6
\$\begingroup\$

Do these items stack? was closed and has comments requesting an edition and system be specified. However, the question appears to clearly indicate its game already: it cites a book (Tasha's Cauldron of Everything) that correlates with only one game, cites material from that book, and cites additional material from the same game. That game, no surprise, is D&D 5e.

I'm not going to revise it with a diamond close vote in place, but — can we mark this as and reopen it?

\$\endgroup\$
1
9
\$\begingroup\$

The system is clear and we should add it

I recently got the Eldritch Maul tattoo from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and I also have the Insignia of Claws. These both add a +1 modifier to my unarmed attack would these stack?

Is there any system with something that could called an "Eldritch Maul tattoo" that comes from something called "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything"?

Does that same system also involve something called the "Insignia of Claws"? And in this system both of these things "add a +1 modifier to unarmed attacks"?

If there is any system at all that this could be besides D&D 5e, I will be utterly baffled and bewildered. The game system is clear, in this case.

I personally see no reason not to tag this specific question with the tag. I know, beyond a shadow of a shadow of a doubt, what system this is.

\$\endgroup\$
25
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't understand why this was closed in the first place. Are any of the three closers in any serious doubt that this is meant to be a 5e question? If yes, please tell me, my fellow experts, what other system you think it could possibly be. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    May 31 at 21:38
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak I closed it because it is policy to do so: "The question asker must explicitly state the game system (and edition, for games with multiple editions) that they’re asking about." \$\endgroup\$
    – Medix2
    May 31 at 21:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Was it unclear, @Medix2? Can you tell me what other system you thought it might refer to? \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    May 31 at 21:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ To clarify, I was asking the three people listed as closers: Molot, ThomasMarkov, and SomeoneEvil. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    May 31 at 22:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Novak Oh, I actually thought I had voted to close it, apologies \$\endgroup\$
    – Medix2
    May 31 at 22:10
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak I’m just trying to consistently apply the policy as it is written. I have faith in our system, and I’m going to uphold it. If you want to fault me for that, that’s too bad - I’m not going to negotiate on it. If we see the policy changed, you’ll see me do my best to consistently apply whatever form it takes. \$\endgroup\$ May 31 at 22:19
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ The querent has now clarified the system and the question reopened \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    May 31 at 22:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak I understand I'm not one of the close-voters you named, but only the first three (or fewer, if diamond) close-voters get counted, so I'm going to answer anyway. I don't have another system it could be in mind. I don't need to. I understand that there are game systems out there that aren't D&D 5e and thus can be pretty obscure - and that I don't know the entire landscape of RPG systems well enough to be more of an authority on the system than the OP is. \$\endgroup\$ May 31 at 23:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak Just so you know, people have written answers saying we should close questions even when we absolutely know the system. Examples are this and this \$\endgroup\$
    – Medix2
    May 31 at 23:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak And no, that's not going in an answer on this question, partly because it'd be redundant with Molot's, and partly because it'd be redundant with KRyan's. \$\endgroup\$ May 31 at 23:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak “Unambiguously telling” of what, exactly? \$\endgroup\$ May 31 at 23:33
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak To be entirely forthright, I would prefer to see the policy changed in such a way to allow for making these edits on these sorts of question, since it is entirely unambiguous that this question is d&d 5e question. That said, I don’t find your tact particularly friendly. \$\endgroup\$ May 31 at 23:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 yes, that is the question I would like to see answered. I have an answer from ThomasMarkov, for which I'm grateful. I see Molot's voteable answer below which probably has enough to take at face value, but I always try to go the extra mile to make absolutely certain I understand someone's position. I do not have one from Someone_evil. (I thought I did, but misread Stop Being Evil's name) although your and SBE's perspectives are also valuable to me as people who I understand would have voted to close independently. (1/2) \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Jun 1 at 3:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Further, I understand no one is obligated to answer that question, so those that have, have my gratitude. But on the other hand, no one can answer on Someone_Evil's behalf, either. (2/2) \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Jun 1 at 3:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ah, that makes perfect sense. Apologies if some of what I said came across poorly, and know that I appreciate the tone this conversation seems to be at now, it is both refreshing and reassuring \$\endgroup\$
    – Medix2
    Jun 1 at 3:31
-4
\$\begingroup\$

There are two sides to it.

  1. System is indirectly indicated and we pretty much know, so there's no harm in adding the tag and reopening in regard to getting answers that fit.
  2. It will show the OP that they can be sloppy, ignore the messages that are shown to new users (that says to stay a bit, read the comments and edit accordingly), and someone will tidy their mess anyway.

For me, the 2nd point is a reason enough to not reopen it yet.

\$\endgroup\$
-4
\$\begingroup\$

No, we shouldn't.

Our "never guess the system" policy is clear. We never guess the system even when we are confident that we could do so. If you want to change that, then a specific meta question is not the right place. We have numerous discussion to which you can add.

The querent came back to edit the information, and that is our current approach to this, and this time it worked out.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 don't worry, I think the context here is important "If you want to change [the policy, then] a specific meta question [about a specific question] is not the right place. Maybe my language was not active enough to express that properly. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jun 1 at 12:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 yup, my rationale here boils down to "Our "never guess the system" policy is clear. We never guess the system even when we are confident that we could do so." I think I'm outspoken about thinking we should have a different policy or none in that regard. Unfortunately, things are how they are, and since they are this way, we ought to apply them consistently to everyone and every situation unless we agree on making an exception like the 5e rule. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jun 1 at 12:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The moderators have told us in good faith that this is how they will enforce it, and I think they will honour their words. We could discuss here whether quotations specific things would make for such an exception, but our current approach didn't fail - the querent edited in the tag, and as such, we dealt with the specific question. Anything more general would require a different discussion. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jun 1 at 12:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 not at all. We dealt with this specific question - the querent edited in the information and we should move on from this specific question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jun 1 at 12:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Let us continue this discussion in chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – Medix2
    Jun 1 at 12:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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