a magic wheelchair that effectively removes every element of the supposed disability?

I mean, I'll freely admit that I'm not the intended audience for this sort of thing. However, it's apparently targeted at hypothetical disabled people who want to play disabled characters who both take no advantage of the magical healing or prosthetic limbs available in this setting, but who do have magical wheelchairs that remove basically every difficulty associated with the disability they're apparently so keen to portray.

Each to their own but this seems like a very specific level of disabled for someone to want to play as.

[Draconi Redfir]

As compared to a magic wheelchair that effectively removes every element of the supposed disability?

I mean, I'll freely admit that I'm not the intended audience for this sort of thing. However, it's apparently targeted at hypothetical disabled people who want to play disabled characters who both take no advantage of the magical healing or prosthetic limbs available in this setting, but who do have magical wheelchairs that remove basically every difficulty associated with the disability they're apparently so keen to portray.

Each to their own but this seems like a very specific level of disabled for someone to want to play as.

oh yeah don't get me wrong, i don't get it either. Not exactly sure how someone is supposed to be swinging a sword while also pushing their wheelchair around a potentially bumpy battlefield and the like. I'm just saying an instant-fix will always be a bit of a letdown narratively when compared to the option of actually dealing with it.

I once had a paladin get hit with "Permanent blindness" due to a critical hit from an enemy mid-combat. so here i am all excited and thinking about all the angst and conflict that could arise from this, the different ways he could overcome it, the stories that could fall from him getting frustrated and discovering a new outlook on life... then in the next turn, someone casts greater restoration and completely fixes it without issue... Was kind of disappointing. Let the paladin keep fighting sure, but it was so much less compelling now. Not really "Permanent" blindness if you can just get rid of it in six seconds right?

So similarly i can completely understand choosing to go for the "Adaptation" option to the loss of leg-use over the "Instant fix" option of a single healing spell. I will say the specific rules everyone has been talking about do seem like a bit much, and i would personally expect to spend a bit more time and effort to be able to use the chair as a weapon or a magical item or the like, but overall needing to actually deal with the issue rather then just have it instantly fixed is always the better option in my mind.