Just thinking about this: why would any hero or character of sufficient power be disabled in a fantasy setting like D&D?
I was just reading how a character, one of the heroic NPCs fell from a rooftop and became paralysed. Why wouldn't such a character get healing magic? While not common, this is a world where spells like Regenerate exist. People of sufficent power can regrow limbs and injuries are regularly healed. A second level spell without material cost can cure this guys paralysis, but we are to understand that he willfully gets around in a wheelchair? Is that supposed to be empowering or insulting to disabled people? Few, if anyone, choose to have a disability. I'm not sure how I would feel if I were disabled, but I think I would feel that such a person would be making light at my condition by "visiting" it as a tourist. A tourist that could choose to go home any time they choose.
I get why you might see the odd person in a town with a missing eye, arm or leg. But once you are a powerful adventurer, not even death is permanent. It's a bit obscene to pretend paralysis is.
1) Many people are born with disabilities. Regenerate only restores limbs that were already there and got lost, not ones that were never there. The same thing applies to people who are born with conditions that cause them to be unable to walk, or with mental conditions that severely affect their ability to function, and so on.
2) It's highly likely that the magic required to treat/"cure" these disabilities are either rare/expensive enough that they are extremely difficult to have access to, or that people are only now beginning to study how to treat them using experimental techniques.
3) The magic that is used to treat/"cure" certain disabilities have unwanted side-effects significant enough that those with those disabilities often/occasionally would choose to not use them. For example, someone who was paralyzed below the waist choosing to cut off their legs and replace them with prosthetic limbs is a big deal and a choice that not everyone would be fine with making.
4) Yeah, it's inclusive. They're including a typically marginalized minority group in art and D&D books now, which is a big deal to some people. It might not be one to you, but there are some people that it is a big deal for. You're not a member of that community, so you may not understand why they feel this way, but people do like stuff like the Combat Wheelchair and other ways to include their group in the game.
I don't have any comments on that specific case, though, as I don't know enough about it. However, it's just a cool thing to see. Tasha's had the gay wizard couple, this book has a retired adventurer in a wheelchair, and is moving towards Stress and Fear instead of Madness and Insanity. The inclusion of it is largely for the point of inclusion, because people have asked for stuff like this, and it's not harmful to anyone to include it. It's a fantasy game, where reasons for anything being a certain way only depend on your imagination. I think it's cool, but your mileage may vary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There is a lot of discussion about the nature of "healing" magic. For example, if someone was born blind, would spells like Regenerate be able to restore their sight?
The crux of the question rests in the semantics of "restore". An individual who was born blind would never have had sight, so to gain eyes would be an enhancement, not a restoration. This begs the question of what an individual's "True" state is. What is a "wound" as opposed to something we simply don't like about ourselves? The nature of reality and magic in a campaign is ultimately up to the DM, but one answer for your question is that who you are, mentally and physically, changes over time. A fresh war injury can be reversed with Cure Wounds, but if you let it go untreated, eventually it will scar and fade. It's no longer a "wound", simply a new configuration of cells.
A potion of healing (50g) represents a month's wages for most NPCs. In a world without centralized banking, that's often an impossible expense. By the time they managed to scrape together the funds to buy one, the injury would have likely already set and would need complicated surgery to correct it again. (Heck, many people in the modern world are living month to month. If we needed "cash upfront" to afford surgery today, most people would be screwed.)
So, the first reason that disability exists in a world of magic is the same that Cure Wounds doesn't erase tattoos, or reverse aging. Magic has limits.
The second reason that disability exists in a world of magic is that it exists in the real world. Magic realistically changes a lot about what the world would look like, but D&D as a game is an opportunity to experience a fantasy world slightly different from our own. "Game Logic" should not change the world so much that it makes it unrelatable. Sometimes that means we have to handwave inconsistencies, or rationalize it in hindsight.
This is a topic that comes up fairly often. Have a fire extinguisher handy, you're probably going to need it. People constantly ask about being disabled in various ways, physical, mental, and even social. Conversation ranges around to the problem of people wanting super-powers to "compensate" for something they *chose* to take. "My character is blind, so can I have Tremorsense so that I never have to suffer any of the negative effects?"
I consider it disrespectful. There are people who suffer from these things in the real world and I doubt they find it fun. Fantasy is supposed to be an escape from things we would rather not experience. Under no circumstances should anyone in a game get an in game mechanical effect. If they wish to roleplay something, that's fine. A bit disrespectful still but possible to handle without anyone taking offense.
In a game with a combat system that really doesn't ever deal in serious injury, where even one hit point means you're perfectly fine, and only in the variant rules in the DMG are there any mention of lasting physical trauma, and in which getting healed is trivial, what place has there in someone with so much as a scar they don't want?
So OP is talking about a character in a Domain of Dread, right? My guess is the high magic buzz is a bit harshed in a lot of those domains, so magic may not be the cure-all.
As far as the use of wheelchair in D&D, check this video, the argument OP's point reflects is addressed at about 1:50:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is a topic that comes up fairly often. Have a fire extinguisher handy, you're probably going to need it. People constantly ask about being disabled in various ways, physical, mental, and even social. Conversation ranges around to the problem of people wanting super-powers to "compensate" for something they *chose* to take. "My character is blind, so can I have Tremorsense so that I never have to suffer any of the negative effects?"
I consider it disrespectful. There are people who suffer from these things in the real world and I doubt they find it fun. Fantasy is supposed to be an escape from things we would rather not experience. Under no circumstances should anyone in a game get an in game mechanical effect. If they wish to roleplay something, that's fine. A bit disrespectful still but possible to handle without anyone taking offense.
In a game with a combat system that really doesn't ever deal in serious injury, where even one hit point means you're perfectly fine, and only in the variant rules in the DMG are there any mention of lasting physical trauma, and in which getting healed is trivial, what place has there in someone with so much as a scar they don't want?
As a person that is completely blind in one eye and 50% in the other, I can attest that I have no special qualities that make up for the loss of my vision. I don't sense vibrations in the ground, I don't have super hearing and I don't have a blood hound like sense of smell. What I do have is a number of bruises and scrapes from bumping into things and a bit of social anxiety from constantly bumping into people in the grocery isles.
I hate it when people try to make blind characters and then demand to be give a way to just ignore being blind. I would gladly have my sight back. I miss seeing the faces of my loves ones and the stars. I miss being able to drive myself to the store. I miss painting miniatures. Disabilities are not things that people should just be tacking on to their characters without there being any kind of effect. It isn't being inclusive, it is just being rude.
The OP answered their own question when they said they are not a member of that community, so don’t know how they would feel. People who are in that community (and I’m not, if that matters) seem generally to like the inclusion. I’d assume not everyone, because no group is monolithic, but I’ve only ever seen praise for it. The people who it reflects don’t feel patronized or pandered to (from what I can tell). That’s all that matters. The people who are in the situation like what they see; it harms no one else, so to my mind there’s no problem.
I will say It’s commendable that you showed empathy in trying to imagine how you would feel in that situation, but it’s better to take the next step, listen to those people and adjust your view based on the experiences of those who have lived it.
As the real world implications of disabled characters have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that the fact that Regenerate exists hardly indicate that physical disabilities shouldn't be an issue in D&D.
Regenerate is a 7th level spell. That means that you need a caster who's quite high in level (at least 13). Those are rare. And even if you can find someone who's capable of casting Regenerate, that doesn't mean that they're going to be willing to do so, especially not for free. A character in need of such a spell is likely to have to pay a substantial amount- well beyond what a peasant can expect to earn. And that's assuming that the caster is even willing to cast the spell at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The OP answered their own question when they said they are not a member of that community, so don’t know how they would feel. People who are in that community (and I’m not, if that matters) seem generally to like the inclusion. I’d assume not everyone, because no group is monolithic, but I’ve only ever seen praise for it. The people who it reflects don’t feel patronized or pandered to (from what I can tell). That’s all that matters. The people who are in the situation like what they see; it harms no one else, so to my mind there’s no problem.
I will say It’s commendable that you showed empathy in trying to imagine how you would feel in that situation, but it’s better to take the next step, listen to those people and adjust your view based on the experiences of those who have lived it.
To be fair, some like it, some find it annoying.
Its never a easy discussion.
Personaly i do understand the Narrative that people would want to use for their characters, cause just like irl, **** ups can happen.
The difference is that as a player/DM it is a concious decision, people irl affected by it din't choose it.
Personaly my current character has a Prosthetic arm, ...cause i'm a Huge Berserk fan..., and the prostethic arm with a concealed cannon/weapon in it is an Anti-Hero staple since Space Adventures Cobra in the 80's.
Thats all there is to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
D&D Beyond has done two great interviews (not able bodied people opining on the matter, actually speaking to disabled people) on the subject:
The tl;dr is that some people don't want to feel ashamed of any disability they may have and discouraged from representing themselves within the game, so these options and inclusions are valuable to them.
This is a topic that comes up fairly often. Have a fire extinguisher handy, you're probably going to need it. People constantly ask about being disabled in various ways, physical, mental, and even social. Conversation ranges around to the problem of people wanting super-powers to "compensate" for something they *chose* to take. "My character is blind, so can I have Tremorsense so that I never have to suffer any of the negative effects?"
I consider it disrespectful. There are people who suffer from these things in the real world and I doubt they find it fun. Fantasy is supposed to be an escape from things we would rather not experience. Under no circumstances should anyone in a game get an in game mechanical effect. If they wish to roleplay something, that's fine. A bit disrespectful still but possible to handle without anyone taking offense.
In a game with a combat system that really doesn't ever deal in serious injury, where even one hit point means you're perfectly fine, and only in the variant rules in the DMG are there any mention of lasting physical trauma, and in which getting healed is trivial, what place has there in someone with so much as a scar they don't want?
I played a blind wizard once, my character had a familiar and I would use that to see, keeping it hidden or out of view, my DM and I came up with varient mechanics to allow me to do more while "seeing" through my familiar which was all part of my backstory and on the battlefield if my familiar couldn't see it, even if it was in front of me, I was at disadvantage.
I have played with disabled friends and players who play able bodied characters, and I have played with able bodied players who play disabled characters, at the same table as a disabled player. Yes they use magic and the availability of magic items to make things better, I have also played other systems, for instance I once LARPD vampire the masquerade, we had a player there who was actually disabled and in a wheelchair who's character was able bodied and who preyed on the weak, poor and yes, disabled in society feeding on them and offering them the hope of becoming a vampire, he picked and wrote and created that character and made it so so very dark. We would roleplay with him as if he could walk and stand and move about, Another player there, fully able, wore dark glasses and had a stick and played a vampire who's retina had been burnt out by the sun as punishment as a vampire he had other abilities that allowed him to off set this when needed. That caused no issue to any of the other players there including the disabled player. Another game, Mage, I played a member of the Technocracy and was looking for ways to create undead without breaking paradox. I decided that I would be the CEO of an organisation that initially made artificial limbs, then moved on to make limbs that looked real almost growing them back with "nano tech (magic)" This then moved to me convincing the world i could reanimate the dead with this same nanotech, in order to sell this my character had removed his own leg and made it appear it was a birth condition to "sell the story" as to why I was driven to regrow limbs,i had to go that deep because our GM in that game was a real stickler for letting you be an all powerful mage, but, hitting you with paradox given the slightest opportunity and the slightest opportunity for a "sleeper" to see through the whole story and not believe it would have hit me with a lot of paradox.
I have also played characters who have psycological conditions in various game systems, the Saulot who hears voices in Vampire, the Warlock who has depression and real suicidal tendencies in DnD because of his pact (for a while that character couldn't die, the DM and i agreed an ability where I auto succeeded on all death saving throws, so I had tried to kill myself, and then just woken up). I played a lot of Call of Cthulu a game where literally you go insane and, if one of the many many horrors in the world doesnt kill you, or you don't end up locked away in a straightjacket, you may very well end up taking your own life, as I have seen at least one player do to their character because the eldritch horror ended up destroying and killing her children in game, that was a particularly intense session, having her say goodbye to each of us in her way, then go to her room in the hotel, we went up to see her at the agreed time to decide the next move and she just described the scene we found, her, hanging from the ceiling and the letter she had written to us. The next week she had her new character ready to go.
So no we don't all roleplay to be the hero, or to escape things, sometimes we roleplay to experience things we have never had to in real life, like drug dependancy, the death of a loved one, the feeling of slowly going insane, or even moving around the world in a magical wheelchair that has the ability to fly. When you combine fantasy with the realities of the world you see that yes, absolutely a disabled person would become a wizard to make their life easier, but the one thing I think is disrespectful is an assumption that somehow every person with a disability would choose to get a cleric to just heal them and make them whole. I can tell you I have friends who absolutely would not give up what they term there superpower, and who do not get offended when they see an able bodied person playing them in a film, or roleplaying a character in DnD, in fact they love it because it includes them and doesn't assume that they dont want to be that way and that the ideal world does not have them in it.
I'm going to avoid the potential discussion that's growing about whether or not this should be in the game and instead address the part of the OP's question about whether it makes sense to be in this setting.
In a world where magic can heal, it's worth considering that magic can also harm. The reason people in real life can heal a broken limb is because it is purely mechanical; the bone is capable of healing and there's (hopefully) nothing preventing it from doing so. With proper treatment, it can heal straight and strong.
Now imagine your arm was broken by a magical mace which freezes what it strikes. The bone is shattered into countless pieces - which a healing potion would normally sort out - but it's also cursed by the blow from the magical mace; The bone remains permanently fragile, even when it's healed, and breaks if you so much as move the arm. The magic is ancient and strong, and the only way to break the curse is to destroy the mace - but the mace wielder is long gone, and you're not about to go and challenge them again. You're now stuck with a permanently broken arm.
The mistake made was considering that magic is only used in a curative sense. I agree that falling from a height should be cured by magic without any issue. But if someone had the use of their legs stolen by an evil sea witch to give a mermaid legs in exchange for her voice, then just healing isn't going to fix it. It's more likely that an adventurer would come across these magical injuries, in fact, than a commoner. A cleric might stay in a village and heal the commoners when they injure themselves in mundane ways, but if an adventurer has a barbed tentacle from some exotic beast wrapped around their spine, that's not going to be healed away.
The OP answered their own question when they said they are not a member of that community, so don’t know how they would feel. People who are in that community (and I’m not, if that matters) seem generally to like the inclusion. I’d assume not everyone, because no group is monolithic, but I’ve only ever seen praise for it. The people who it reflects don’t feel patronized or pandered to (from what I can tell). That’s all that matters. The people who are in the situation like what they see; it harms no one else, so to my mind there’s no problem.
I will say It’s commendable that you showed empathy in trying to imagine how you would feel in that situation, but it’s better to take the next step, listen to those people and adjust your view based on the experiences of those who have lived it.
I have seen a reddit post some time ago about a person who is disabled and absolutely hates the combat wheelchair because it makes it too easy for a disabled person to be an adventurer. Ie. it doesn't reflect the hardships in an adequate way.
Of course then the question arises - why would you choose one of the most (if not the most) dangerous profession in a fantasy world if you didn't have means to mitigate your limitations?
Just a proof of concept that no matter how inclusive you are trying to be, there will always be someone who is not satisfied.
As the real world implications of disabled characters have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that the fact that Regenerate exists hardly indicate that physical disabilities shouldn't be an issue in D&D.
Regenerate is a 7th level spell. That means that you need a caster who's quite high in level (at least 13). Those are rare. And even if you can find someone who's capable of casting Regenerate, that doesn't mean that they're going to be willing to do so, especially not for free. A character in need of such a spell is likely to have to pay a substantial amount- well beyond what a peasant can expect to earn. And that's assuming that the caster is even willing to cast the spell at all.
I think this has a lot of bearing.
There are amazing surgeons out in the real world who can do wonders for all sorts of conditions. Severed hands can be reattached, damaged spines repaired, eyes fixed... However, often it is only the immense skill of the top surgeons which allows these to take place, and there are not many of those around. They also charge an awful lot for their services. If you cannot afford them, or your health insurance won't pay, or there just isn't a surgeon with the required skills who is both willing and able to perform the procedure at the right time and place, it's not going to help much.
There is no reason to believe things would be any different in a world of magic. Those high-level magic users capable of casting the spells required are likely to be rare. Even if there is a spell which will "just fix" the injury a person has suffered, it doesn't mean that person can find a spell caster who is willing and able to cast it or that they will accept what the person is willing to pay.
As the real world implications of disabled characters have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that the fact that Regenerate exists hardly indicate that physical disabilities shouldn't be an issue in D&D.
Regenerate is a 7th level spell. That means that you need a caster who's quite high in level (at least 13). Those are rare. And even if you can find someone who's capable of casting Regenerate, that doesn't mean that they're going to be willing to do so, especially not for free. A character in need of such a spell is likely to have to pay a substantial amount- well beyond what a peasant can expect to earn. And that's assuming that the caster is even willing to cast the spell at all.
I think this has a lot of bearing.
There are amazing surgeons out in the real world who can do wonders for all sorts of conditions. Severed hands can be reattached, damaged spines repaired, eyes fixed... However, often it is only the immense skill of the top surgeons which allows these to take place, and there are not many of those around. They also charge an awful lot for their services. If you cannot afford them, or your health insurance won't pay, or there just isn't a surgeon with the required skills who is both willing and able to perform the procedure at the right time and place, it's not going to help much.
There is no reason to believe things would be any different in a world of magic. Those high-level magic users capable of casting the spells required are likely to be rare. Even if there is a spell which will "just fix" the injury a person has suffered, it doesn't mean that person can find a spell caster who is willing and able to cast it or that they will accept what the person is willing to pay.
Yeah, people often think that 13th level clerics have nothing better to do than sit in a temple and wait for someone to show up for a cheap heal.
The OP answered their own question when they said they are not a member of that community, so don’t know how they would feel. People who are in that community (and I’m not, if that matters) seem generally to like the inclusion. I’d assume not everyone, because no group is monolithic, but I’ve only ever seen praise for it. The people who it reflects don’t feel patronized or pandered to (from what I can tell). That’s all that matters. The people who are in the situation like what they see; it harms no one else, so to my mind there’s no problem.
I will say It’s commendable that you showed empathy in trying to imagine how you would feel in that situation, but it’s better to take the next step, listen to those people and adjust your view based on the experiences of those who have lived it.
I have seen a reddit post some time ago about a person who is disabled and absolutely hates the combat wheelchair because it makes it too easy for a disabled person to be an adventurer. Ie. it doesn't reflect the hardships in an adequate way.
Of course then the question arises - why would you choose one of the most (if not the most) dangerous profession in a fantasy world if you didn't have means to mitigate your limitations?
Just a proof of concept that no matter how inclusive you are trying to be, there will always be someone who is not satisfied.
That's the thing, the goal isn't to satisfy everyone, because that's impossible. The goal is to provide options to help the most number of people be satisfied. I too have seen disabled people criticise and outright attack the combat wheelchair and similar notions for whatever reason. It's as was mentioned; no group is a monolith and being disabled is an especially personal and unique experience. For example, I have a (relatively minor, in the scheme of things) hearing disability; I actually have mid-frequency hypersensitivity. Normally your hearing focuses on the high and low frequencies; those most commonly associated with useful information such as voices, and has less accuity on the mid frequencies. My hearing doesn't do that and as such I experience background noise a lot louder than most people, meaning the useful frequencies get drowned out. This is a vastly different experience of hearing disability from someone with hearing loss; I can't benefit from a hearing aid or implant, and sign language wouldn't actually help me communicate better because I'd still be oversaturated with noise. As such, my experience of a hearing disability means my opinions on it differ a lot from other people within the same broad sphere. I would not personally want to play a deaf hero because my experience of hearing disability is not something I feel connected to, while other people with hearing disabilities find community and solidarity within it and carry it as a proud part of their identity, something they 100% should be able to do so without shame or judgement.
So no, you're never going to satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean the intent is misguided or wrong. There are people who are not just satisfied, but delighted by these options because they want to be able to represent themselves and their experience without it being portrayed as a continuous burden. For example, a lot of wheelchair users hate the term wheelchair bound because it implies their chair restricts them, when in fact, it empowers them. So playing a hero that is empowered by their chair feels good to them, it's part of the joy of playing a game like D&D. And as to why a wheelchair user would become an adventurer, or any other disabled person would choose that path, well it's simple; heroes don't let adversity hold them back, so why should a disability by any different?
"Why don't they just get healed?" is an ableist question from it's very premise. Not all disabled people want to be healed - even if they had the ability to do so (which has already been put in question above). My main experiences with this are family members who were born profoundly deaf. They find the idea of getting "cured" offensive. Partly because they don't consider themselves disabled - and because it would erase Deaf culture and identity. (That and they get asked that question alllll the time and it's really annoying.)
"Why don't they just get healed?" is an ableist question from it's very premise. Not all disabled people want to be healed - even if they had the ability to do so (which has already been put in question above). My main experiences with this are family members who were born profoundly deaf. They find the idea of getting "cured" offensive. Partly because they don't consider themselves disabled - and because it would erase Deaf culture and identity. (That and they get asked that question alllll the time and it's really annoying.)
Sure, but I'm guessing a lot of those people don't have those disabilities from injuries. I'm guessing your parents didn't become deaf last week and that they've had to live with the condition for a long length of time. I think fewer people would choose disability if it was new and easily curable. If you were injured and paralysed from the waist down and the first doctor you see says "Oh, I can fix that for you . It would just take a minute." I think a small minority of people would say "No thanks, I prefer to never walk again."
I'm going to avoid the potential discussion that's growing about whether or not this should be in the game and instead address the part of the OP's question about whether it makes sense to be in this setting.
In a world where magic can heal, it's worth considering that magic can also harm. The reason people in real life can heal a broken limb is because it is purely mechanical; the bone is capable of healing and there's (hopefully) nothing preventing it from doing so. With proper treatment, it can heal straight and strong.
Now imagine your arm was broken by a magical mace which freezes what it strikes. The bone is shattered into countless pieces - which a healing potion would normally sort out - but it's also cursed by the blow from the magical mace; The bone remains permanently fragile, even when it's healed, and breaks if you so much as move the arm. The magic is ancient and strong, and the only way to break the curse is to destroy the mace - but the mace wielder is long gone, and you're not about to go and challenge them again. You're now stuck with a permanently broken arm.
The mistake made was considering that magic is only used in a curative sense. I agree that falling from a height should be cured by magic without any issue. But if someone had the use of their legs stolen by an evil sea witch to give a mermaid legs in exchange for her voice, then just healing isn't going to fix it. It's more likely that an adventurer would come across these magical injuries, in fact, than a commoner. A cleric might stay in a village and heal the commoners when they injure themselves in mundane ways, but if an adventurer has a barbed tentacle from some exotic beast wrapped around their spine, that's not going to be healed away.
Thank you for writing this post. First of all, thanks for reading my questions and not making assumptions of what I was asking. I find a lot of people here pointed out points as counterpoints to my questions that I actually brought up myself-- which was confusing to say the least. Also, thanks for understanding I was addressing the internal cohesion of these worlds and not external reasons of game design.
This was a very thoughtful post and I think you brought up some really great reasons why adventurers might have long term and persistant injuries or disabilities from adventuring. It certainly gave me a lot to think about.
Roleplaying is about exploring the world from the point of other perspectives. As long as it's done respectfully and sincerely I am fine playing with folks who want to have a disabled PC. As with anything else nonstandard, it should be discussed in a Session 0 and discarded if anyone at the table has a problem with it.
One way of allowing characters to not suffer any sort of mechanical disadvantage (if they want that) is to give them free magic items along the lines of prosthetic limbs that don’t require attunement.
Just thinking about this: why would any hero or character of sufficient power be disabled in a fantasy setting like D&D?
I was just reading how a character, one of the heroic NPCs fell from a rooftop and became paralysed. Why wouldn't such a character get healing magic? While not common, this is a world where spells like Regenerate exist. People of sufficent power can regrow limbs and injuries are regularly healed. A second level spell without material cost can cure this guys paralysis, but we are to understand that he willfully gets around in a wheelchair? Is that supposed to be empowering or insulting to disabled people? Few, if anyone, choose to have a disability. I'm not sure how I would feel if I were disabled, but I think I would feel that such a person would be making light at my condition by "visiting" it as a tourist. A tourist that could choose to go home any time they choose.
I get why you might see the odd person in a town with a missing eye, arm or leg. But once you are a powerful adventurer, not even death is permanent. It's a bit obscene to pretend paralysis is.
1) Many people are born with disabilities. Regenerate only restores limbs that were already there and got lost, not ones that were never there. The same thing applies to people who are born with conditions that cause them to be unable to walk, or with mental conditions that severely affect their ability to function, and so on.
2) It's highly likely that the magic required to treat/"cure" these disabilities are either rare/expensive enough that they are extremely difficult to have access to, or that people are only now beginning to study how to treat them using experimental techniques.
3) The magic that is used to treat/"cure" certain disabilities have unwanted side-effects significant enough that those with those disabilities often/occasionally would choose to not use them. For example, someone who was paralyzed below the waist choosing to cut off their legs and replace them with prosthetic limbs is a big deal and a choice that not everyone would be fine with making.
4) Yeah, it's inclusive. They're including a typically marginalized minority group in art and D&D books now, which is a big deal to some people. It might not be one to you, but there are some people that it is a big deal for. You're not a member of that community, so you may not understand why they feel this way, but people do like stuff like the Combat Wheelchair and other ways to include their group in the game.
I don't have any comments on that specific case, though, as I don't know enough about it. However, it's just a cool thing to see. Tasha's had the gay wizard couple, this book has a retired adventurer in a wheelchair, and is moving towards Stress and Fear instead of Madness and Insanity. The inclusion of it is largely for the point of inclusion, because people have asked for stuff like this, and it's not harmful to anyone to include it. It's a fantasy game, where reasons for anything being a certain way only depend on your imagination. I think it's cool, but your mileage may vary.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There is a lot of discussion about the nature of "healing" magic. For example, if someone was born blind, would spells like Regenerate be able to restore their sight?
The crux of the question rests in the semantics of "restore". An individual who was born blind would never have had sight, so to gain eyes would be an enhancement, not a restoration. This begs the question of what an individual's "True" state is. What is a "wound" as opposed to something we simply don't like about ourselves? The nature of reality and magic in a campaign is ultimately up to the DM, but one answer for your question is that who you are, mentally and physically, changes over time. A fresh war injury can be reversed with Cure Wounds, but if you let it go untreated, eventually it will scar and fade. It's no longer a "wound", simply a new configuration of cells.
A potion of healing (50g) represents a month's wages for most NPCs. In a world without centralized banking, that's often an impossible expense. By the time they managed to scrape together the funds to buy one, the injury would have likely already set and would need complicated surgery to correct it again. (Heck, many people in the modern world are living month to month. If we needed "cash upfront" to afford surgery today, most people would be screwed.)
So, the first reason that disability exists in a world of magic is the same that Cure Wounds doesn't erase tattoos, or reverse aging. Magic has limits.
The second reason that disability exists in a world of magic is that it exists in the real world. Magic realistically changes a lot about what the world would look like, but D&D as a game is an opportunity to experience a fantasy world slightly different from our own. "Game Logic" should not change the world so much that it makes it unrelatable. Sometimes that means we have to handwave inconsistencies, or rationalize it in hindsight.
This is a topic that comes up fairly often. Have a fire extinguisher handy, you're probably going to need it. People constantly ask about being disabled in various ways, physical, mental, and even social. Conversation ranges around to the problem of people wanting super-powers to "compensate" for something they *chose* to take. "My character is blind, so can I have Tremorsense so that I never have to suffer any of the negative effects?"
I consider it disrespectful. There are people who suffer from these things in the real world and I doubt they find it fun. Fantasy is supposed to be an escape from things we would rather not experience. Under no circumstances should anyone in a game get an in game mechanical effect. If they wish to roleplay something, that's fine. A bit disrespectful still but possible to handle without anyone taking offense.
In a game with a combat system that really doesn't ever deal in serious injury, where even one hit point means you're perfectly fine, and only in the variant rules in the DMG are there any mention of lasting physical trauma, and in which getting healed is trivial, what place has there in someone with so much as a scar they don't want?
<Insert clever signature here>
So OP is talking about a character in a Domain of Dread, right? My guess is the high magic buzz is a bit harshed in a lot of those domains, so magic may not be the cure-all.
As far as the use of wheelchair in D&D, check this video, the argument OP's point reflects is addressed at about 1:50:
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
As a person that is completely blind in one eye and 50% in the other, I can attest that I have no special qualities that make up for the loss of my vision. I don't sense vibrations in the ground, I don't have super hearing and I don't have a blood hound like sense of smell. What I do have is a number of bruises and scrapes from bumping into things and a bit of social anxiety from constantly bumping into people in the grocery isles.
I hate it when people try to make blind characters and then demand to be give a way to just ignore being blind. I would gladly have my sight back. I miss seeing the faces of my loves ones and the stars. I miss being able to drive myself to the store. I miss painting miniatures. Disabilities are not things that people should just be tacking on to their characters without there being any kind of effect. It isn't being inclusive, it is just being rude.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The OP answered their own question when they said they are not a member of that community, so don’t know how they would feel. People who are in that community (and I’m not, if that matters) seem generally to like the inclusion. I’d assume not everyone, because no group is monolithic, but I’ve only ever seen praise for it.
The people who it reflects don’t feel patronized or pandered to (from what I can tell). That’s all that matters. The people who are in the situation like what they see; it harms no one else, so to my mind there’s no problem.
I will say It’s commendable that you showed empathy in trying to imagine how you would feel in that situation, but it’s better to take the next step, listen to those people and adjust your view based on the experiences of those who have lived it.
As the real world implications of disabled characters have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that the fact that Regenerate exists hardly indicate that physical disabilities shouldn't be an issue in D&D.
Regenerate is a 7th level spell. That means that you need a caster who's quite high in level (at least 13). Those are rare. And even if you can find someone who's capable of casting Regenerate, that doesn't mean that they're going to be willing to do so, especially not for free. A character in need of such a spell is likely to have to pay a substantial amount- well beyond what a peasant can expect to earn. And that's assuming that the caster is even willing to cast the spell at all.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To be fair, some like it, some find it annoying.
Its never a easy discussion.
Personaly i do understand the Narrative that people would want to use for their characters, cause just like irl, **** ups can happen.
The difference is that as a player/DM it is a concious decision, people irl affected by it din't choose it.
Personaly my current character has a Prosthetic arm, ...cause i'm a Huge Berserk fan..., and the prostethic arm with a concealed cannon/weapon in it is an Anti-Hero staple since Space Adventures Cobra in the 80's.
Thats all there is to it.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
D&D Beyond has done two great interviews (not able bodied people opining on the matter, actually speaking to disabled people) on the subject:
The tl;dr is that some people don't want to feel ashamed of any disability they may have and discouraged from representing themselves within the game, so these options and inclusions are valuable to them.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I played a blind wizard once, my character had a familiar and I would use that to see, keeping it hidden or out of view, my DM and I came up with varient mechanics to allow me to do more while "seeing" through my familiar which was all part of my backstory and on the battlefield if my familiar couldn't see it, even if it was in front of me, I was at disadvantage.
I have played with disabled friends and players who play able bodied characters, and I have played with able bodied players who play disabled characters, at the same table as a disabled player. Yes they use magic and the availability of magic items to make things better, I have also played other systems, for instance I once LARPD vampire the masquerade, we had a player there who was actually disabled and in a wheelchair who's character was able bodied and who preyed on the weak, poor and yes, disabled in society feeding on them and offering them the hope of becoming a vampire, he picked and wrote and created that character and made it so so very dark. We would roleplay with him as if he could walk and stand and move about, Another player there, fully able, wore dark glasses and had a stick and played a vampire who's retina had been burnt out by the sun as punishment as a vampire he had other abilities that allowed him to off set this when needed. That caused no issue to any of the other players there including the disabled player. Another game, Mage, I played a member of the Technocracy and was looking for ways to create undead without breaking paradox. I decided that I would be the CEO of an organisation that initially made artificial limbs, then moved on to make limbs that looked real almost growing them back with "nano tech (magic)" This then moved to me convincing the world i could reanimate the dead with this same nanotech, in order to sell this my character had removed his own leg and made it appear it was a birth condition to "sell the story" as to why I was driven to regrow limbs,i had to go that deep because our GM in that game was a real stickler for letting you be an all powerful mage, but, hitting you with paradox given the slightest opportunity and the slightest opportunity for a "sleeper" to see through the whole story and not believe it would have hit me with a lot of paradox.
I have also played characters who have psycological conditions in various game systems, the Saulot who hears voices in Vampire, the Warlock who has depression and real suicidal tendencies in DnD because of his pact (for a while that character couldn't die, the DM and i agreed an ability where I auto succeeded on all death saving throws, so I had tried to kill myself, and then just woken up). I played a lot of Call of Cthulu a game where literally you go insane and, if one of the many many horrors in the world doesnt kill you, or you don't end up locked away in a straightjacket, you may very well end up taking your own life, as I have seen at least one player do to their character because the eldritch horror ended up destroying and killing her children in game, that was a particularly intense session, having her say goodbye to each of us in her way, then go to her room in the hotel, we went up to see her at the agreed time to decide the next move and she just described the scene we found, her, hanging from the ceiling and the letter she had written to us. The next week she had her new character ready to go.
So no we don't all roleplay to be the hero, or to escape things, sometimes we roleplay to experience things we have never had to in real life, like drug dependancy, the death of a loved one, the feeling of slowly going insane, or even moving around the world in a magical wheelchair that has the ability to fly. When you combine fantasy with the realities of the world you see that yes, absolutely a disabled person would become a wizard to make their life easier, but the one thing I think is disrespectful is an assumption that somehow every person with a disability would choose to get a cleric to just heal them and make them whole. I can tell you I have friends who absolutely would not give up what they term there superpower, and who do not get offended when they see an able bodied person playing them in a film, or roleplaying a character in DnD, in fact they love it because it includes them and doesn't assume that they dont want to be that way and that the ideal world does not have them in it.
I'm going to avoid the potential discussion that's growing about whether or not this should be in the game and instead address the part of the OP's question about whether it makes sense to be in this setting.
In a world where magic can heal, it's worth considering that magic can also harm. The reason people in real life can heal a broken limb is because it is purely mechanical; the bone is capable of healing and there's (hopefully) nothing preventing it from doing so. With proper treatment, it can heal straight and strong.
Now imagine your arm was broken by a magical mace which freezes what it strikes. The bone is shattered into countless pieces - which a healing potion would normally sort out - but it's also cursed by the blow from the magical mace; The bone remains permanently fragile, even when it's healed, and breaks if you so much as move the arm. The magic is ancient and strong, and the only way to break the curse is to destroy the mace - but the mace wielder is long gone, and you're not about to go and challenge them again. You're now stuck with a permanently broken arm.
The mistake made was considering that magic is only used in a curative sense. I agree that falling from a height should be cured by magic without any issue. But if someone had the use of their legs stolen by an evil sea witch to give a mermaid legs in exchange for her voice, then just healing isn't going to fix it. It's more likely that an adventurer would come across these magical injuries, in fact, than a commoner. A cleric might stay in a village and heal the commoners when they injure themselves in mundane ways, but if an adventurer has a barbed tentacle from some exotic beast wrapped around their spine, that's not going to be healed away.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I have seen a reddit post some time ago about a person who is disabled and absolutely hates the combat wheelchair because it makes it too easy for a disabled person to be an adventurer. Ie. it doesn't reflect the hardships in an adequate way.
Of course then the question arises - why would you choose one of the most (if not the most) dangerous profession in a fantasy world if you didn't have means to mitigate your limitations?
Just a proof of concept that no matter how inclusive you are trying to be, there will always be someone who is not satisfied.
I think this has a lot of bearing.
There are amazing surgeons out in the real world who can do wonders for all sorts of conditions. Severed hands can be reattached, damaged spines repaired, eyes fixed... However, often it is only the immense skill of the top surgeons which allows these to take place, and there are not many of those around. They also charge an awful lot for their services. If you cannot afford them, or your health insurance won't pay, or there just isn't a surgeon with the required skills who is both willing and able to perform the procedure at the right time and place, it's not going to help much.
There is no reason to believe things would be any different in a world of magic. Those high-level magic users capable of casting the spells required are likely to be rare. Even if there is a spell which will "just fix" the injury a person has suffered, it doesn't mean that person can find a spell caster who is willing and able to cast it or that they will accept what the person is willing to pay.
Yeah, people often think that 13th level clerics have nothing better to do than sit in a temple and wait for someone to show up for a cheap heal.
That's the thing, the goal isn't to satisfy everyone, because that's impossible. The goal is to provide options to help the most number of people be satisfied. I too have seen disabled people criticise and outright attack the combat wheelchair and similar notions for whatever reason. It's as was mentioned; no group is a monolith and being disabled is an especially personal and unique experience. For example, I have a (relatively minor, in the scheme of things) hearing disability; I actually have mid-frequency hypersensitivity. Normally your hearing focuses on the high and low frequencies; those most commonly associated with useful information such as voices, and has less accuity on the mid frequencies. My hearing doesn't do that and as such I experience background noise a lot louder than most people, meaning the useful frequencies get drowned out. This is a vastly different experience of hearing disability from someone with hearing loss; I can't benefit from a hearing aid or implant, and sign language wouldn't actually help me communicate better because I'd still be oversaturated with noise. As such, my experience of a hearing disability means my opinions on it differ a lot from other people within the same broad sphere. I would not personally want to play a deaf hero because my experience of hearing disability is not something I feel connected to, while other people with hearing disabilities find community and solidarity within it and carry it as a proud part of their identity, something they 100% should be able to do so without shame or judgement.
So no, you're never going to satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean the intent is misguided or wrong. There are people who are not just satisfied, but delighted by these options because they want to be able to represent themselves and their experience without it being portrayed as a continuous burden. For example, a lot of wheelchair users hate the term wheelchair bound because it implies their chair restricts them, when in fact, it empowers them. So playing a hero that is empowered by their chair feels good to them, it's part of the joy of playing a game like D&D. And as to why a wheelchair user would become an adventurer, or any other disabled person would choose that path, well it's simple; heroes don't let adversity hold them back, so why should a disability by any different?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"Why don't they just get healed?" is an ableist question from it's very premise. Not all disabled people want to be healed - even if they had the ability to do so (which has already been put in question above).
My main experiences with this are family members who were born profoundly deaf. They find the idea of getting "cured" offensive. Partly because they don't consider themselves disabled - and because it would erase Deaf culture and identity. (That and they get asked that question alllll the time and it's really annoying.)
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Sure, but I'm guessing a lot of those people don't have those disabilities from injuries. I'm guessing your parents didn't become deaf last week and that they've had to live with the condition for a long length of time. I think fewer people would choose disability if it was new and easily curable. If you were injured and paralysed from the waist down and the first doctor you see says "Oh, I can fix that for you . It would just take a minute." I think a small minority of people would say "No thanks, I prefer to never walk again."
Thank you for writing this post. First of all, thanks for reading my questions and not making assumptions of what I was asking. I find a lot of people here pointed out points as counterpoints to my questions that I actually brought up myself-- which was confusing to say the least. Also, thanks for understanding I was addressing the internal cohesion of these worlds and not external reasons of game design.
This was a very thoughtful post and I think you brought up some really great reasons why adventurers might have long term and persistant injuries or disabilities from adventuring. It certainly gave me a lot to think about.
Roleplaying is about exploring the world from the point of other perspectives. As long as it's done respectfully and sincerely I am fine playing with folks who want to have a disabled PC. As with anything else nonstandard, it should be discussed in a Session 0 and discarded if anyone at the table has a problem with it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
One way of allowing characters to not suffer any sort of mechanical disadvantage (if they want that) is to give them free magic items along the lines of prosthetic limbs that don’t require attunement.
i can roll nat 1s on command
my homebrew thingies
Magic Items - Monsters - Subclasses