6
\$\begingroup\$

Some time ago, I asked a question about how to save against fear with a DC of 21 if your wisdom is +0. It was closed because it was too broad, and I understand why.

I think it's because the question is too hypothetical: I have no specific character in mind, which could have greatly narrowed the possible answers. I also could have put in more restraints for the answers, here's some possible narrowing edits I thought up of:

  1. Ask not to list how to get immunity from fear, and ask it in a separate question. Something along the lines of "I know you can get immunity from effects like spells, but I'm looking for straight bonuses to the rolls."
  2. Don't ask for how to get Advantage against fear. Advantage can't get me past 20.
  3. Ask only for abilities that allies can give me, and not features that only benefit self, making features like Mindless Rage and Stillness of Mind out-of-scope (sorry, Icyfire). This is because of the hypothetical-ness of the question, with only a platonic PC in mind, you'd need to rely on what your allies can give you instead of what you have for yourself (obviously a barbarian with mindless rage wouldn't have this problem!)

I really want this question reopened, as I can see it being a valuable resource for players to tap. Will any or all of the above edit proposals help my question? Any more ideas on how to get it reopened?

\$\endgroup\$
17
\$\begingroup\$

You shouldn't.

Questions are always weak when they don't solve a real problem the poster has. You want to add artifical limitations to get the question open, but those limitations are totally random and may or may not apply to someone with the actual problem.

Don't ask questions because "you think it'll be a good resource for people." It won't, it'll be an impediment to them asking their own question that is really scoped to someone having a real problem.

Don't seed questions. Ask about real problems you have. Let others ask about their problems, don't misuse the format to try to "proactively help" them - it's our experience you'll do more harm than good.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I see the error in my ways now. Thank you. Just out of curiosity, though, I'd like to see a (possibly closed already?) question that demonstrates this, aside from mine, of course. I'm interested in learning what happens when it was left alone and unclosed. If that is possible? \$\endgroup\$ – daze413 Mar 10 '17 at 15:06
10
\$\begingroup\$

With respect (and apologizing for the fact that I always sound way more confrontational than I intend to), I challenge the value of the question, because it seems to be presupposing its own legitimacy by assuming there is a problem that needs to be fixed and should be fixable.

If a player at my table asked me, "How can I ever hope to overcome a DC 21 Wisdom save with only a +0 modifier in Wisdom?", my response would be, "By going back to when you created your character and not choosing to be average in Wisdom." The fact that a DC 21 Wisdom save is impossible by default with a +0 in Wisdom is an abstraction for the fact that commoners are not wise enough to overcome the Frightful Presence of the dragon. It takes at least a +1 in Wisdom, which is by definition above average, to be able to succeed. It is intentional that most characters cannot reliably succeed on a saving throw against a combat feature of a CR 24 dragon, because most characters that are not player characters are average, and not all player characters excel in Wisdom.

So, your question seems to be founded on the premise that there should be a solution, as if the player in this situation deserves one, when the problem is more a matter of poor planning or alternative priorities on the part of the player at character creation. Your question might as well be, "How can I ever hope to hide from a Beholder's passive perception when I have -1 in Dexterity and I'm not proficient in Stealth?" There are plenty of tasks that are impossible to achieve for an arbitrary character that was not designed to be able to achieve that task. Basically, the only natural answer to your question is a frame challenge.

For those reasons, my conclusion is similar to mxyzplk's answer: you shouldn't.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ These are the kinds of other-priorities details that would come out with a real character, yeah. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 10 '17 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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