Captain Daggers McTimbers  🏳️‍🌈 🗡

Don't get it twisted. The point is accessibilty for characters inside a fantasy world.

Not so. The issue is the notion of accessibility within a *specific* fantasy world, one where disability is curable and accessibility as described would be implausible, to say the least.

Hey @KitFez I noticed you’re a SpecialEffect advocate and this guy is removing a disability friendly environment in D&D by saying people should just wish their disabilities away. As you’re likely going to know about about either of these things, can you let me know if you agree?

D&D is a rich, diverse world in which distinct identity is vital, and for many, disability *is* an aspect of identity; it's something that has informed/driven some or even much of their life. It's not on any DM to say a character's identity cannot be as the player wants.

If a character is eg. unable to walk because the player wants them to be in a wheelchair, then that's a valid character design. I think there's arguments for certain disabilities/ailments not being a problem, but as D&D is group storytelling that is for the group to agree on.

The group can decide whatever it likes but using an existing system that has a significant combat component to tell a parable about accessibility in a counterpart culture is just incompetent. Not all decisions are equal.

I'll probably need to read up the chain, but I don't personally know what exactly would be being 'damaged' by accessible features within the story of a given campaign.

The whole school of healing magic. The role of the cleric and it's sub-classes, a class already criticised for it's lack of meaningful abilities.