|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically speaking.
As far as I can tell, there are almost no differences to not being in a wheel chair, save that someone else can spend an action to help you stand, whereby you can stand as a free action triggered by your ally's help, and that you can be immobilized by having your hands bound, prior to Impulse Control.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the various assistive devices to help you navigate the world you can be as effective an adventurer as anyone else. And that's entirely the point.
That's the point I believe. Except for stairs, which there's spider leg chairs for that.
All but the most basic of chairs in the game are capable of dealing with stairs just as easily as a person without said chair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly speaking, 10gp for no downsides and the ability for others to end your prone condition is purely beneficial. For such a cheap cost, there's really no reason not to pick one up, mechanically speaking.
Not to mention the non-mechanical benefits provided by not actually needing the chair if any enemies assume you do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention the non-mechanical benefits provided by not actually needing the chair if any enemies assume you do.
I will personally not allow a character who doesn't need a wheelchair to use one efficiently. You are either able to walk and you do or unable to walk and you use a wheelchair.
And the issue of being unable to walk once your wheelchair is out for any reason is enough to compensate the benefits you can have from it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that makes sense. There's an unwritten "chair proficiency" you have to account for, since even talented, able-bodied people won't have the experience for making full use of a specialized wheelchair at the drop of a hat. In real life it takes years of lived experience to get to the point where it's essentially part of your body.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that makes sense. There's an unwritten "chair proficiency" you have to account for, since even talented, able-bodied people won't have the experience for making full use of a specialized wheelchair at the drop of a hat. In real life it takes years of lived experience to get to the point where it's essentially part of your body.
I'm not sure "it takes years of lived experience" means much in a game where you can have 100 years of background before the game starts. Even for short lived races, it'd be easy enough to have a few years of use, say they used a wheelchair for several years until their family got enough money around to pay for whatever fix was needed to get to full mobility, put into background. So I'm not sure any 'it makes sense' reasoning would work. you'd need pure 1 DM fiat to bar this one IMO, as we're in a game where you can pick up a weapon you've NEVER seen and use it with full proficiency or pilot a vehicle you've never used without issue just because you have the right proficiency. Hanging your hat on an unwritten proficiency wouldn't do it for me: better to assume a gentleman's agreement than that IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a 419 year old dwarf matron in Fists of the Ruby Phoenix.
She's a barbarian with incredible strength perfectly capable of moving under her own power. Nevertheless, she's old, and tires easily, and so uses a wheelchair for traveling long distances.
I'd be a little miffed if a GM told me she couldn't have it.
I don't see a problem with that, unless you're also using it in fights for the sole purpose of allies being able to fix your Prone condition. If however, you are only using it for travel then there should be no issues.
You think she doesn't get tired during fights? ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, it would be a clear no at my table. This is rude to people who don't have the choice but to use a wheelchair and being respectful of others is part of the rules.
As a GM, it would be a clear no at my table. This is rude to people who don't have the choice but to use a wheelchair and being respectful of others is part of the rules.
Uhm... literally EVERYBODY has the choice to use or not use a wheelchair in Golarian. It is a fantasy, make-believe setting. Players' limitations are not by default conferred to their characters.
As a GM, it would be a clear no at my table. This is rude to people who don't have the choice but to use a wheelchair and being respectful of others is part of the rules.
That's fine. I see no issue with OOC reasons why it's not allowed, it's trying to come up with in character reasons that don't make sense to me.
For myself, I've used a Traveler's Chair for my Inventor/Trick Driver-Vehicle Mechanic until I could manage to get/build one of the uncommon vehicles as they weren't interested in one that was animal powered. In essence, the Traveler's Chair ended up being part of the vehicle I ended up making [Automated Cycle -> Adaptable Paddleboat -> Clockwork Wagon -> Armored Carriage].
I don't see a problem with that, unless you're also using it in fights for the sole purpose of allies being able to fix your Prone condition.
I have to say, I didn't even recall that that was a benefit when I used one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, it would be a clear no at my table. This is rude to people who don't have the choice but to use a wheelchair and being respectful of others is part of the rules.Uhm... literally EVERYBODY has the choice to use or not use a wheelchair in Golarian. It is a fantasy, make-believe setting. Players' limitations are not by default conferred to their characters.
He's talking about actual people who have no choice. Like physical people in real life. If someone in a wheelchair showed up to a game an saw a perfectly able bodied person playing a disabled character just because it's "fun" I don't think they would like it very much. Obviously, everyone has different sensibilities, but the rules for disabled PCs were not put in place so people can live out their dreams of being disabled. They were put in so actual disabled people can have a PC that represents them, so they can feel included in the world.
|
|
I don't see a problem with that, unless you're also using it in fights for the sole purpose of allies being able to fix your Prone condition. If however, you are only using it for travel then there should be no issues.You think she doesn't get tired during fights? ;P
Combat rarely lasts more than a minute. It's reasonable that you would have enough energy to fight a few rounds on your feet and then sit back in your chair after the fight is over.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's talking about actual people who have no choice...As a GM, it would be a clear no at my table. This is rude to people who don't have the choice but to use a wheelchair and being respectful of others is part of the rules.Uhm... literally EVERYBODY has the choice to use or not use a wheelchair in Golarian. It is a fantasy, make-believe setting. Players' limitations are not by default conferred to their characters...
Not having a choice in real life does not equal not having a choice in game... /smh
... If someone in a wheelchair showed up to a game an saw a perfectly able bodied person playing a disabled character just because it's "fun" I don't think they would like it very much...
But it'd be okay, though, if someone in a wheelchair showed to up to a game to play a perfectly able bodied character just because it's "fun"? What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
The abilities/disabilities of characters need not reflect those of the players. That's kinda the point of "fantasy roleplaying."
I support game mechanics for players to have more self-reflective character options. But gatekeeping character concepts based on players' traits is plain bunk. If a deaf player wants to play a character with super hearing or a marathon runner wants to play a paraplegic badass in a wheelchair, let 'em!
And if someone is offended by that... well... that's a their problem, not a game problem.
I think their issue is less about able bodied players playing someone disabled and more able bodied players playing an able bodied character and buying a chair meant to facilitate playing a disabled character for potential benefits.
Not that that should stop anyone who wants to. Rolling around in your own personal chariot controlled essentially by thought or mastery of your motor impulses sounds amazing by itself.
|
|
I think the best sort of fix for this new chair-based optimization might be to add "An ally can use an Interact action to help right you, allowing you to Stand as a free action triggered by their Interact action." to the Stand action.
This is the wording given to the mobility device ability "Quick Righting".
It removes the incentive for PCs to use a traveler's chair who don't require one, while fully preserving the functionality and giving it to ALL PCs.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone in a wheelchair showed up to a game an saw a perfectly able bodied person playing a disabled character just because it's "fun" I don't think they would like it very much. Obviously, everyone has different sensibilities, but the rules for disabled PCs were not put in place so people can live out their dreams of being disabled. They were put in so actual disabled people can have a PC that represents them, so they can feel included in the world.
I'm going to play the characters I want to play in the stories that I want to play in. If anyone has a problem with any of my characters or actions, I'd be happy to talk it out and try to find a solution or compromise then. There's no point in wasting energy on imagined problems.
What I'm not going to tolerate though is some self-declared "thought police" coming to the table and being offended over nothing for some nebulous "other person." That only serves to create problems where there previously weren't any. Who needs or wants that kind of drama?
I'd much rather we all be having fun playing the game and not walking on eggshells all the time. If something happens to be a big deal to you, I recommend bringing it up in Session 0. Heck, feel free to bring it up later too if it bothers you. YOU. Not someone else. Don't presume to speak for others. Most people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves and aren't served by disingenuous grandstanding.
As a disabled person myself I for one can tell you that I would have no problem seeing another abled person playing a character with my particular disability. In fact, I would likely take great joy in seeing someone attempt to act out some of the impediments that I face every day in real life. It would probably serve to broaden their perspective. Even if not done well, it may still serve as an opportunity for to open a rapport between the two of us.
As a disabled person, I'm frequently surrounded by other disabled people. Those of whom that I know best would feel much the same as I do in this regard.
Getting upset by this is akin to the craziness of getting upset about cultural appropriation. The whole point of culture is to spread! You can't claim to be inclusive while simultaneously gate keeping. Hypocritical at best and intentional bullying at worst.
Bugger off with that nonsense.
Perhaps a hover chair? I did see a spider leg chair in an old Ares Magica(whoa, that is a blast from the past) book that was made by a wizard for stait traveling
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An ally being able to stand you up is a very modest benefit. It's not exactly a 1:1 equivalent with not using a wheelchair but as long as wheelchairs don't have strong exploits there's no need to be scared of the slippery slope.
I'm sure the devs are keenly aware of how closely assistive items are being looked at.
Plus if it's that big a deal, there's no real reason you couldn't houserule that you can help up any prone ally. That would make perfect sense. At the end of the day it's still one action to stand up one person, just by another player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's talking about actual people who have no choice. Like physical people in real life. If someone in a wheelchair showed up to a game an saw a perfectly able bodied person playing a disabled character just because it's "fun" I don't think they would like it very much. Obviously, everyone has different sensibilities, but the rules for disabled PCs were not put in place so people can live out their dreams of being disabled. They were put in so actual disabled people can have a PC that represents them, so they can feel included in the world.As a GM, it would be a clear no at my table. This is rude to people who don't have the choice but to use a wheelchair and being respectful of others is part of the rules.Uhm... literally EVERYBODY has the choice to use or not use a wheelchair in Golarian. It is a fantasy, make-believe setting. Players' limitations are not by default conferred to their characters.
It's not exactly what I meant. Playing a character who uses a wheelchair because they can't walk is fine. But playing a character who can walk but uses a wheelchair because of mechanical benefits, I find that rude.
The in-game wheelchair is supposed to be used by characters who can't walk and is balanced around that. If you can walk the item may become imbalanced, because obviously being able to walk is better than not being able to walk. That's why I'd personally not accept a character to use assistive items unless they need them, both because it may imbalance the game and because I find that rude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a character who uses a wheelchair because they can't walk is fine. But playing a character who can walk but uses a wheelchair because of mechanical benefits, I find that rude.
The in-game wheelchair is supposed to be used by characters who can't walk and is balanced around that. If you can walk the item may become imbalanced, because obviously being able to walk is better than not being able to walk. That's why I'd personally not accept a character to use assistive items unless they need them, both because it may imbalance the game and because I find that rude.
I agree that it was clearly intended to broaden the scope of character concepts one could play, not to increase the ability potential of existing characters.
That, to me, is as rude as abusing any other rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you find it rude when a player uses a sword cane? Of course not because canes are often used as fashion statements.
In the same vein, a full featured magical wheelchair doesn't have the same implications as in real life. A powerful wizard getting a magic chair out of laziness is incredibly on brand.
The disrespectful aspect is better handled in universe rather than as a flat out ban.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was the case, then Paizo would have listed disabilities as "flaws", with actual game penalties.
There's nothing wrong "using a wheelchair", especially given how those are fabricated to alleviate movement, but there should definitively be "something" if you don't have, but need one.
If someone wants to play a deaf or blind character because they want to, don't give them the equivalent of an Oracle's curse; give them the actual penalties.
I got lynched for asking if Starfinder would include disablities following the introduction of a disabled iconic Precog.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was the case, then Paizo would have listed disabilities as "flaws", with actual game penalties.
There's nothing wrong "using a wheelchair", especially given how those are fabricated to alleviate movement, but there should definitively be "something" if you don't have, but need one.
If someone wants to play a deaf or blind character because they want to, don't give them the equivalent of an Oracle's curse; give them the actual penalties.
I got lynched for asking if Starfinder would include disablities following the introduction of a disabled iconic Precog.
Or maybe don't, because perhaps those people want to play a deaf/blind character who doesn't suffer like they do IRL.
Speaking of that Starinder thread, you weren't lynched, people disagreed with you, and you couldn't deal with it, unsurprisingly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe don't, because perhaps those people want to play a deaf/blind character who doesn't suffer like they do IRL.
If I want to play a blind fighter, don't stop me. If one of my players wants to play one, I'm not stopping them, but there is going to be some drawbacks.
"Braille" or "sign language" isn't going to be one of your automatic languages.
Speaking of that Starinder thread, you weren't lynched, people disagreed with you, and you couldn't deal with it, unsurprisingly.
I was literally told to NOT have an opponent disarming a PC who chose to have a special weapon as a heirloom, as if having one made you "immune" to that maneuver.
It boiled down to this:
"I want to play a character with this disability."
"Ok, here are the penalties."
"Hey! No fun! Don't do this! It's only going to be for flavor!"
"That's not how reality works. Take it or leave it."
If you want to play a wheelchair-bound character, better accept your alternate stats without it, such as reduced speed, skill check penalties or even maybe magic footwear not working properly. If your wheelchair gets melted by acid or a rust monster after you failed a roll, don't go crying to your GM.
Simply put, having a disability should never be a simple narrative thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, having a disability should never be a simple narrative thread.
Why? What is the line of reasoning behind this sentence?
Simply put, having a disability should never be a simple narrative thread.Why? What is the line of reasoning behind this sentence?
I meant that it should come with mechanical/gameplay implications as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant that it should come with mechanical/gameplay implications as well.Simply put, having a disability should never be a simple narrative thread.Why? What is the line of reasoning behind this sentence?
I've understood your sentence. I'm asking about the line of reasoning behind it: Why does a disability should never be a simple narrative thread?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've understood your sentence. I'm asking about the line of reasoning behind it: Why does a disability should never be a simple narrative thread?I meant that it should come with mechanical/gameplay implications as well.Simply put, having a disability should never be a simple narrative thread.Why? What is the line of reasoning behind this sentence?
Because several players want to play a disabled character "just for the looks" without thinking about the rest, which grinds my gears to no end.
if you're a ranger who lost a leg during a hunt, maybe you quit hunting, or want to get better to hunt that same creature you devoured your leg, but for goodness sake, just don't say that you're missing a leg just to get a wheelchair.
We keep mentioning wheelchairs and leg problems, but if you're missing an arm, don't be "immune" to a prosthetic implantation or regeneration unless it's cursed... which would be a cool factor if your missing arm had an eldritch tattoo taht kept spawning after you regenerate.
Disabilities can lead to great narratives, but "just because" is a "simple" narrative, which I'm not okay with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it warrants a conversation between the player and GM (and possibly the other players as well, if they are sensitive to the matter for some reason).
Does the player want mechanically-balanced challenges that roughly simulate gritty realism? Or are they going for the less realistic Hollywood-style cool (such as the blind Samurai with heightened alt senses trope). Might their desires pose any undue hardships upon the GM or other players?
These are all valid questions. Provided everyone is mature and reasonable, it should be easy enough to talk it out and find a solution that everyone is happy with. If they aren't then there may be problems there that are beyond the scope of this discussion thread.
I for one would be totally fine as a GM if a player wanted their character to be treated as disabled, but really wasn't. One example might include the above blind samurai who, through heightened hearing, can fight as well as a sighted person, much like Marvel's Daredevil. Another example might be a pirate with a peg leg, eye patch, and hook hand who can climb and fight as anyone else. Flavor changes should rarely be a cause for concern or table drama.
Now, if a player wanted a mechanical benefit, such as the aforementioned blind Samurai being able to see in a pitch black cave when a normal sighted character could not, I would ask them to consider feats and abilities that granted darkvision or similar abilities (such as a precise sense) that could be reflavored in their own right. Point is, they don't gain any undo advantages over their fellow player characters.
That's one manner in which I might run it anyhow.
Point is, they don't gain any undo advantages over their fellow player characters.
This is what I meant, as it has to be fair. This isn't reserved for players who start as disabled, but players who become disabled. There are pros and cons, and players often want to ignore the cons.
Back to my Starfinder example, Ciravel the iconic precog seems to suffer from chronic fatigue, so when Paizo publishes her stat block, I'll be looking for something akin to "Constitution check 1/hour, and -2 on skills on a failure".