This question has gone through several rounds of open/close and it's unclear to me what the status to be.

I had the first comment to the question asking for a better understanding of the bounds question: specifically asking bout:

What options have you already found in your own research? What sourcebooks are to be included? Are other UA options available?

It got 4 upvotes in agreement (unclear if folks disagreed, but that'd probably be the reopen votes), but it was also never answered.

I do have general issues around list questions that I think we need to address outside of this one, but overall, this seems very unclear as to the bounds for answering that would be relevant to the querent. In addition to a lack of self-research done before hand.

Answers have come in and they are disparate. Each providing an example or several. But there is no complete answer. This then leads to a question with undifferentiated answers because they are all correct, but all incomplete.

Should we close the question to get the details?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I've removed the list question tag as it seems to be red herring. The focus of this is needing more details. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 15:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ FWIW I definitely think this question is asking answers to make a list. I mean, just look at the answers \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 23 '20 at 15:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 fully agree. But my request for closure isn't because it's a list, it's because there aren't enough bounds. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 15:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related meta about the same mainsite question: Why was this question that has a lot of community disagreement reopened without community discussion? \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mod Jul 23 '20 at 23:36

I don't understand why you think this is a list question

The OP has a problem.

They want to use the feats Crusher and Elven Accuracy at the same time.

Crusher requires them to deal bludgeoning damage. Elven Accuracy requires them to use Dex, Wis, Int or Cha for the attack modifier.

There is no immediately obvious way to deal bludgeoning damage while using one of those ability for the attack roll.

They have added some reasonable restrictions. If they were to provide all the restrictions the comments were asking for they would be able to answer the question themselves.

Just because there are multiple possible answers doesn't make it a list question. The problem is clear and, as the given answer so far show, completely answerable.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Because they are asking for a list options that will achieve that. But we don't know the bounds of that list. Is UA available? What sources are they using? It's even possible it's for an AL table and we don't know that. This is why I asked the comment to clarify the bounds of how to answer. They've said they are open to multiclassing, but at what level are they? What level will they go to? HOw will this affect their character and build? Personally, I don't like answering just to answer. My goal is answering with relevant and helpful information. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 13:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm fairly certain it's a "list question" following this definition from the Meta [list-questions] tag: "[...] mainsite questions asking for lists or likely to generate list-answers." \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 23 '20 at 13:02
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Where do they ask for a list? Is it purely that they used the plural "ways" instead of "a way"? If so I find that overly pedantic. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Mod Jul 23 '20 at 13:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Then how do you differentiate different ways of doing this if we're going to allow answers to post that way? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 13:03
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ By which one the voter feels is the best solution to the problem. Answers that are well supported and provide the best information for the OP. Users with expertise in the system should be able to assess if something is a good solution to the problem or not. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Mod Jul 23 '20 at 13:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And honestly, if a list question is defined by having "list" in the question, then that is overly pedantic. It's clear when a question is needing a list of options. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 13:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I agree that it is clear when an answer requires a "list" of options. I don't see that as the case here. The OP doesn't need every possible way to solve the problem, they need a way that suits their situation. Knowledgeable users should be able to assess if a solution fits the situation or not based on the information (primary class and restrictions) already given. More would be nice but I don't think it's enough to keep the question closed. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Mod Jul 23 '20 at 13:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ In some ways you are right, they need a way to solve their problem. But they haven't given us any bounds for doing so nor a priority list for what would a better way to do it. I still think that when there are multiple options available, then those options should be consolidated into a single answer (list?) rather than everyone putting up options separately with no way to differentiate what's 'better' because OP didn't define their criteria or order of preference. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 13:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, I think it should be closed because the bounds and details aren't known - not because it's a list question. I only included that tag in my question above because Ido think it is one, but not that we should close it because of that. Should I remove the tag? Your answer currently doesn't address my intended question of not enough bounds or details are known. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 13:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan If you could find a way to express that thought in a constructive manner and without resorting to personal attacks, that would be appreciated. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Mod Jul 24 '20 at 18:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ "[we can differentiate which answer is best] By which one the voter feels is the best solution to the problem. Answers that are well supported and provide the best information for the OP." - While I agree with the sentiment, it may be worth pointing out that this is not currently acceptable by site policy. Subjective questions are highly discouraged, and it is normal to ask the OP what their criteria for judgement will be. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Jul 28 '20 at 8:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @gszavae None of your assertions about policy are correct in that comment. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 28 '20 at 12:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Why are you so hostile? That comment is not productive in the least. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Jul 28 '20 at 23:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @gszavae If you believed that “Subjective questions are highly discouraged,” then I think it is very productive to correct you. And also very productive to prevent anyone reading this from coming to the same mistaken conclusion. Questions that boil down to purely personal preference are discouraged. Questions that are subjective but on which one can demonstrate true expertise are not only encouraged, they’re literally the entire point of the site. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 29 '20 at 1:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan IYO? In theory? That's not the way the site functions in my experience. You experienced the exact same thing in the past, which is why you made your meta on the subject. I see it on a near-daily basis. It's idealistic to think that the relative handful of meta users who happened to read your post are actioning it or that they represent the entire community. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Jul 29 '20 at 2:32

We have lots of similar questions that are not closed. No reason to close this one.

My answer is based on this revision, which is the one that got discussion to begin with.

Although there is no way to tell a priori, the number of possible ways to do that is quite short. An answer including all ways is completely feasible, as was shown by the answers already.

They stated they are using UA content, so UA is most likely fair play as well. They were clear that they were interested in basically anything - multiclassing, feats, w/e. They also gave pretty fair constraints, essentially wanting a resource-free option.

The current question is certainly better with the details, especially clarifying that UA is generally accepted. Previously the question was kind of bad, but not unclear enough to be closed, nor unbounded enough to be closed. Side note: I think saying that "published material" is overly redundant and unnecessary. Someone looking for homebrew/house-rule options are the exception and they should be the ones specifying that these are valid options. For me it's quite obvious that someone asking how to do X is asking how to do X using published content.

Other questions that ask for a list of possible ways to do something or a list of things:

etc. Really, we have many questions that are simply "what are all the possible ways to do X?", and most of them open, and many of them way less bounded than this one was originally. For example, the Paladin one has only the following bound: "(in the published materials of D&D 5e: rulebooks, UA, etc)", which isn't exactly a bound actually.

Note that some of them (especially the ones with Community Wiki answers) are way larger, always-changing lists, and we're completely fine with them.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The race and class questions (those last two) are rather different from the rest as they have entire Meta posts about their existence and usefulness. There is a question on every language but last I knew it was out of date. I am, somewhat coincidentally, compiling a list of questions that are answered by lists of you'd want to use some of those I can provide a link to my list thus far \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 23 '20 at 22:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 sure, but my point is that they were well accepted. By the way they are one of the questions I most often open so I'm very glad they exist :P \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 23 '20 at 22:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Notably similar questions have been closed such as "What are all the ways to damage more than one creature in a single attack?" and "All the different mechanics that offer rerolls/replacement results" to quote a comment under the first: "I don’t think it’s too broad but I do think it’s a “do work for me that I don’t want to” question that suits the site poorly. [...]" Just pointing out that questions that ask for lists seem to vary case-by-case \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 24 '20 at 3:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 the second was closed as unclear, not as too broad, and I agree that without any examples on what they mean by reroll/replacement, the question was unclear. I would totally make a case for your question that it shouldn't be closed as well. From my understanding, SSD comment is: "the question is bad", but it's not too broad, not off-topic, not unclear, not anything that I can see as a reason to close. If people want to downvote because they think you want them to do research for you, that's another thing. \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 24 '20 at 4:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sidenote: I've had tabs open in my browser with drafts attempting to update the answers to the 5e race and class questions for ages now but keep getting sidetracked or forget to work on them. I should get around to finishing my updates of those one of these days... and figure out what to do with the answer to this question that duplicates all the necessary work: Is it necessary to purchase all the D&D 5th edition books to have access to all player character options? \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mod Jul 29 '20 at 7:57

Yes, it should be closed until details are included

The question currently doesn't have a clear indication of what sources are available for a relevant answer and what levels they are at and playing to to understand the implications and risks of multiclassing.

While it could be answered without that, the potential answers grow and we see that even in the current answers. There are multiple answers provided and comments coming into to each adding more.

If we can understand the bounds better, we can provide a clearer and relevant answer to the querent - which I thought was our goal.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The question is already clear and answerable. I agree with you that getting more details would be a better question, but the question being not-the-best isn't reason to close it. The question currently has a considerable upvote/downvote ratio, an accepted (good) answer, and even if it didn't have any restriction, the possible ways are not many. \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 23 '20 at 21:28
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @HellSaint And the querent also added the details, so now this really isn't relevant. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 23 '20 at 21:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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