4
\$\begingroup\$

I am a bit confused about what to do with my question Optimizing Torso/Body slot when restricted to light armor, no metal with high WIS.

I was expecting the answerers to suggest cool items existing in the books for the torso/body slot with specific properties that you can't get with the standard magic item creation rules. Instead of that, the two answerers focused almost uniquely on those rules and uniquely for amors, while my mood was more like "Ok, except if there exists an exceptional armor especially fitted for the situation, they probably will suggest me good vests or robes".

While I enjoyed reading their suggestion about using an alternative material similar to mithral, I can't really accept it because even if it is technically legal by RAW, it breaks the spirit of the rule:

Her ethos requires a certain vulnerability that allows her to more fully empathize with those in their care

So the matter is not about not being able to using metal in which case using a material with similar properties would be ok. The matter is about keeping a certain vulnerability. So from my point of view I can't accept any of the answers. But the two people who answered already helped me a lot in the past with other questions I asked and I don't want to direspect them. Plus since english is not my mother language, I think I might have not used the good words to express the question I had in mind.

So what should I do now?

  • Edit the question?
  • Accept one answer and ask another question?
  • Other possibility?
\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

You didn't not ask for loopholes, and if you don't want them then you probably should edit your question to explicitly tell people that there's any particular kind of answer you are disinclined to consider. Phrases like "optimise" tend to be interpreted as "anything goes if the rules say it's okay."

Editing your question like that won't keep folks from suggesting such loopholes, but it does mean they should probably first spend a little effort showing why other answers aren't available. Chances are they don't know of any way to solve your problem without this bypass technique, but they don't see any need to demonstrate that lack before launching into an alternate solution because both options will seem equally desirable if you haven't made your aversion to the bypass solution explicit.

\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

All that BESW said, plus:

It's in no way disrespectful to not accept one of the answers. If the answers don't answer your question--even if you fear that it's because you didn't state it clearly enough--then don't accept them. No one should take offense at that.

(If you do edit the question to clarify it might be nice to drop a comment on each answer indicating such, so as to give the answerers a "fair" chance at modifying their answers into one that does answer your question.)

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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