NowThe following is an analysis of the psychology of the reader (i.e., potential voters and potential answer-writers), not precise analysis of scope complexity. Few readers will do more than a rough intuitive estimate of how complex the scope is — which as we’ll see, is the point.
So now it’s having a bit of a hard time getting reopened due to, it seems to me, its larger area of possibilities for potential answer-writers to grapple with before coming up with a good answer, or even considering whether to answer. It’s asking for which archetype to pick for a 20-level buildan unknown future up to 20th, which is 18 levels + feats or ASIs that answer-writers have to at least briefly account for for each archetype option, else (else someone is going to come along in comments and say “no, they shouldn’t pick Elephant Mesmerist is, it’s a terrible choice because at level 17 it can only hypnotize two elephants, when Trapeez Artist can befriend three by 12th”.
(The linguist question is a 19), with optimised interactions with two other unknown-level build asking for its 20th levelfuture PCs. It’sThe answers aren’t even being asked for a broader set of optionsfull build, but muchjust the best archetype, much shallowerbut they still need to think about this.)
Even if there are few archetypesA full analysis might be necessary to consider, the fuzzy potentials ofanswer the character’s future are much deeperquestion, or it might not. It also hasIt’s not required for an answer to be optimisedon-topic, but it might be needed for working with two other specific buildsa “best” answer. And the thief could potentially multiclass at any level, whose future we simply don’t knowexploding the possible full-level builds answer writers might consider before recommending just an archetype.
That is justdoesn’t make it necessarily too broad — a lot of branchingthose possibilities. That’s much more potential for are useless branches that can quickly be pruned — but analysis paralysis, reducing the number is real and this question asks for answer-writers to take on a lot of people who think it hasbefore even deciding whether to answer. And same for voters deciding whether to reopen.
The linguist question by comparison is cut-and-dried: it is a properfixed 19-level character with a wildcard 20th level. Its still a lot of work, but the scope is well-defined and are willingnot a natter of reader (or voter) judgement. It had way, way fewer future unknowns for readers to analyse before deciding “I can answer this” or “this should stay open”. Its easy to judge.
And all that is stuff that answer writers probably don’t need to put in their vote on itanswers, but maybe need to reopenwork out to make their answer best. That doesn’t mean there are noneIt’s a lot of up-front work even before starting to write. Or voting.
The point, but it’sagain, is not whether I think it should be open or closed. It’s that analysis paralysis appears to be slowing down the speed of reopeningits reopen votes.
