4
\$\begingroup\$

I asked a question at

Can an incorporeal creature occupy the same space as another creature?

And a mod closed it as "too broad". It clearly is not too broad and there is already an answer to it and a comment lead me to a book that can answer it even better and completely in a short space, but I can't even put that answer there now. (it also invalidates the current only answer, which I foolishly upvoted at first and now cannot downvote) The mod told me to post here, otherwise I wouldn't for a simple issue like this.

\$\endgroup\$
2

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

This question is still composed of questions that are different enough that they should be asked separately.

  1. What space does a creature occupy, and can incorporeal creatures share space with a corporeal and/or incorporeal creature?

While "what space does a creature occupy" is technically a different question, it's tightly related and small, so it would probably pass muster.

  1. Can incorporeal creatures perform combat maneuvers like Bull Rush and Overrun on corporeal creatures?

This question has no relation to the other question except "but incorporeal", so it's not a good candidate for combining.

  1. Do incorporeal creatures provoke AoOs from opponents? Can they Tumble to avoid them?

I get that AoOs may be provoked from moving into a space, and/or from a combat maneuver, so this is probably why you're lumping it all together, but they are separate issues that will have nontrivial answers unto themselves.

  1. A list of random other mini-questions. How thick of a wall can an incorporeal creature pass through? Can an incorporeal creature squeeze? etc.

The one question per post guidance is already proven with response to your question - as the first answer tries to answer you, but of course only answers a couple of these widely ranging questions. It is for your own good, and to get you answers to the real problems you're having, that you should break it up into more targeted questions than "tell me everything about how incorporeal works in every movement and combat case please."

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Is it worth pointing out that One Question, One Post not only serves OP better, but also future users and viewers? While we certainly want to solve the problem at hand, it's also nice if we can do so in a way that's more-likely to be ultimately useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 13:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Probably in the generic "why one question" meta. I'm not inclined to spend a lot more time here though. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 13:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fair--I just saw that other one; fear I'm catching up to these LIFO, not FIFO. \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 13:20
5
\$\begingroup\$

As far as I can see it was originally closed as it contained multiple questions. Reading your recent edit though, this still seems to be an issue because of the 'side issue' you include at the end of the question.

\$\endgroup\$
22
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Yours contains 12 questions, that's a lot. I would advice you to re-write it so there is less interrogations so it would be easier to see what actually matters. \$\endgroup\$
    – Anne Aunyme
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 9:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos You may find the answers on this question and others like it helpful. (And please, don't use inflammatory language to describe things you disagree with. It makes folks less likely to take your legitimate concerns seriously.) \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 9:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BESW nobody has yet pointed me to the rule that says one single (arbitrarily defined) question per post. Too Broad does not mention it. Is it an actual rule somewhere or a guideline or what? \$\endgroup\$
    – Simanos
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 9:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos Perhaps that'd be a good meta question, then. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 9:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, I can just ask "How do incorporeal creatures work?". It's one question and encompasses all my little hidden questions, or I can make 12 question posts and ask a single disjointed part question in each without context of the full situation. It just feels wrong and inefficient. It just seems better to post all the cloudy for me things about Incorporeality in one question to have them together for me and readers. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simanos
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 9:56
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos we get that you think that, honestly, we do. The problem is that the site policy is to close questions with multiple subquestion, as has been stated many times. We get that you disagree with this policy, but you stating repeatedly that you disagree with it is not going to change it \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 10:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related meta: meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6453/… \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 12:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @simanos: "pedantic and arbitrary" is indeed inflammatory language, as is arguing in the comments with everyone who tries to help you on every meta question. You need to tone it down now. Some comments have been removed. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 12:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ How is pedantic and arbitrary inflammatory? They are statements of fact. Language is a complex structure. You can make single sentence that appears to be a single question, but is in fact asking about several things. Personal interpretation is required to judge if a question is multi-part or single part with several cases needing to be investigated. I protest at your veiled threats and unfair removal of my comments that nobody complained about. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simanos
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 13:02
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes, of course there is always personal interpretation involved. Yes, calling people's thinking about the site pedantic is inflammatory - if you didn't know that, I'm telling you now. My threat is not veiled - Be Nice. Using inflammatory language and badgering is Not Nice. Tone it down. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 13:10
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ 2. Now I'm going to delete every comment in which you say pedantic and arbitrary until you get the point about not using inflammatory language. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 13:24
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos Yes, it matters how words are used. mxyzplk is informing you in a remarkably gentle way that how you've used them is against site policy. That's not something you can or should be arguing with; please just take it as information that's helpful in changing how you use words here. Edit: This may be a translation problem, too: “arbitrary” is usually a neutral word in English (though context can make it insulting), but “pedantic” is almost always used as an insult in English (though careful context can make it not); both are coming off as attacks/insults in those comments. \$\endgroup\$
    – SevenSidedDie Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 14:46
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos In the context of a community that use the terms in a deliberately neutral and often self-applied way, yeah, “pedantic” isn't going to be an insult. Now that you know that this community isn't one of those exceptions to the norm, normal social meaning of the word (i.e., it's usually an insult, or used to indirectly insult by applying it to someone's statements) should be kept in mind instead. \$\endgroup\$
    – SevenSidedDie Mod
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 16:09
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos If someone says "Hey, I find that word choice offensive," it's totally fine to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean any offense." But saying "You're wrong to be offended," is dismissing the person's own experience as invalid. As you've recently learnt, you were NOT describing a clearly defined rule as pedantic: you were describing a specific individual's application of a general principle as pedantic. You didn't know, but now you do. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 23:33
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Simanos I looked at it, and I edited it in hopes that it will attract re-open votes. You've packed a lot into the question, but I do like that you put the bottom line up front, and then added the rest for context to illustrate why the problem/question arose. I think it would be beneficial to add in the link to the other questions you had on incorporeal creatures. \$\endgroup\$
    – KorvinStarmast
    Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 14:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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