3
\$\begingroup\$

I have a rules question I believe isn't covered by the three similar (but not duplicate questions). Is this something that should be answered on the other questions or does it deserve it's own question?

I'm interested in playing a College of Satire Bard from Unearthed Arcana: Kits of Old mentioned here. I found the PDF on wizards.com here.

What is your climb speed with Equine Build and Tumbling Fool?

These three questions seem related.
Thief no longer cost extra.
Difference between no longer costs extra and climb speed dealt with speed differences.
The Athlete feat is a fix all.

This seems different because you climb speed from the Bard is equal to your normal speed.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Spider-horse-man, Spider-horse-man... Does whatever a spider-horse-man can... He's too big, extra-sized... Breaks shingles and roofs alike... Look out, here comes the Spider-horse-man... \$\endgroup\$
    – T. Sar
    Jan 12 at 19:57

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

If the existing related questions don't answer the question for you — which you asking here rather indicates they don't — then it (probably/generally) isn't a duplicate. You'll probably benefit from stating what you've found in the other questions and what they leave unanswered/unclear, which would let answers clarify anything left between them.

If, for whatever reason it isn't (and with a brief skimming of the actual rules and Q&A I'm having a hard time seeing what would be a dupe of what) then you'll have made a duplicate pointer, which is not a bad thing.

And solely since this Q forgot to, for when you post the question remember to specify the game system (since the links will dispel any confusion, I suppose it's a reminder for the tag more than anything). (And just since I'm on the roll, the meta Q doesn't need it — it's different, read the excerpt.)

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ “If the existing related questions don't answer the question for you then it isn't a duplicate.” I don’t think I can get on board with this idea in general, we’ve definitely had situations where a question author disagreed with duplicate closure because they disagreed with the answers to the dupe target. While the author’s view of the dupe target is a helpful and necessary indicator of a question’s dupe status, question authors are not the final arbiters of duplicate closure. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Jan 2 at 2:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I mean, there is a distinction between it answering the question for you and you disliking the answer, but you're right, I definitely lost an intended "generally" as part of rewriting \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    Jan 2 at 2:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Im definitely more comfortable with probably/generally here. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Jan 2 at 2:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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