The question Flying a broom, light activity? lacks a system tag and is currently closed as unclear. Should it remain closed, or do we have enough information to guess the system?

The current guidelines (which are recommendations we use to guide our decision-making about specific ambiguous cases, not hard-and-fast rules where a question that does not obviously meet the criteria for one outcome must therefore be subjected to another outcome without debate) can be found here.

MOD REMINDER: Be polite and assume good faith on the part of others. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them stupid or evil. We're all trying to help this site be great.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I saw this question in the reopen queue before the edits that focused it on a specific problem, and left it closed because I perceived it as unclear pertaining to the problem - not the system. We can answer whether the escape plan works, but I'm not certain that that was the initial problem. \$\endgroup\$ May 2, 2022 at 8:18

1 Answer 1


It Is Clear Enough To Re-open

The votes to reopen have it, at the time of this answer. I cast the final vote, and my reasoning is this:

  1. "Aspect of the Moon" is a feature of the 5e Warlock class, and to the best of my knowledge not a feature of any other edition or game system.

  2. However, I am not expert in all editions or game systems, so I took 45 seconds to google:

    • "Warlock" "Aspect of the Moon" gave tons of answers, most of which looked like 5e material

    • "Warlock" "Aspect of the Moon" -5e (which removes overt 5e-related responses) gave significantly few responses, and even most of those looked 5e-related, just not overtly labeled enough for Google to exclude them.

  3. Further, the question itself mentioned not only Warlocks and Aspect of the Moon, but also a lack of sleep requirements. No longer needing sleep is one of the features of the 5e Aspect of the Moon invocations.

I don't see how this could be any more clear, absent the tag (which I have also requested the OP add to the post anyway.)

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ There is no way to enforce it, but "Spend a minute or two googling before a VTC" is probably a good rule of thumb in cases like this. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    May 1, 2022 at 21:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ Dear moderators, I am curious as to why the more brief comment I put explaining my vote to re-open was removed from the original question. I put it there so people would see it and consider it before engaging in another round of VTCs. Now that we have another VTC, it's not obvious that person even had a chance to see it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    May 2, 2022 at 1:42
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I would assume it was considered redundant with the question being reopened and the fuller explanation here (also linked in comments) would cover that ground. FWIW the new close vote was over Opinion based and would have had the chance to read it (not that it's then super relevant) \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    May 2, 2022 at 11:42
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak Someone_evil has the right of it: once there was a comment on the mainsite post pointing to a meta here discussing the mainsite post's open/close status, I deleted further comments on the open/close status of the mainsite post so as to single-stream the conversation here. (Future readers who don't see novak's mainsite comment: it is substantially covered by the material in this post.) \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    May 5, 2022 at 0:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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