Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9375426" data-attributes="member: 7808">While the connotations of the word "invalid" are worth discussing, my issues with this go further.  Here's a bit of a dive into it.There's definitely some interesting discussion to be had around how much a character's Background in 5e describes their character, and how much mechanical benefits/changes that should grant.  People have gone into this in much more detail in other discussions.But, regardless of where you fall in that debate, I am slightly skeeved by the idea that an character's entire Background is a disability.  That has condescending connotations.  The idea that a person's identity is defined by their disability (while others are defined by their deeds, professions, or lifestyle) feels like it's encroaching on some problematic ideas.The idea that some real life disabilities could grant people "magical abilities" in a game makes me uncomfortable.  That seems like a dangerous stereotype to play into.People with one addiction are typically much more susceptible to other addictions.Huh?  Not only is this amazingly powerful for a Background, it makes no sense.Also, why would a Background based on blindness grant Perception as a proficient skill?Much like "invalid", the word "crippled" should be avoided. It is offensive.This is a good point to bring up an obvious issue with many of the conditions you present here.  Lesser Resporation can cure deafness.  Greater Restoration can cure even more.  Same thing with Regeneration for other conditions on this list.  This goes into the same debate as to what spells can cure diabetes, but it's a bit more explicit in this case that there's a spell directly designed for it.Also, the same issue with Perception that I mentioned earlier.First, specifying a hook seems weirdly specific. Ditto for the "peg leg" example used earlier.  Just say "prosthetic".Second, granting free bonus action attacks is way too powerful.WTF?"Lame" is not an appropriate description for humans.Probably less so than some of the other cases here, but this is also a term to avoid, especially for cases where the disease is not literal leprosy.I have no idea why this would be a benefit granted to this condition.First, there are a weird number of conditions on this list that all address mobility very differently with little reason why.Second, again, this is a ridiculously powerful benefit.I want to give some credit where it's due for English not being someone's first language.  But even beyond a few word choices, this stuff just doesn't pass muster.  Taking into account the number of negative connotations, bizzare ideas, and completely broken mechanics, I have to just give the whole thing a pass.  Not worth salvaging.  There are many ways to appropriately and positively address disabilites in D&D.  This isn't it.</blockquote>

Verification