4
\$\begingroup\$

I asked a question about casters with blindsight and the Blinded condition, which has been marked as duplicate to a question which asks if creatures with blindsight can have the Blinded condition.

Why they are not the same

I do not agree this question is a duplicate of the linked question. The other one asks:

"Can creatures with blindsight be affected by the Blinded condition?"

The one I opened asks:

"Can casters with blindsight and are Blinded cast spells that require them to see the target?"

My question already assumes the answer to the first one: yes, they can be affected by it, because creatures with blindsight are not necessarily immune to the Blinded condition. We begin with the assumption that they are. It is a more specific question, and an application of the answers of the first one, which might not have the same answers as the one it has been marked a duplicate of.

The policy on duplicating: duplicate Q's based on the answers, not the questions?

If the answer to Question A is the same as the answer to Question B, and Question A was already answered, should we duplicate Question B to Question A? I thought the policy was to duplicate Q's based on the questions asked.

For example, if the answer to Question B can be trivially answered by Question A's answers (so they have the same answers), but Question B is more specific than Question A (A covers more ground than B), should they be duplicated?

Analyzing spell descriptions -- a case for the need of more detailed inspection?

The question I asked assumes the caster cannot see (Blinded condition), but has blindsight (can perceive the surroundings via other senses). Spell descriptions specifically ask for sight when sight is needed. Blindsight is normally a way to get around the Blinded condition, but is that still the case for spell descriptions that ask for creatures "that you can see"?

The duplicated Q does not have an answer to this.

\$\endgroup\$
-3
\$\begingroup\$

The way this works is if you think they're not duplicates, you explain why not.

Your question would seem to be trivially answered by the answer to "can a creature with Blindsight that's blinded still see people", as seeing people lets you cast spells on them. Make a case for why that's not the case and perhaps people will vote to reopen. 5 folks that disagree can override even a mod close, and unless there's something really severely wrong (real strong cause) with a question we're happy to let the crowd's closes/opens stand if they disagree with us. This doesn't stand or fall on you convincing me, but I'm going to vote my conscience.

I still stand by my close vote, because to me this is like saying "OK so someone blinded with blindsense can see someone" and then having questions for "yes but can they target them with a spell?" "Can they shoot them with an arrow?" "Can they hit them with a melee attack?" It's all the same answer.

What we do with duplicates is we like having duplicates asking questions from these different perspectives - but it suits the site best to have them pointing at the same set of canonical answers instead of a different batch each time.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I did so via opening a meta question. Is there another way I am missing? \$\endgroup\$ – user27327 May 7 '17 at 12:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ I see no explanation of why the two questions are different. Saying "I don't think they are" isn't an explanation of why they're not. I have read both questions and it would seem to me that the answer to whether you can suffer the effects of blindness if you have blindsight answers the question of whether you can see someone to target them. Why does it not? \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk May 7 '17 at 12:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alright. Added it in \$\endgroup\$ – user27327 May 7 '17 at 12:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ So now doesn't this reduce to "can you target someone using blindsight?" Does Blinded have anything to do with it, isn't it the same for a creature with only blindisght and not normal sight? \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk May 7 '17 at 12:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also if you are taking another question's answers for granted and trying to build off it, it's probably best to cite that question in your question and explain the additional step you're trying to get clarified - otherwise it has the appearance of just not being aware of the other question. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk May 7 '17 at 12:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I have edited the question to reference it. If that is what the question reduces to, then it still doesn't qualify as a duplicate of the other one. Also, if I asked "can a caster who can see use blindsight to target spells that require you to see the target" it becomes less relevant. Why go through the rules trouble of targeting someone with blindsight if you can see them? Unless you cant see them via, for instance, the Blinded condition. \$\endgroup\$ – user27327 May 7 '17 at 13:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ The question, as stated, is still a duplicate in my eyes. If you changed it to something else like "does blindsight let you target creatures with spells that require you to see them," then obviously it might not be at that time. 5 other site members can disagree and vote to reopen, and that's fine, but so far the question fits how we handle dupes - which is to close them as links to the dupe, so the site gets the benefit of asking the question in multiple different ways but heading to one canonical set of answers. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk May 7 '17 at 14:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ OK. I disagree, the points are laid down in my question. You have replied in the same manner you advised me to not use, though, which is "do not say simply 'I disagree'." Why is it a duplicate, given what is in my question now? Yes, 5 other members can vote to reopen. But why was it closed as duplicate in the first place? Can you elaborate based on and contradict the points laid down in this Meta question, so I can understand the process better? \$\endgroup\$ – user27327 May 7 '17 at 15:12

You must log in to answer this question.