2
\$\begingroup\$

How an undead statblock differ from its living counterpart?

The question has been changed from the original question. However it seems people think it can be improved to be stackable. The current question itself already has an answer in a comment (and possibly another one).

At this current state, the question ask "is there a pair of monsters, that provide statblock for its living and undead counterpart?" which is basically a content identification (if my interpretation is correct). The content is already been proven by another user that it exists, and I don't think it's opinion-based, too broad, or unclear.

What this question needs to be opened?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

What you ultimately want to do is Primarily Opinion-Based. But a question for the data you're looking for as a basis is not. I'd remove the background so as not to confuse the question or the answerers. That way you've got a clean stack-focused question.

If your question is purely:

is there a pair of monsters, that provide statblock for its living and undead counterpart?

then I so no reason why it can't be reopened after you clean it up to just ask that.

But if you're looking to find an underlying commonality between the existing pairs in order to create your own living/undead pairing, then I think that is where it enters the world of Primarily Opinion-Based unless someone has made and played with a homebrew set.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure I understand what do you mean by "extrapolate to another creature type", because I'm only interested in how the stat changes if a creature is turned into undead. If there's an example of a pairing, then it can be used as guidance for another creature turned into undead, isn't it? \$\endgroup\$
    – Vylix
    Apr 11, 2018 at 18:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Vylix Cleaned it up. Mostly that if you're asking for an example of a living/undead pairing that's fine. If you are wanting to create your own living/undead pairing or a trying to determine a system for doing that, then that's Primarily Opinion-Based (without having someone provide a tested example) \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Apr 11, 2018 at 18:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ I want to determine how to convert the statblock. The question is not asking for a system how to do that (anymore, at least until I changed the question yesterday). I'm asking for a pairing, what do I use with the answer afterward (determine a system) is not the scope of the question, but rather it's a background. Do you think I should remove the background and leave it only with the asking for pairing? \$\endgroup\$
    – Vylix
    Apr 11, 2018 at 18:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Vylix What you ultimately want to do is Primarily Opinion-Based. But a question for the data you're looking for as a basis is not. I'd remove the background so as not to confuse the question or the answerers. That way you've got a clean stack-focused question. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Apr 11, 2018 at 18:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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