5
\$\begingroup\$

The question Do the Hunter ranger's Extra Attack, Whirlwind Attack, and/or Horde Breaker features work together? seems to be asking 2 entirely separate questions in a single post:

  • One aspect of the post focuses on the interaction of the ranger's Extra Attack feature with the Whirlwind Attack option for the Hunter ranger archetype's Multiattack feature (and more generally with any of the Hunter ranger's "special attacks").
  • However, the post also seems to tack on an entirely separate question about the interaction of the Horde Breaker option for the Hunter's Prey subclass feature with the Whirlwind Attack option for the Multiattack feature.

I don't see how these 2 questions are related to one another other than that they both happen to involve Whirlwind Attack, and more broadly that they're both related to the Hunter ranger. The questions themselves don't really have any overlap; the answer to one question doesn't rely at all on the answer to the other. It's entirely possible for an answer on the post to thoroughly address the first question without even touching on the second issue, or vice versa.

Should the linked question be split into two separate questions?
(If so, I'm assuming the Horde Breaker + Whirlwind Attack question would be edited out of the current question, mostly because it seems to be tacked on to the end of the first question. It could then be asked separately if desired.)

They're both potentially useful questions, but I don't see why they're being asked together in a single Q&A at all.


I originally made this observation - that the post seemed to be asking about 2 entirely different issues - in a comment on the question over 2 years ago. However, it seems nobody has responded to or addressed that issue since then. Due to that, and since both of the non-deleted answers also (very briefly) address the two disparate questions in the post, I figured it was worth asking here before single-handedly making such an edit myself.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Nothing for right now

This question is currently over 6 years old and we haven't had an issue with either the question, the answers, or a new question creating an issue.

Because of that, we should just let it be. If it becomes an issue, we can deal with it, but there are lots of older Q&As that are still around because things were different.

No need to kick up old dust when there's so much new dust to deal with :)

| |
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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