If Professor Xavier can be the leader of the X Men and be pretty badass then I'm sure its ok for a disabled person to be portrayed in DnD... With that said... A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting. Inclusiveness is cool, but get creative and make it amazing.
You clearly have no idea how strong a person in a wheelchair is.
I also cannot fathom how a wheelchair would in anyway stop a Rogue from picking a lock, finding traps, moving quietly...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
In terms of the artwork in question, that character was wielding a gun and had the help of thier party members behind them which seems like a resonable scenario. If they were by themselves and were somehow wielding a longsword and a shield and using mind control powers to move the chair around then I could definitely see your point.
Was this WotC artwork? I'd like to see it, have a link?
It appears to be the same characters that Mdhe has in the artwork they linked but this is a screenshot from the PHB reveal video. Looks the introdcuction to the Feat chapter. Couldn't figure out how to get a screenshot to copy over so this the video. 26:19
In terms of the artwork in question, that character was wielding a gun and had the help of thier party members behind them which seems like a resonable scenario. If they were by themselves and were somehow wielding a longsword and a shield and using mind control powers to move the chair around then I could definitely see your point.
Was this WotC artwork? I'd like to see it, have a link?
It appears to be the same characters that Mdhe has in the artwork they linked but this is a screenshot from the PHB reveal video. Looks the introdcuction to the Feat chapter. Couldn't figure out how to get a screenshot to copy over so this the video. 26:19
It appears to be the same characters that Mdhe has in the artwork they linked but this is a screenshot from the PHB reveal video. Looks the introdcuction to the Feat chapter. Couldn't figure out how to get a screenshot to copy over so this the video. 26:19
Thanks! As I suspected, neither piece of art depicts the wheelchair user attempting to traverse stairs or navigate difficult terrain, so the OP has no basis for concluding that character's chair is incapable of doing so, or that it would be "unrealistic."
I also cannot fathom how a wheelchair would in anyway stop a Rogue from picking a lock, finding traps, moving quietly...
Moving quietly? Really?
Have you never encountered a bicycle? Same answer.
Obviously, a GM-handwaved magic item can do absolutely anything it wants, and is what most of the posts in this thread are about, I think.
You've obviously never been startled by a person in a wheelchair unexpectedly sneaking up behind you. If they can do that accidentally in real life (and I assure you that they can), they can definitely do so on purpose in a fantasy setting.
And as far as what a magical wheelchair user can or can't do in a game, I propose looking at the Arcane Armor ability of the Armorer Artificer: at third level, they can turn any suit of armor they please into their special arcane armor which can, among other things, magically replace any and all missing limbs that the artificer might have, meaning that a quadruple amputee is still capable of being as active as they want to. With that as canon already, I don't see why a character in a wheelchair should be any more restricted.
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.
So, in terms of spec-fic as a whole I have no objection to disability negating items like this. The whole point of spec fic is coming up ways things could be different from the world as we know it after all.
Now, when I look at it as a standard PC creation option in D&D the idea of a "magic wheelchair" in particular hits a few bumps mostly regarding gameplay implications, but also a little suspension of disbelief. My biggest concern is similar to the perennial discussion of how to mechanically implement a "blind" character in D&D; I use the quotation marks because usually when people say they want such a character, what they have in mind is someone like Daredevil or Toph who will end up with what could generally be considered a mechanically "superior" sense instead of simply playing a character who permanently has the Blinded condition. Handwaving the general details of locomotion across varied terrain is fine, that kind of granularity is generally more a hindrance to game mechanics as a whole, particularly when you can't have a computer automatically crunching numbers on the variables in the background, but if the chair can levitate at will ad-infinitum then we're getting into a similar scenario as above where someone has potentially parleyed a disability into an objective mechanical advantage. One could attempt to put a bunch of restrictions on exactly how the levitation works, but then we're getting into the issue of more granularity of features than you can run smoothly in a typical D&D game along with the DM inadvertently You can try and handwave it as "it's functionally the same as a walking speed" which works for general gameplay, but that hits me personally on the "suspension of disbelief" part of things as I start picking over how that would work.
Also, as a table dynamics issue, there's the consideration of how one player being given a custom magic item will play out with the rest of the group; with respect to players who want to experience this particular character configuration, you do need to read the room a little if your approach is going to be along the lines of "my character needs special in-game treatment to fit the image I want"; I'm not saying this should never happen, but it's something I'd be more skeptical of if someone made the ask during a pick-up game at someplace like a convention or FLGS rather than if this was something one of the people in my regular group wanted to try in our next campaign. Again, not trying to categorically shut the concept down, but it's the kind of thing that needs some discussion at Session 0, and I don't think every Session 0 will be the right time and place for that discussion.
Really, a lot of this just relates to the mechanical implications as related to a hard RPG like D&D; in something like one of the WoD products which is much softer and more cinematic the idea of a custom mobility aid seems like less of a issue because it doesn't seem like it will bake in a bunch of mechanical advantages that could be employed later. And this is specifically hitting me for a magic wheelchair; if it was magic leg braces that gave full range of motion none of those nagging "what about" thoughts come into play.
TLDR: I don't have any hard reasons why there should never be "magic wheelchairs" or similar contrivances in D&D, but actually implementing one that has mechanical implications for things like a player's traversal options seems to have enough fiddly areas that I think it is better left as something a given group needs to work out independently rather than something that should have a codified green light that can be used to attempt to force concessions at character creation. No particular opinion of the inclusion of wheelchairs in general art.
Also, as a table dynamics issue, there's the consideration of how one player being given a custom magic item will play out with the rest of the group; with respect to players who want to experience this particular character configuration, you do need to read the room a little if your approach is going to be along the lines of "my character needs special in-game treatment to fit the image I want"; I'm not saying this should never happen, but it's something I'd be more skeptical of if someone made the ask during a pick-up game at someplace like a convention or FLGS rather than if this was something one of the people in my regular group wanted to try in our next campaign. Again, not trying to categorically shut the concept down, but it's the kind of thing that needs some discussion at Session 0, and I don't think every Session 0 will be the right time and place for that discussion.
I have a hard time imagining a group not just handwaving assistance. Like a blanket statement that they will help the PC get around. Then play can continue comfortably as normal. The players just want to play and be treated like everybody else regardless of their condition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
TLDR: I don't have any hard reasons why there should never be "magic wheelchairs" or similar contrivances in D&D, but actually implementing one that has mechanical implications for things like a player's traversal options seems to have enough fiddly areas that I think it is better left as something a given group needs to work out independently rather than something that should have a codified green light that can be used to attempt to force concessions at character creation.
What "concessions" are being "forced," and what groups don't need to work this out independently? Did I miss where the rules for magic wheelchairs were hard-coded somewhere for everyone to rigidly cleave to at chargen? Do you perchance have a link?
The only heavy-air-quotes "official" magic wheelchair we've seen, that of Alanik Ray from Ravenloft, has no printed stats anywhere I can find. Seems like you're getting exactly what you wanted - the DM and the players have the freedom to decide how such a device will work, whether that means a quick handwave as Wysperra mentioned, or a detailed series of checks and caveats to apply whatever mechanical inconveniences or hardships you feel might be warranted during play to preserve your suspension of disbelief. Win-win?
TLDR: I don't have any hard reasons why there should never be "magic wheelchairs" or similar contrivances in D&D, but actually implementing one that has mechanical implications for things like a player's traversal options seems to have enough fiddly areas that I think it is better left as something a given group needs to work out independently rather than something that should have a codified green light that can be used to attempt to force concessions at character creation.
What "concessions" are being "forced," and what groups don't need to work this out independently? Did I miss where the rules for magic wheelchairs were hard-coded somewhere for everyone to rigidly cleave to at chargen? Do you perchance have a link?
The only heavy-air-quotes "official" magic wheelchair we've seen, that of Alanik Ray from Ravenloft, has no printed stats anywhere I can find. Seems like you're getting exactly what you wanted - the DM and the players have the freedom to decide how such a device will work, whether that means a quick handwave as Wysperra mentioned, or a detailed series of checks and caveats to apply whatever mechanical inconveniences or hardships you feel might be warranted during play to preserve your suspension of disbelief. Win-win?
Like I said, I don't categorically object to enabling disabled characters, but with regards to the particular topic of "magic wheelchairs" I have reservations about when the mode of enablement is a broadly if not objectively better alternative such as going from a walking speed to a flying speed with hover or from regular sight to blindsight. And I'm not addressing anything that currently exists in the RAW of the game, just possible implementations in homebrew and going forward. The bit about concessions is because it's something of a meme both from prior editions of D&D and other TTRPG's that have the option to take what are supposed to be mechanical flaws at character creation in exchange for bonuses elsewhere that people game the system by doing things like taking low impact flaws (one example I've seen is basically a character with a low DEX save taking a further penalty to DEX saves for a feat) or taking a flaw and then "accidentally" forgetting about it during play; ergo it seems reasonable to discuss how such instances could crop up in regards to something like a magic wheelchair.
Frankly, your response seems a bit aggressive and confrontational; I'm trying to discuss the various sides and pitfalls of implementing a fundamental change in a character's traversal capabilities, not dictate a single correct mold all characters must adhere to.
Also, as a table dynamics issue, there's the consideration of how one player being given a custom magic item will play out with the rest of the group; with respect to players who want to experience this particular character configuration, you do need to read the room a little if your approach is going to be along the lines of "my character needs special in-game treatment to fit the image I want"; I'm not saying this should never happen, but it's something I'd be more skeptical of if someone made the ask during a pick-up game at someplace like a convention or FLGS rather than if this was something one of the people in my regular group wanted to try in our next campaign. Again, not trying to categorically shut the concept down, but it's the kind of thing that needs some discussion at Session 0, and I don't think every Session 0 will be the right time and place for that discussion.
I have a hard time imagining a group not just handwaving assistance. Like a blanket statement that they will help the PC get around. Then play can continue comfortably as normal. The players just want to play and be treated like everybody else regardless of their condition.
You'll note I was specifically addressing when a "magic wheelchair" is being brought up for consideration- which is a point that has come up repeatedly in this discussion already not some strawman point I'm introducing, not anytime a player wants to play a character with some form of physical handicap. I'm not addressing roleplay cases where the implications are all things that can just be handwaved- I agree that is something a group should be fine running with.
Like I said, I don't categorically object to enabling disabled characters, but with regards to the particular topic of "magic wheelchairs" I have reservations about when the mode of enablement is a broadly if not objectively better alternative such as going from a walking speed to a flying speed with hover or from regular sight to blindsight. And I'm not addressing anything that currently exists in the RAW of the game, just possible implementations in homebrew and going forward. The bit about concessions is because it's something of a meme both from prior editions of D&D and other TTRPG's that have the option to take what are supposed to be mechanical flaws at character creation in exchange for bonuses elsewhere that people game the system by doing things like taking low impact flaws (one example I've seen is basically a character with a low DEX save taking a further penalty to DEX saves for a feat) or taking a flaw and then "accidentally" forgetting about it during play; ergo it seems reasonable to discuss how such instances could crop up in regards to something like a magic wheelchair.
I know you're not against accessibility options, but I find the concern over vanishingly unlikely hypotheticals to be quite a bit overblown. Bad actors who will take a flaw coupled with a mechanical advantage only to "forget" the flaw, or who will claim they want an option for representation when secretly they're looking for superiority, are not an excuse to avoid exploring or creating the accessibility option.
To me it's simple - make the wheelchair, work out how it works with the player, and if it ends up overtuned, have a conversation with them between sessions and admit you goofed when designing it because you're not a paid WotC professional. "Sorry, I thought the spiderlegs, rocket boosters and Misty Step Module would put you on par with the party, rather than running rings around them in that last fight. Would it be okay if I tweaked those mobility options?" That doesn't seem like a particularly outlandish request to me.
While this is a game which has mechanics for Centaurs that have non-magical climbing. When is the last time you saw a horse perched atop a pine tree? Though the one time it mattered, for verisimilitude, they lowered her down the chimney Mission Impossible style. I have unfortunately seen people doing things like 'aura-sight' and such to give a mechanical advantage out of a hinderance - particularly in regard to blindness. The blind character was samurai who supposedly could use his superior hearing to even target (with advantage mind you) ranged enemies.
While I believe most players are not being offensive with disabled PCs, players need good OOC communication - particularly if one of them is affected by a condition. Verisimilitude is a very good reason for RP heavy games to well, not use wheelchairs - I have a little sheet with an artificer character who uses a Vox Seeker-like Steel Defender. Unfortunately, my girl has a 6 in CON and has a physical condition to explain her terrible strength (also a 6), she is not 'disabled' but she is too fragile for dungeon delving. When her defender was proned - she fell off on the ground, and she cannot physically pick herself up with a full pack of gear, but she can defend herself and then mend and get back together. I don't expect leniency or rules bent - such as hovering wheelchairs, or that me suddenly ending up invulnerable to prone because she is in a 'wheelchair'.
I never once put it out that she physically has a problem, because it doesn't define her - it's just a circumstance of her life. All mechanics of the game apply to her the same as others and I don't expect or want accommodations - I am not trolling my group or optimizing for it. Besides she's pretty OP mechanically even if she is fragile - if I had only got that Amulet of Health she'd have been more fierce than that paladin friend of hers. She knew the magic item to make her strong and sought it for her own sake; she was willing to risk her life to get it - that was part of why she was braving the dangers to get gold or have it made. She didn't need to seem cool, be pitied, or anything - she just wanted to do her part and attain her goals the same as anyone else.
I'm not sure if there's another one, but what they're describing sounds like a splash page of Alanik Ray and Arthur Sedgewick fighting carrionettes from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.
Side note, I love the absolute nonchalance in Alanik Ray's body language on this page. His husband's up there working his butt off with that sword cane, and Alanik's just like... "I cast Gun."
Without diving deeper into this whole discussion (I don't like to talk about somthing like that without consulting a wheelchair bound person in my real life)- that wheelchair doesn't look like a "real life" wheelchair. There is absolutely some kind of magic/fantasy tech involved here, look at those wheels - there is nothing holding the tires or handle bars in place - no spokes, no nothing. So I don't think "real life" applies here.
I am all for representation and would allow an adventurer like that. And I like when WotC gives arguments to any group of people to be part of this game. DnD is like an action film anyway - as long as everyone is having fun, anything goes.
If Professor Xavier can be the leader of the X Men and be pretty badass then I'm sure its ok for a disabled person to be portrayed in DnD... With that said... A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting. Inclusiveness is cool, but get creative and make it amazing.
Why do you think having those classes in a wheelchair doesn't make sense? Genuinely asking. I think a Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair would be totally fine, and I want to work through your perspective with you.
Where in my statement did I even imply I was talking about that picture or even the glasses specifically? By that comment I can tell you're just trying to start an argument. I'm on your side of the discussion dude...
If Professor Xavier can be the leader of the X Men and be pretty badass then I'm sure its ok for a disabled person to be portrayed in DnD... With that said... A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting. Inclusiveness is cool, but get creative and make it amazing.
The irony of declaring something can't possibly exist coupled with an instruction to "get creative!" 🤨
The typical response on an internet forum thread to totally ignore the broad context and inject criticism due to the last sentence.
If Professor Xavier can be the leader of the X Men and be pretty badass then I'm sure its ok for a disabled person to be portrayed in DnD... With that said... A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting. Inclusiveness is cool, but get creative and make it amazing.
You clearly have no idea how strong a person in a wheelchair is.
I also cannot fathom how a wheelchair would in anyway stop a Rogue from picking a lock, finding traps, moving quietly...
People can play whatever they want, they can be in a wheelchair if they want to, however... Me personally, if I had a debilitating injury that put me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, I would not be in a wheelchair in my make believe role playing game. If I did want to use said disability in a setting, "I" would get more creative with it... That's the point of the game! Nobody else has to do that, I swear half this forum likes to stir up drama and argument for no good reason.
I also cannot fathom how a wheelchair would in anyway stop a Rogue from picking a lock, finding traps, moving quietly...
Moving quietly? Really?
Have you never encountered a bicycle? Same answer.
Obviously, a GM-handwaved magic item can do absolutely anything it wants, and is what most of the posts in this thread are about, I think.
You've obviously never been startled by a person in a wheelchair unexpectedly sneaking up behind you. If they can do that accidentally in real life (and I assure you that they can), they can definitely do so on purpose in a fantasy setting.
And as far as what a magical wheelchair user can or can't do in a game, I propose looking at the Arcane Armor ability of the Armorer Artificer: at third level, they can turn any suit of armor they please into their special arcane armor which can, among other things, magically replace any and all missing limbs that the artificer might have, meaning that a quadruple amputee is still capable of being as active as they want to. With that as canon already, I don't see why a character in a wheelchair should be any more restricted.
I 10000% agree... This is what I'm talking about, yet a few people get triggered by statements about creativity and what makes sense to another person Vs. them.
If Professor Xavier can be the leader of the X Men and be pretty badass then I'm sure its ok for a disabled person to be portrayed in DnD... With that said... A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting. Inclusiveness is cool, but get creative and make it amazing.
Why do you think having those classes in a wheelchair doesn't make sense? Genuinely asking. I think a Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair would be totally fine, and I want to work through your perspective with you.
Where in my statement did I even imply I was talking about that picture or even the glasses specifically? By that comment I can tell you're just trying to start an argument. I'm on your side of the discussion dude...
Uh. Sorry the hostility in this response caught me a little off guard. I was responding to the part of your statement where you said: "A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting." If I misread what you meant by that, I apologize. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I am trying to change your mind. I wanted to know why you thought those classes couldn't work in a wheelchair so we could maybe address your concerns and talk about how to make them work. If you don't want to do that, it's not like I can force you. I just thought it might be a nice conversation to have.
TLDR: I don't have any hard reasons why there should never be "magic wheelchairs" or similar contrivances in D&D, but actually implementing one that has mechanical implications for things like a player's traversal options seems to have enough fiddly areas that I think it is better left as something a given group needs to work out independently rather than something that should have a codified green light that can be used to attempt to force concessions at character creation. No particular opinion of the inclusion of wheelchairs in general art.
There's some smaller points in your post I don't necessarily agree with, but I think this overall idea is solid. Different players will want different levels of mechanical friction involved when playing a disabled character; zero friction would be "you're in a wheelchair, it has no mechanical effects on your character", high friction would be "you're in a wheelchair so you take penalties on X and Y under condition A, but get a bonus to Z under condition B". Some disabled players like high-friction disability mechanics! This is something each table can work out, and there's a lot of example mechanics out there to give guidance. I do generally think the zero friction representation option should be available at all tables; if the only issue is that it strains verisimilitude, well... Try it for a while and see if you don't get used to it. Suspension of disbelief is like a muscle; if you work at it, it'll get stronger.
The problem you bring up with high-friction disability mechanics leading to min-maxing is a real one, but in my experience it's not something disabled players bring to the table. The player asking for 120 feet of Blindsight on his blind character isn't typically sight-impaired himself; he's trying to play Daredevil, not because he's interested in RPing a disability with sensitivity and nuance, but because he thinks Daredevil is cool. I have no problem saying a flat "no" to that person. Where it gets a little complicated is with suggesting someone who wants to play a blind character in good faith should just take the Blinded condition. D&D is written with, in my opinion, an extreme overemphasis on sight. Take Counterspell for example; you have to be able to see the target casting to respond. Why? Are the rules telling me that a blind level 20 Wizard doesn't know what casting a spell sounds like? Did the balance team really decide after rigorous testing that Counterspell could only be balanced if you had to physically see the target? Somehow I doubt that. I suspect the writers just didn't think it was necessary to use more precise language that could've included blind characters, and that's sad.
My point here is this: the game makes assumptions about the physical abilities of characters within it that often go unconsidered by able-bodied players. Sometimes frictionless inclusion is not possible, because the game itself passively disincludes some people by the construction of the mechanics. This has nothing to do with realism or verisimilitude; it has everything to do with how the book is written. We can fix this, but not if we assume that perfect game balance relies on the assumption of abled bodies. I believe this is an inherently worthy goal, and one that ultimately results in a better game.
PS: while I think some aspects of this discussion are best resolved at each individual table, I also think WotC should do an accessibility pass over the rules if they're going to be representing disabled adventurers in their marketing. Showing Alanik Ray in a wheelchair but having no published guidance on wheelchair inclusion in your game sucks pretty bad.
You clearly have no idea how strong a person in a wheelchair is.
I also cannot fathom how a wheelchair would in anyway stop a Rogue from picking a lock, finding traps, moving quietly...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It appears to be the same characters that Mdhe has in the artwork they linked but this is a screenshot from the PHB reveal video. Looks the introdcuction to the Feat chapter. Couldn't figure out how to get a screenshot to copy over so this the video. 26:19
This link starts a few seconds before the art.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I would make any accommodations that I could. Like table height and such and enough room to maneuver.
Thanks! As I suspected, neither piece of art depicts the wheelchair user attempting to traverse stairs or navigate difficult terrain, so the OP has no basis for concluding that character's chair is incapable of doing so, or that it would be "unrealistic."
Moving quietly? Really?
Have you never encountered a bicycle? Same answer.
Obviously, a GM-handwaved magic item can do absolutely anything it wants, and is what most of the posts in this thread are about, I think.
You've obviously never been startled by a person in a wheelchair unexpectedly sneaking up behind you. If they can do that accidentally in real life (and I assure you that they can), they can definitely do so on purpose in a fantasy setting.
And as far as what a magical wheelchair user can or can't do in a game, I propose looking at the Arcane Armor ability of the Armorer Artificer: at third level, they can turn any suit of armor they please into their special arcane armor which can, among other things, magically replace any and all missing limbs that the artificer might have, meaning that a quadruple amputee is still capable of being as active as they want to. With that as canon already, I don't see why a character in a wheelchair should be any more restricted.
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.
So, in terms of spec-fic as a whole I have no objection to disability negating items like this. The whole point of spec fic is coming up ways things could be different from the world as we know it after all.
Now, when I look at it as a standard PC creation option in D&D the idea of a "magic wheelchair" in particular hits a few bumps mostly regarding gameplay implications, but also a little suspension of disbelief. My biggest concern is similar to the perennial discussion of how to mechanically implement a "blind" character in D&D; I use the quotation marks because usually when people say they want such a character, what they have in mind is someone like Daredevil or Toph who will end up with what could generally be considered a mechanically "superior" sense instead of simply playing a character who permanently has the Blinded condition. Handwaving the general details of locomotion across varied terrain is fine, that kind of granularity is generally more a hindrance to game mechanics as a whole, particularly when you can't have a computer automatically crunching numbers on the variables in the background, but if the chair can levitate at will ad-infinitum then we're getting into a similar scenario as above where someone has potentially parleyed a disability into an objective mechanical advantage. One could attempt to put a bunch of restrictions on exactly how the levitation works, but then we're getting into the issue of more granularity of features than you can run smoothly in a typical D&D game along with the DM inadvertently You can try and handwave it as "it's functionally the same as a walking speed" which works for general gameplay, but that hits me personally on the "suspension of disbelief" part of things as I start picking over how that would work.
Also, as a table dynamics issue, there's the consideration of how one player being given a custom magic item will play out with the rest of the group; with respect to players who want to experience this particular character configuration, you do need to read the room a little if your approach is going to be along the lines of "my character needs special in-game treatment to fit the image I want"; I'm not saying this should never happen, but it's something I'd be more skeptical of if someone made the ask during a pick-up game at someplace like a convention or FLGS rather than if this was something one of the people in my regular group wanted to try in our next campaign. Again, not trying to categorically shut the concept down, but it's the kind of thing that needs some discussion at Session 0, and I don't think every Session 0 will be the right time and place for that discussion.
Really, a lot of this just relates to the mechanical implications as related to a hard RPG like D&D; in something like one of the WoD products which is much softer and more cinematic the idea of a custom mobility aid seems like less of a issue because it doesn't seem like it will bake in a bunch of mechanical advantages that could be employed later. And this is specifically hitting me for a magic wheelchair; if it was magic leg braces that gave full range of motion none of those nagging "what about" thoughts come into play.
TLDR: I don't have any hard reasons why there should never be "magic wheelchairs" or similar contrivances in D&D, but actually implementing one that has mechanical implications for things like a player's traversal options seems to have enough fiddly areas that I think it is better left as something a given group needs to work out independently rather than something that should have a codified green light that can be used to attempt to force concessions at character creation. No particular opinion of the inclusion of wheelchairs in general art.
I have a hard time imagining a group not just handwaving assistance. Like a blanket statement that they will help the PC get around. Then play can continue comfortably as normal. The players just want to play and be treated like everybody else regardless of their condition.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What "concessions" are being "forced," and what groups don't need to work this out independently? Did I miss where the rules for magic wheelchairs were hard-coded somewhere for everyone to rigidly cleave to at chargen? Do you perchance have a link?
The only heavy-air-quotes "official" magic wheelchair we've seen, that of Alanik Ray from Ravenloft, has no printed stats anywhere I can find. Seems like you're getting exactly what you wanted - the DM and the players have the freedom to decide how such a device will work, whether that means a quick handwave as Wysperra mentioned, or a detailed series of checks and caveats to apply whatever mechanical inconveniences or hardships you feel might be warranted during play to preserve your suspension of disbelief. Win-win?
Like I said, I don't categorically object to enabling disabled characters, but with regards to the particular topic of "magic wheelchairs" I have reservations about when the mode of enablement is a broadly if not objectively better alternative such as going from a walking speed to a flying speed with hover or from regular sight to blindsight. And I'm not addressing anything that currently exists in the RAW of the game, just possible implementations in homebrew and going forward. The bit about concessions is because it's something of a meme both from prior editions of D&D and other TTRPG's that have the option to take what are supposed to be mechanical flaws at character creation in exchange for bonuses elsewhere that people game the system by doing things like taking low impact flaws (one example I've seen is basically a character with a low DEX save taking a further penalty to DEX saves for a feat) or taking a flaw and then "accidentally" forgetting about it during play; ergo it seems reasonable to discuss how such instances could crop up in regards to something like a magic wheelchair.
Frankly, your response seems a bit aggressive and confrontational; I'm trying to discuss the various sides and pitfalls of implementing a fundamental change in a character's traversal capabilities, not dictate a single correct mold all characters must adhere to.
You'll note I was specifically addressing when a "magic wheelchair" is being brought up for consideration- which is a point that has come up repeatedly in this discussion already not some strawman point I'm introducing, not anytime a player wants to play a character with some form of physical handicap. I'm not addressing roleplay cases where the implications are all things that can just be handwaved- I agree that is something a group should be fine running with.
I know you're not against accessibility options, but I find the concern over vanishingly unlikely hypotheticals to be quite a bit overblown. Bad actors who will take a flaw coupled with a mechanical advantage only to "forget" the flaw, or who will claim they want an option for representation when secretly they're looking for superiority, are not an excuse to avoid exploring or creating the accessibility option.
To me it's simple - make the wheelchair, work out how it works with the player, and if it ends up overtuned, have a conversation with them between sessions and admit you goofed when designing it because you're not a paid WotC professional. "Sorry, I thought the spiderlegs, rocket boosters and Misty Step Module would put you on par with the party, rather than running rings around them in that last fight. Would it be okay if I tweaked those mobility options?" That doesn't seem like a particularly outlandish request to me.
While this is a game which has mechanics for Centaurs that have non-magical climbing. When is the last time you saw a horse perched atop a pine tree? Though the one time it mattered, for verisimilitude, they lowered her down the chimney Mission Impossible style. I have unfortunately seen people doing things like 'aura-sight' and such to give a mechanical advantage out of a hinderance - particularly in regard to blindness. The blind character was samurai who supposedly could use his superior hearing to even target (with advantage mind you) ranged enemies.
While I believe most players are not being offensive with disabled PCs, players need good OOC communication - particularly if one of them is affected by a condition. Verisimilitude is a very good reason for RP heavy games to well, not use wheelchairs - I have a little sheet with an artificer character who uses a Vox Seeker-like Steel Defender. Unfortunately, my girl has a 6 in CON and has a physical condition to explain her terrible strength (also a 6), she is not 'disabled' but she is too fragile for dungeon delving. When her defender was proned - she fell off on the ground, and she cannot physically pick herself up with a full pack of gear, but she can defend herself and then mend and get back together. I don't expect leniency or rules bent - such as hovering wheelchairs, or that me suddenly ending up invulnerable to prone because she is in a 'wheelchair'.
I never once put it out that she physically has a problem, because it doesn't define her - it's just a circumstance of her life. All mechanics of the game apply to her the same as others and I don't expect or want accommodations - I am not trolling my group or optimizing for it. Besides she's pretty OP mechanically even if she is fragile - if I had only got that Amulet of Health she'd have been more fierce than that paladin friend of hers. She knew the magic item to make her strong and sought it for her own sake; she was willing to risk her life to get it - that was part of why she was braving the dangers to get gold or have it made. She didn't need to seem cool, be pitied, or anything - she just wanted to do her part and attain her goals the same as anyone else.
Without diving deeper into this whole discussion (I don't like to talk about somthing like that without consulting a wheelchair bound person in my real life)- that wheelchair doesn't look like a "real life" wheelchair. There is absolutely some kind of magic/fantasy tech involved here, look at those wheels - there is nothing holding the tires or handle bars in place - no spokes, no nothing. So I don't think "real life" applies here.
I am all for representation and would allow an adventurer like that. And I like when WotC gives arguments to any group of people to be part of this game. DnD is like an action film anyway - as long as everyone is having fun, anything goes.
Where in my statement did I even imply I was talking about that picture or even the glasses specifically? By that comment I can tell you're just trying to start an argument. I'm on your side of the discussion dude...
The typical response on an internet forum thread to totally ignore the broad context and inject criticism due to the last sentence.
People can play whatever they want, they can be in a wheelchair if they want to, however... Me personally, if I had a debilitating injury that put me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, I would not be in a wheelchair in my make believe role playing game. If I did want to use said disability in a setting, "I" would get more creative with it... That's the point of the game! Nobody else has to do that, I swear half this forum likes to stir up drama and argument for no good reason.
I 10000% agree... This is what I'm talking about, yet a few people get triggered by statements about creativity and what makes sense to another person Vs. them.
Uh. Sorry the hostility in this response caught me a little off guard. I was responding to the part of your statement where you said: "A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting." If I misread what you meant by that, I apologize. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I am trying to change your mind. I wanted to know why you thought those classes couldn't work in a wheelchair so we could maybe address your concerns and talk about how to make them work. If you don't want to do that, it's not like I can force you. I just thought it might be a nice conversation to have.
There's some smaller points in your post I don't necessarily agree with, but I think this overall idea is solid. Different players will want different levels of mechanical friction involved when playing a disabled character; zero friction would be "you're in a wheelchair, it has no mechanical effects on your character", high friction would be "you're in a wheelchair so you take penalties on X and Y under condition A, but get a bonus to Z under condition B". Some disabled players like high-friction disability mechanics! This is something each table can work out, and there's a lot of example mechanics out there to give guidance. I do generally think the zero friction representation option should be available at all tables; if the only issue is that it strains verisimilitude, well... Try it for a while and see if you don't get used to it. Suspension of disbelief is like a muscle; if you work at it, it'll get stronger.
The problem you bring up with high-friction disability mechanics leading to min-maxing is a real one, but in my experience it's not something disabled players bring to the table. The player asking for 120 feet of Blindsight on his blind character isn't typically sight-impaired himself; he's trying to play Daredevil, not because he's interested in RPing a disability with sensitivity and nuance, but because he thinks Daredevil is cool. I have no problem saying a flat "no" to that person. Where it gets a little complicated is with suggesting someone who wants to play a blind character in good faith should just take the Blinded condition. D&D is written with, in my opinion, an extreme overemphasis on sight. Take Counterspell for example; you have to be able to see the target casting to respond. Why? Are the rules telling me that a blind level 20 Wizard doesn't know what casting a spell sounds like? Did the balance team really decide after rigorous testing that Counterspell could only be balanced if you had to physically see the target? Somehow I doubt that. I suspect the writers just didn't think it was necessary to use more precise language that could've included blind characters, and that's sad.
My point here is this: the game makes assumptions about the physical abilities of characters within it that often go unconsidered by able-bodied players. Sometimes frictionless inclusion is not possible, because the game itself passively disincludes some people by the construction of the mechanics. This has nothing to do with realism or verisimilitude; it has everything to do with how the book is written. We can fix this, but not if we assume that perfect game balance relies on the assumption of abled bodies. I believe this is an inherently worthy goal, and one that ultimately results in a better game.
PS: while I think some aspects of this discussion are best resolved at each individual table, I also think WotC should do an accessibility pass over the rules if they're going to be representing disabled adventurers in their marketing. Showing Alanik Ray in a wheelchair but having no published guidance on wheelchair inclusion in your game sucks pretty bad.