6
\$\begingroup\$

In regards to this question, the asker had a sentence that stated he was confused about the bugbear chief's Heart of Hruggek which gives it advantage on saving throws against being put to sleep (along with other conditions), then went on to actually ask which order the sleep spell affects creature's HP.

I edited out the part about the bugbears as it is not entirely relevant to what's being asked and almost feels like a second question.

Is this an accepted edit within the site's rules or should I refrain from doing this in the future?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
10
\$\begingroup\$

That's fine. Sometimes people (often urged by commenters wanting more details) put in examples or background that are not useful. And that non-constructive content can often lead respondents down irrelevant paths. Delete it in this case.

But, sometimes that detail does illuminate the problem or reveal it to be an XY problem. Keep the content in for these cases.

Obviously this requires judgement to see which case it is, if you're not sure leave a comment and see if it incites the mob or not.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @PurpleMonkey Regarding the post in question, I think the edit was effective. OP wanted clarification on the mechanics of the Sleep spell and the bugbear reference only confused the issue. (Specifically, there are saves for "being put to sleep," e.g., Beholder's Sleep Ray, Brass Dragon's Sleep Breath, etc.) Removing it clarified OP's intended question. Plus, you commented to OP about re-posting the bugbear-and-sleep as a separate question if they were seeking an answer to it as well. \$\endgroup\$ – sadaqah Dec 28 '14 at 2:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @sadaqah Why is this a comment on mxyzplk's answer? \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jan 4 '15 at 1:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer My understanding from the description of comments was they were mostly for clarifying, constructive criticism or things like related links, not for providing an answer so it didn't seem appropriate to comment on the question. I see my comment as applying mxyzplk's answer to the specific post in question. Also, from the description of comments I could not tell if "owner of post" meant the question or the answer (or both) so I @ replied PurpleMonkey to make sure he saw it. \$\endgroup\$ – sadaqah Jan 4 '15 at 2:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer I'm fairly new here. If there's a better place to put such comments (since I felt mxyzplk's answer was correct and I was simply applying it to the impetus of the question), or if I should not make such comments, please let me know. \$\endgroup\$ – sadaqah Jan 4 '15 at 2:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @sadaquah, you're fine. Meta is more discussion-y than the main site. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Jan 4 '15 at 2:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @sadaquah It just seemed like it would make more sense on the question or (more so) as a separate answer to me. If mxyzplk disagrees, you should probably listen to him, though, he has higher rep. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jan 4 '15 at 6:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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