Combat wheelchairs

[noob]

What is the point you are making? Where is it directed at?

Beware of points and directions for they are often boring.

2 points:

1) Why stop at 30? Why not 100?

2) The wheelchairs can be bought from any merchant, and so nobody will need your chair more than you. The villain probably threatened to kill your entire family if you didn't get rid of the chair.

1:I picked a random number it could have been 60 too.
2:So it is not just the adventurer rules and actual buying rules for everything that can buy?
What villain I was not talking about one?

[WaroftheCrans]

1:I picked a random number it could have been 60 too.
2:So it is not just the adventurer rules and actual buying rules for everything that can buy?
What villain I was not talking about one?

Apologies if it came off at all hostile, that was not the intention.
1) 30 is the typical stat limit, so I thought you were basing it off of that, but when making absurdist home brew like this one, the point was why stop there?

2) Yeah, that's the other problem with the combat wheelchair. You can purchase it anywhere. Otherwise it would be oppression/suppression/whatever, so to hell with verisimilitude.

I was the poster Korvin was replying to, so was just offering a facetious reason why the player would get rid of the wheelchair. Wasn't implying you had mentioned anything of the sort.

[Kurt Kurageous]

What is the point you are making? Where is it directed at?

My point was reductio ad absurdum.

The blue is for sarcasm was meant to make my point clearer, as was the warning about zealots.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My point was reductio ad absurdum.

The blue is for sarcasm was meant to make my point clearer, as was the warning about zealots.

Which part do you think is out of line, the fact that people think this chair is useful to everyone or the fact that the creator feels it needs to be this useful to make them an able adventurer?

Because the way I see it, the chair doesn't need all of these features to enable someone to play a disabled character, it isn't an absurd point of view to note that because it does have all of these bells and whistles that somebody might want it for those benefits even if they don't need it. It's too versatile a tool for its price to say no.

That's very likely not what the creator wants, it does so much that it's appealing and useful to more than the intended users.

[Lunatism]

Seems everyone should get a wheelchair. Including beholders. And giants. And those ocra things with wings.

Orcs with aggressive plus plows? Kobolds hitting twice as hard? Everyone has spider walking? That would make D&D so much better. And we'd all feel better about ourselves not being abelist.

Why not take this to it's conclusion? Make everyone use a wheelchair, and call those who use their legs disabled?

Then rewrite every optimization guide to include wheelchairs. Anything less would be sub-optimized!

Beware of zealots, for they are often boring.

Similar feelings here.

I can't wait to build an optimized abelist in a wheelchair for SUPERIOR POWER or GLORIOUS EVOLUTION of abelist.

[Sigreid]

I am starting to wonder when someone will homebrew an accommodation for blind players.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Just yesterday in Hong Kong, Lai Chi-wai climbed a skyscraper while in a wheelchair. He is quoted as saying, “Some people don’t understand the difficulties of disabled people, some people think that we are always weak, we need help, we need assistance, we need people’s pity.”

He is also quoted as saying, “Apart from just living, I wondered what drives me? So I began to chase that, knowing that there was a possibility I could climb mountains, even in a wheelchair.”

My brother, whom passed away from ALS, could not have performed this feat. I don't believe it is "Abelist" to acknowledge this.

In fact I find Lai Chi-Wai's statement to be abelist towards others in wheelchairs, whose particular circumstances differ from Lai Chi-Wai's own.

I also think Lai Chi-Wai's statement, reinforces a misconception of what Pity is. Pity is a shade of Compassion. Compassion is not about objectifying someone. True Pity, True Compassion does not, should not lead someone to be an object of it...as in the phrase "object of pity".

Compassion is about "oneness".

Personally, I find the term "abelist" to be as objectifying as any other horrible term, regardless of the good hearted intent of the user.

Some conditions like ALS, can lead to some actions being impossible for the person that has it. If one believes acknowledging that is "abelist", then I'm afraid one's viewpoint is skewed.

Sorry, this brought up strong emotions for me. There are many different viewpoints, with aspects that are valid, depending upon one's particular experience. I will leave it there.

[MaxWilson]

Just yesterday in Hong Kong, Lai Chi-wai climbed a skyscraper while in a wheelchair.

Side note: I think that claim is bit deceptive. When I finally got around to clicking the link, I was disappointed to find something much less epic than I imagined based on that description. I mean, I couldn't do what he did (I don't have the muscular strength for it nor the technical expertise) but using a pulley and rope system to hoist yourself up the outside of a skyscraper isn't what I would call "climbing a skyscraper while in a wheelchair".

[Kurt Kurageous]

Which part do you think is out of line, the fact that people think this chair is useful to everyone or the fact that the creator feels it needs to be this useful to make them an able adventurer?

Because the way I see it, the chair doesn't need all of these features to enable someone to play a disabled character, it isn't an absurd point of view to note that because it does have all of these bells and whistles that somebody might want it for those benefits even if they don't need it. It's too versatile a tool for its price to say no.

That's very likely not what the creator wants, it does so much that it's appealing and useful to more than the intended users.

I think what I meant to imply indirectly was...in a game with magical healing, why would anyone need a wheelchair? Sure, poverty, but...
And looking at the descriptions of abilities, the wheelchair gives significant advantages to a stock character on par with legendary magic items. So the wheelchair user is actually more powerful than a non-wheelchair user. Apparatus of Kwalish powerful. You see why this would, especially at low level, be bad to allow?

In the end, I think the creator has an agenda and we exist to applaud/validate them as they write things for "the world's greatest role-playing game."

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I find the term "abelist" to be as objectifying as any other horrible term, regardless of the good hearted intent of the user.

In my very limited experience, the usage seems to only arise as an epithet, or with a negative tone in context but as I say my experience is limited, and, sometimes received communication may not match what is intended to be sent.

[EggKookoo]

I am starting to wonder when someone will homebrew an accommodation for blind players.

How about one for socially awkward players?

[MaxWilson]

How about one for socially awkward players?

How about one for players with a phobia of polyhedrons?

[KorvinStarmast]

How about one for socially awkward players?

There's a game for that called Dungeons and Dragons.

How about one for players with a phobia of polyhedrons?

There's a game for that called Marbles.

I'll be here all week. Try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress server.

[Draconi Redfir]

I am starting to wonder when someone will homebrew an accommodation for blind players.

The battlecane is a white-cane that you gain for free at character creation. it's a long rod used to feel around in front of you to make sure you're not running into things. The top end can come in a wide variety of shapes including holy symbols and arcane focuses. For an extra two gold, you can have it made out of Doppleganger flesh, allowing it to change between any focus and/or symbol as a free action. The bottom end has a retractable sword that starts as a rapier but can be upgraded into a longsword or even greatsword via the use of a pocket dimension similar to a bag of holding. You can alternatively get a cane that can be split in half for two similar-sized swords for dual wielding.

when wielding the cane as a cane you gain a +5 perception bonus and a +2 to Dexterity. these bonuses persist even if the cane is in it's one or more sword or focus forms.

[KorvinStarmast]

The battlecane is a white-cane that you gain for free at character creation. it's a long rod used to feel around in front of you to make sure you're not running into things. The top end can come in a wide variety of shapes including holy symbols and arcane focuses. For an extra two gold, you can have it made out of Doppleganger flesh, allowing it to change between any focus and/or symbol as a free action. The bottom end has a retractable sword that starts as a rapier but can be upgraded into a longsword or even greatsword via the use of a pocket dimension similar to a bag of holding. You can alternatively get a cane that can be split in half for two similar-sized swords for dual wielding.

when wielding the cane as a cane you gain a +5 perception bonus and a +2 to Dexterity. these bonuses persist even if the cane is in it's one or more sword or focus forms.

Unless it includes the pizza cutter attachment, I am not getting out my credit card and dialing that 1-800 number.

[noob]

The battlecane is a white-cane that you gain for free at character creation. it's a long rod used to feel around in front of you to make sure you're not running into things. The top end can come in a wide variety of shapes including holy symbols and arcane focuses. For an extra two gold, you can have it made out of Doppleganger flesh, allowing it to change between any focus and/or symbol as a free action. The bottom end has a retractable sword that starts as a rapier but can be upgraded into a longsword or even greatsword via the use of a pocket dimension similar to a bag of holding. You can alternatively get a cane that can be split in half for two similar-sized swords for dual wielding.

when wielding the cane as a cane you gain a +5 perception bonus and a +2 to Dexterity. these bonuses persist even if the cane is in it's one or more sword or focus forms.

You forgot a critical thing: it should also make you see better than someone which is not blind.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You forgot a critical thing: it should also make you see better than someone which is not blind.

I was going to suggest it giving you tremorsense via some sort of haptic feedback in the handle.

[PhantomSoul]

I was going to suggest it giving you tremorsense via some sort of haptic feedback in the handle.

That was last edition's model; now there's also small grooves and holes along the cane to detect minor air movement, to supplement tremorsense with blindsight in case of flying creatures!

[WaroftheCrans]

That was last edition's model; now there's also small grooves and holes along the cane to detect minor air movement, to supplement tremorsense with blindsight in case of flying creatures!

I was under the impression that the doppelganger upgrade included Demonlord eyes, for 180 foot truesight transmitted telepathically to you. Maybe it was the deluxe doppelganger detail I got for an extra 5 gold. Thank goodness it doesn't cost me an attunement slot, or count as a magic item.

[Sigreid]

I was under the impression that the doppelganger upgrade included Demonlord eyes, for 180 foot truesight transmitted telepathically to you. Maybe it was the deluxe doppelganger detail I got for an extra 5 gold. Thank goodness it doesn't cost me an attunement slot, or count as a magic item.

Can't do that because then you're making them lesser for their disability by eliminating it. Wasn't that the chair logic?

[WaroftheCrans]

Can't do that because then you're making them lesser for their disability by eliminating it. Wasn't that the chair logic?

Just like the wheelchair they're reliant on an outside tool, in this case a "battlecane", that effectively eliminates their disability. The wheelchair user can move faster than the average person and with great precision and agility, the battlecane user can see considerably better.

Neither of them can do this unassisted, so they still have a disability that is important to their identity.

[Zhorn]

I think Sigreid was getting at the chair is narratively not granting the user the ability to walk or use their legs, so while they can use it to mechanically behave as if they don't have the disability they still do narratively.
For the joke-cane giving someone sight would be erasing their disability, even if it is only mechanically because of the cane. Using tremorsense on the other hand isn't erasing their blindness while mechanically allowing them something that lets them function (to an extent) without the mechanical limitation of blindness and (to another extent) perform superior to a person who isn't blind.

[Sigreid]

I think Sigreid was getting at the chair is narratively not granting the user the ability to walk or use their legs, so while they can use it to mechanically behave as if they don't have the disability they still do narratively.
For the joke-cane giving someone sight would be erasing their disability, even if it is only mechanically because of the cane. Using tremorsense on the other hand isn't erasing their blindness while mechanically allowing them something that lets them function (to an extent) without the mechanical limitation of blindness and (to another extent) perform superior to a person who isn't blind.

Kind of, there was a bit of a discussion around why not magic healing or prosthetics that are already in the game. So the blind equivalent would be a seeing eye homunculus or something.

[Draconi Redfir]

one time i almost played a character who was blind from birth. Came to an agreement with the DM that while they were "Blind", they weren't "Blinded", and didn't suffer the condition as a baseline outside a -2 to AC from ranged attacks. And they could still become blinded by the usual sources, even if it didn't make a whole lot of sense.

all it really takes to be honest.

[MadBear]

Still seems to me that many people are missing some important points.

1. Saying "With magic, we could just fix a person's legs"

This misses the point because not everyone who uses a wheelchair, wants to walk again. Much like deaf people who will not get a cochlear implant because they don't see hearing as a deficiency. This doesn't have to make sense to you at all, but that doesn't mean people like that don't exist.

2. D&D can be played in many ways, not all of which have to replicate reality.

D&D can be a great way to escape the realities of everyday life. If a person wants to play a hero in a wheelchair, that doesn't/shouldn't mean that they need to then have a bunch of handicaps the effectively make playing that character worse then everyone else. That's not fun. To be honest, if you had a friend who was a wheelchair user, and they wanted to play a wheelchair using hero, and your response was "That's not realistic, you either can't do that, or you should have a bunch of penalties", you're being a wang rod.

3. But X player who isn't disabled just wants it to abuse the rules

Sure, a bad player is gonna be a bad player. See why they want to use this. If it's "I just wanna get some free benefits to improve my stats" feel free as a DM to say no.

4. Just don't be ableist, its a bad look. It's about 1 step removed from other forms of prejudice.

[ProsecutorGodot]

4. Just don't be ableist, its a bad look. It's about 1 step removed from other forms of prejudice.

If that's the conclusion you're drawing, I'd say you've missed a fair few points here. To reiterate once again: I, and many others if I'm not mistaken, have little to no issue with the idea. It is the implementation that is questionable.

The tool is obviously more powerful than it needs to be regardless of who is using it, you could erase half its features and upgrades and it would still be a pretty powerful item.

I think more than anything the criticism is coming from a place of mechanical critique, which is extremely commonplace on these forums. It has nothing to do with disparaging anyone for wanting representation in DND.

[Zhorn]

If that's the conclusion you're drawing, I'd say you've missed a fair few points here.

Agreed.
It is a common response I'm seeing on a lot of fronts where someone is attempting to implement/change something to the game and how it is played based on their external-to-the-game ideological views. Any pushback at all for whatever reason tends to get lumped together into one singular group and slapped with an -ist label.

The critiquing the mechanical balance of the combat wheel chair isn't an -ist discussion (except maybe a simulationist one?).
If the conversation was "people in wheelchairs cannot be adventurers" then maybe such a response label would be warranted, but the general vibe of the conversation has so far been "I'd allow a player to have a disabled PC in the game, just not using this specific homebrew rule set".

[MadBear]

I'll just point out that I'm not calling out any one person in particular and if you're not saying/making the problematic statements, then my post doesn't apply to you. I have however spent way to long reading through 7 pages of posts with more then a few people saying things like "Magic exists, there's no reason for a person to want/need this", which completely misses the point for the kind of person who wants this in their game.

If all you're doing is talking about balance, I'll reiterate I'm not really speaking to you.

[P. G. Macer]

I think part of the problem is that some of the people here when they say “combat wheelchair” are referring to simply a wheelchair or similar device used in combat, while others see “combat wheelchair” and think of the Combat Wheelchair™, a very specific homebrew item that seems to be (I have not actually read the product) so overpowered that an abled PC would want one. The reverse misunderstanding may also be happening.

[Zhorn]

I have however spent way to long reading through 7 pages of posts with more then a few people saying things like "Magic exists, there's no reason for a person to want/need this"

But was that actually what they said, or have you paraphrased to strip out the context of what they were saying or asking at the time? I'm not saying this to be rude, but it does sound you have skipped over some parts of what was being said at the time and to what they were responding to.

I'll just point out that I'm not calling out any one person in particular

so to this I suggest maybe you should? Not as a callout, but have a quote linking to the post someone said that you have the disagreement with and open a dialogue, understand why they said what they did, address the fundamental disagreement and perhaps come to a mutual understanding.