When are the rules clear enough to not need a RPG.SE question?

Question

In response to this question: Are you still two-weapon fighting if you've thrown one of your two weapons and are no longer holding it?

A comment I made was responded to by the OP with:

Actually, I knew the answer to the question but thought it an ambiguous enough scenario that it'd be helpful to the community. I knew I'd get answers pretty quick too so I didn't bother writing my own. ;)

Meanwhile, the quoted rules he put in his question included:

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Is the OP asking us to re-word the rules he posted so that some hypothetical person who doesn't understand them suddenly does? How can we be sure our re-wording won't confuse someone who otherwise would have understood the rules?

I've been told here before to not ask hypothetical questions - ask questions about a problem you have, not one you are trying to invent.

So which is it?

Answer 1

I'm of two minds about this one. (Disclosure: I answered it.)

1. On the one hand, all of the rules required to interpret it are included on the same page, even in the same named section: "Two-Weapon Fighting", PHB p.195. That's usually my litmus test for making this a "read the book to me" question and getting my downvote.

2. On the other hand, the act of throwing a weapon does put you in a state of no longer meeting the prerequisites for TWF. I could see someone being concerned that the RAW require melee-then-throw while disallowing throw-then-either, as the first would "break" TWF.

Bonus:

3. On someone else's hand, OP has now commented that he had no particular question about it and asked it prospectively, which isn't great. I've also been told--and agree it's good policy--to ask about actual problems/confusion, not just hypothetical. OP struggled with this at one point, as he mentions in another answer, so it's a real--if, perhaps, small--problem to ask about.

Conclusion:

I don't think it rises to the level of flagging for deletion. It's not horrible, offensive, duplicate. One might argue it's off-topic because OP didn't really have that problem, but that's a bridge too far for me.

Vote your conscience, though--this may be one question where the score appropriately hovers somewhere low.

Answer 2

I asked the question because I thought it ambiguous enough that it could use a definitive answer, in the event that anyone else comes along with the same question -- i.e., "how am I benefiting from two weapon fighting if I'm only holding one weapon after I throw my other weapon?"

One of the features of this site is that you can ask a question and answer it yourself as part of your initial post. While I didn't answer it myself, I had intended to (I didn't have the time to also write up the answer). I also knew it would be answered fairly quickly, as it's a fairly straightforward question, and the answer I received was along the lines of what I expected.

I will point out that it's not entirely hypothetical -- while I was fairly certain of the rule, and said so in the comments, I still couldn't be 100% certain I was reading it right. It's probably not a great question considering it's explained within the rules. My thought process was that if it gave me pause for consideration, then it might come up again when it gives someone else pause for consideration, and if that makes it a valuable question to at least one other person then it has served its purpose.

It's fine if it's not an excellent question for this format but I don't think its off topic or generally a bad question, either.