8
\$\begingroup\$

Straight-forward: this question has caused an edit war and a close-reopen-close war. The argument for tagging and reopening is:

The splat book only exists in DnD-5e, so it's not guessing – Pureferret

Can/should this question be tagged as dnd-5e?

Important to mention something that Medix2 noticed: the original question does not include the full name of the book (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount). It only says "Wildemount".

Related:

And many more.


Very important note

We already have the policy, which you can read here. This question is about the specific question linked and, even if agreed that that particular question can be re-opened, it should not, ever, be used as a precedent to open any other question without community consensus. If you want to change the general policy, do it in the policy discussion.

Full disclosure: the only reason I even opened this meta question was because the arguments, edit wars and vote close-open wars were getting out of hand in the main site and it felt like opening this question was the more appropriate place to discuss it.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jul 29 at 14:03
10
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, in this case, there is enough contextual evidence that we can deduce the question is meant for D&D 5e.

The original question mentioned several terms that strongly suggest the system in use:

  • Wildemount, a setting in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, a book published for D&D 5e only.
  • "Chronugy" wizard, likely a misspelling of the Chronurgy wizard, a character option introduced in the aforementioned book.
  • Chronal Shift, a class feature available to the aforementioned wizard.
  • Id Insinuation, a spell that appears in several editions of D&D.
  • Legendary Resistance, a mechanic in D&D 5e that relates to saving throws, which are mentioned in the same context in the question.

When these game terms are researched together, all results point to D&D 5e references, often in the form of forums and blog posts. Nothing in the original question would suggest a system other than D&D 5e. So either the user is asking about a system so obscure that nobody has expertise in it, or the system is obvious.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This basically follows the policy the mods had favored in the "re-revisiting the 'never guess the game' policy" meta, but the existing policy (which votes were in favor of maintaining) doesn't allow for using logic to deduce what system's being talked about - only explicit statements of system/edition (whether in the title, the body of the post, a tag, or a comment). \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 15 at 18:30
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast As I understand it, based on KRyan's answer to a question I asked about adding a tag to a question, it's OK once the community has discussed it in meta, it's just not ok to deduce by yourself. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Jul 15 at 22:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS Yeap - which is the reason I have opened this meta question. \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 15 at 22:16
6
\$\begingroup\$

There is enough evidence to say it's D&D 5e. We still shouldn't edit and reopen it without OP editing it.

I will refer to D&D 5e as only 5e for the remaining answer.

I will borrow from KRyan's and mxyzplk's answers to other meta talks about this. Even if the chance that this is not 5e is 0.01%, it does not matter. There are meta-reasons for following our current policy in a strict sense.

Note that our current policy only allows for editing/reopening if an explicit statement about the system is made. If you disagree, you can change it by up and downvoting answers in this linked meta question.

It reminds and teaches people that there are other RPG systems other than the one they are playing

Let us be honest. Our website is almost dnd5e.SE. Our policy reminds people that there are other systems around here. There are other systems/editions that have "player handbooks", there are other systems that use d20s, there are other systems with concepts such as HP, AC and with classes such as Fighter and Sorcerer. While probably there isn't any other system with all of the things listed in this question together (Wildemount setting, legendary resistances...), the mentality that "other systems don't exist" is bad for an RPG community, and we shouldn't take for granted that the system we are playing is the only one. One very strong argument made by KRyan:

People incorrectly assume D&D 5e all the time — even when questions are tagged with something else.

We don't want this to be any more reinforced.

Side note: a setting can and is easily translated to other systems, if it wasn't for the "legendary resistances", which AFAIK is very specific of 5e, I wouldn't even be sure about the edition. People have translated 3.5 books into 5e quite often, for example.

It teaches people about our policy

Straight-forward: people seeing the question being closed will learn about the policy. If enough people learn about it and disagree with it, we may revisit the policy and change it. So far, every time we have revisited it, the majority of people have agreed that keeping the policy in its current state is the best idea. We should not, however, try to enforce a change at individual level (e.g., by tagging the question and reopening it without consulting the community, as in this meta question).

It optimizes for pearls

Okay, this one may be a little too harsh, but as mentioned in one of KRyan's answers, I do not see value in an unclear question made by someone that doesn't care about coming back and making their question better. If the OP doesn't come back and doesn't edit the question with a very simple change, why are we so worried about giving a proper answer to that question? OP may not even come back to read it.

If the Q&A would help someone else, then this someone else may ask the question and properly define the system and be active to clarify any further doubts we have before answering. This is more likely to provide a good question to the site, with good answers, than a question where the OP didn't even come back to clarify the system they are playing.

In short, we should be enforcing questions and answers to be better, not simply accepting questions because we can deduce what they are asking.

We don't lose anything by waiting

And, finally, I don't see any harm in waiting for the OP to come back. Do we really need this question answered by tomorrow? Do we really need to internet points (a.k.a. rep) we are going to get from an answer to this question?

The only harm I have seen done is people not following the damn policy and starting edit and vote wars. That is more of a reason to simply follow the policy and wait.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ "our current policy only allows for editing/reopening if an explicit statement about the system is made." Except the current policy also explicitly describes the ability to open a per-question Meta about whether or not adding a tag to a specific question is alright which is exactly what has been done here \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 15 at 22:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 Yeap. I am just reminding people that no matter how obvious it is, the policy is very clear on being strict, and the reasons it has been kept strict still apply to this specific question. In short, there is no actual gain in reopening this specific question - except for some rep farming from the first person to answer, nobody is gaining anything from it. \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 15 at 22:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Wouldn't that reason apply to every question? So being able to open a per-question Meta had no use? \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 15 at 22:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 Most likely. As KRyan's answer mention, per-question Meta is a very inefficient way to handle it, and the only reason I opened this one was because the main site question had so many edits and vote-closes and comments it seemed like opening the question to let people discuss was a better solution than having a 30-comments thread. The only questions I see having value in being reopened are ones that have explicit mentions to stuff from a game system, e.g., entire quotes from a core book, with page numbered, or link to system-specific things (like D&D Beyond). \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 15 at 22:22
6
\$\begingroup\$

There is enough evidence to conclude that this question asks about the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons

Something to keep in mind: People agreeing with answers here does NOT mean the question should be immediately re-opened or kept closed. Some amount of time would need to pass before an actual consensus can be made, after which action could be taken.

This answer is not saying that adding the tag doesn't violate policy. Doing so without consensus does violate the policy. This is trying to get at a consensus.


The Question As Originally Asked (all emphasis mine):

question about the Wildemount Chronugy subclass ability chronal shift

I was playing in a game with friends and I was playing as a level 8 Chronugy wizard, after a creature downed one of us our bard attempted to use id insinuation and it used a legendary resistance. my question was if I had used my chronal shift ability which allows me to force a re roll on a saving throw. my question is can I use my ability to force it to burn a resistance, and alternatively if I use it on a success and it fails can it choose to use a legendary resistance on the re roll.

I personally feel that it is OP if I can force it to burn two resists

but I also feel it is op if it can choose to resist my re roll power as it wastes my ability

I want to know if anyone has a RAW answer and if not, what people think of the problem

What we know:

  • This game includes something that could be called a "Wildemount Chronugy subclass"

  • This "subclass" has an ability called "chronal shift"

  • This "chronugy subclass" somehow applies to "Wizards"

  • This "chronal shift" ability forces rerolls on something called a "saving throw"

  • This game includes "bards" who can use something called "id insinuation"

  • This games involves something called "legendary resistance" which somehow affects something called a "saving throw" and is a limited resource

All of the above things exist in the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

"Wildemount" is a location/setting used in the Explorer's Guide to Wildemonte books, which was only published for dnd-5e.

"Chronugy" is quite likely a misspelling of the word Chronurgy which happens to be a subclass of Wizards found in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.

"Chronal Shift" is a class feature of that same Wizard subclass and it does involve the rerolling of saving throws.

"Bards" exists basically everywhere so that's no use.

"Id Insinuation" is a spell that can be found in an Unearthed Arcana for the dnd-5e, though it can also be found many other places (like Pathfinder or older editions of DnD and elsewhere).

"Legendary Resistance" is a mechanic in D&D 5e that relates to saving throws and are a limited resource.


Is it possible that the OP was using rules from multiple games and mixing them together without realizing? Yes.

Is it possible that the OP is playing some game I have never even heard of that actually uses all of these terms (or similar ones)? Yes.

Is it possible that the OP was asking about some other Wildemount thing and some Chronurgy subclass for a Wizard that that gets an ability called Chronal Shift which impacts something called a saving throw, all in a universe where Bards can use Id Insinuation and monsters can use a limited resource called Legendary Resistances that also impacts these saving throw things and wasn't talking about the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons? Yes.

Are any of those likely? We can't truly know (we don't have all the data in the universe).

Is there evidence enough to conclude that this game is the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons? I say yes.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
-9
\$\begingroup\$

No, the original post lacks strong evidence that explicitly points to a particular system.

While the original question does mention several terms that are strongly associated with D&D 5e, it does not provide evidence that we can use as per existing RPG.SE site policy. Specifically:

  • The original question mentions the Wildemount setting, but not the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount book for D&D 5e.
  • The original question mentions several game mechanics that appear in multiple editions of D&D, as well as other systems. For example, Id Insinuation is also a spell in Pathfinder 1e.
  • There are no quotes or cited material from D&D 5e.
  • There are no links to external posts about D&D 5e.
  • There are no mentions of "D&D" or "5e" or other system names.

Hypothetically speaking, the asker could be using a system other than D&D 5e. Bards, wizards, levels, and saving throws appear in various game sytems. For example, the asker could be playing Pathfinder 1e, with some homebrew and other third party material.

So while we could make a pretty good guess about the system being used, the original question lacks any one factor that undoubtedly points to D&D 5e. If we proceed and tag it as D&D 5e, that would be a reversal of site policy about guessing the system.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I mean, the original post definitely has evidence that points to a particular system/edition - our existing policy just doesn't let us use anything other than an explicit statement of system/edition. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 15 at 18:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast That's what I am saying in this answer. There is no one part of the original post that explicitly points to D&D 5e. \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Jul 15 at 18:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Which system do you think it is, then? \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells Jul 15 at 20:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MikeQ: The word "explicitly" wasn't there when I commented :P I'd say it's definitely asking about D&D 5e, but our policy doesn't let us use the numerous references relating to D&D 5e to conclude that that's the system/edition being asked about. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 15 at 20:31
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells I think it's D&D 5e. But I can't prove it, nor do I care whether the original question gets answered. I posted both a "yes" and "no" answer in this meta for purposes of discussion. \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Jul 15 at 20:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells "Thinking it is [any given system]" is why we're in this mess, which is why we have the policy as stated above. \$\endgroup\$ – Stop Being Evil Jul 19 at 20:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .