A now deleted question that I tried to ask today is reproduced below (I'm not going to use quotes because it would get messy):

So basically this answer states:

[...] The War Caster feat says:

When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.

The current text of Illusionist's Bracers says:

While wearing the bracers, whenever you cast a cantrip, you can use a bonus action on the same turn to cast that cantrip a second time. [...]

[...] So read Illusionist's Bracers again, and it sure looks like this:

  1. On a creature's turn, the creature provokes an opportunity attack from a war caster with Illusionist's Bracers.
  2. The war caster casts a cantrip at the creature as a reaction.
  3. The Illusionist's Bracers grants a bonus action to the war caster that can be used on that same turn.
  4. The war caster casts the cantrip again with that bonus action, not on the war caster's turn. [...]

Really my question is simply whether or not this is correct. If something would let you take a bonus action when it is not your turn, can you take that bonus action?

So I'm asking about whether a specific example of a way you might be able to take a bonus action on somebody else's turn actually works. I've asked about specific answers or claims made in them before:

Is this type of question acceptable? Are they banned for asking about the accuracy of a specific other answer? Does simply removing the reference to that answer (as easily finable as it is) suddenly make the question acceptable?

Regardless, if I were to ask this question, potentially without referencing the previous question and its answers at all, would it be considered a duplicate or would it be considered to be asking about a specific enough scenario with nuance that it is not a duplicate?

  • \$\begingroup\$ If this is asking too many questions I can split it into two: 1. Can we ask about specific other answers, explicitly or implicitly. 2. Would this not-yet-posted question be a duplicate? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 7, 2021 at 14:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ RE: "Really my question is simply whether or not this is correct." Why not see how the community reacts to this answer and judge its correctness accordingly? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 8, 2021 at 5:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Hey Because I would like more detailed addresses of what the question claims than what comments and votes usually provide. I know the system well, and can see what the answer is saying, I'm wondering if there's any evidence I've missed that clearly (subjective, but still) sells it one way or another. The same reason I asked the three questions I mentioned above: I could see arguments multiple ways, and want to know if there's anything I've missed and to actually see some arguments made \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 8, 2021 at 6:26

1 Answer 1


This is sorta not supposed to happen

And saying that sounds weird, because it obviously has. But let's work though how things supposed to work.

A question asks about the solution to problem X. Answer give the solution to X and why they're correct. As long as that is happening, any question asking whether a specific answer is correct would be a dupe because it's just asking about problem X.

The more common exception would be relating to optimization challenges and similar. An answer will suggest using two (or more) rules/features to do Y to maximize X, and rather than just using comments and votes, it's moved to a new question asking whether those features do Y. There, the question is obviously different.

So what's up with this case, but this is different? Looking at it, I think there's a lot in that answer which doesn't need to be there. The question is "can one do X". The answer you wanted to question through up a lot of features which set up the scenario, then argued that the rule doesn't say you can't do X, so there for you can. Such scenario setup (which might include an exception to general rules) are much better suited to questions than answers.

I'm not sure what to do with the answer in question though. I personally think it's wrong, incorrectly applies Specific vs. General, and does a poor job of actually answering the question.

So I'll end on the general guidance: if you want more support in an answer for it to show that it is correct, use the comments. If you think it is wrong, vote accordingly.

† "correct" may have slightly different meanings depending on the question, esp. subjective questions. Apply the concept as necessary. The problem might also not be the problem the question is framed towards, see XY-problems and frame challenges.


You must log in to answer this question.

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