In regards to the question In what order are creatures affected by the Sleep spell?, the asker had a sentence in the initial revision that stated that he was confused about the bugbear chief's Heart of Hruggek trait, which gives it advantage on saving throws against being put to sleep (along with other conditions) but checked the PHB and found that the sleep spell had no saving throw; the asker then went on to actually ask about the order in which the sleep spell affects creatures by 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?


1 Answer 1


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.

  • 3
    \$\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, 2014 at 2:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @sadaqah Why is this a comment on mxyzplk's answer? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4, 2015 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, 2015 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, 2015 at 2:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @sadaquah, you're fine. Meta is more discussion-y than the main site. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 4, 2015 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\$ Jan 4, 2015 at 6:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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