Should this Extra Attack + Thirsting Blade question be closed as a duplicate?

Question

The question Extra Attack & Eldritch Invocation Thirsting Blade was reopened after being closed as a dupe of Does this strict reading of the rules allow both Extra Attack and the Thirsting Blade warlock invocation to be used together?, despite asking about the same features and having a near exact same answer.

The latter question seems to have some additional details, but the new question is contained within and the important bits of the answers are the same. Should this question be a dupe, or what is that makes it different and a non-dupe despite having the same answer?

Answer 1

I agree with Thomas’s answer entirely, but I do want to expand on the third of doppelgreener’s suggested duplicate criteria with respect to this question:

• There is not some strong compelling reason to covering Question A alone, separately from Question B. (If the above bullet points are met this rarely happens.)

In this case, I would argue, we do have a compelling reason for “covering Question A alone, separately from Question B.” (Question A here being the newer, basic question, and Question B being the original, highly technical question.) Even if Question B didn’t bring two-weapon fighting into things, the entire approach and audience for Question B is entirely different. Question A is a basic question for new players. Question B is a rules lawyer, who very well knows the basic rule, trying to find a loophole.

Both questions are valid, but directing people interested in the basic question to the highly-technical discussion of a possible loophole in the basic rule they seek isn’t appropriate or helpful. It’s very valuable to have the basic question answered, and then the question about the loophole would be an extension of that one.

Answer 2

It is not a duplicate and should remain open.

Question A: If I have the fighter's Extra Attack feature and the warlock's Thirsting Blade eldritch invocation, how many attacks can I make?

Question B: Does this strict reading of the rules allow both Extra Attack and the Thirsting Blade warlock invocation to be used together?

We will examine these questions according to these three duplicate criteria.

Criterion 1:

It's the same question, or Question A is already covered obviously as a subset of Question B. Obvious here means I can tell at a glance it's there.

In this case, Question A asks simply, "How many attacks do I have if I have Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade?" Question B, while very similar, is a substantively different question, which can be summarized as, "If I have Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade, do the Two-Weapon Fighting rules introduce a technicality that allows me to take advantage of both features?" These are two different questions. One asks if Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade stack, one asks specifically about how the two interact with Two-Weapon Fighting.

But is it a subset situation? I think not. Question B (correctly) assumes that they normally do not stack and goes on to ask if a particular scenario presents a loop hole to this normal behavior. Question A is asking what the normal behavior is, so we don't have a subset situation. For an example of a "subset closure", see this question and its associated meta discussion.

Criterion 2:

Question B has an obvious answer to Question A. Obvious here means I get a straightforward answer without hard searching — a couple of sentences buried in the middle of a post, or an answer which only sort of implies an answer to Question A, doesn't count as obvious.

Question B has an obvious answer to Question A. The answer to each question is the same, despite the questions being different.

Criterion 3:

There is not some strong compelling reason to covering Question A alone, separately from Question B. (If the above bullet points are met this rarely happens.)

They are substantively different questions. It is not clear from Question B that it is being asked if Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade stack in general, as the focus of Question B is on their interaction with Two-Weapon Fighting.

Since Criteria 2 is the only one that is met, we conclude that Question A should not be closed.