6
\$\begingroup\$

This is related to this question.

The title of this new question"Does Sunlight Sensitivity impose disadvantage from Holy Nimbus" is definitely a different question from the older question "Does Holy Nimbus emanate Sunlight?". One is a question about how Holy Nimbus works while the other is about whether or not Holy Nimbus interacts with a specific racial trait.

The answer for the Racial Trait question does rely on the currently marked duplicate Holy Nimbus/Sunlight question and the last paragraph of the body of the Racial Trait question recognizes this - but I'm not sure that means it's a duplicate.

It's close enough that I could see it being a duplicate, but the question isn't "Does Holy Nimbus generate Sunlight", but "Does this racial disadvantage trigger from Holy Nimbus".

It's incredibly close, but I wasn't sure it was a duplicate - what is the correct call on this?

|
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't understand the opening of your post. “The title is definitely a different question” — to what? “Although the answer does rely on the current marked duplicate” — in what way? The only marked answer isn't citing anything. Do you mean the hypothetically correct answer? In what way does it rely on another question instead of just relying on the rules? “The last paragraph of the body recognises this” — recognises what? Could you please use some more specific identifiers? Is this just an “are these two questions really duplicates” question? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener♦ Jul 13 '18 at 15:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Edited for clarity. Does it make more sense now? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 13 '18 at 15:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, thank you very much for that edit. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener♦ Jul 13 '18 at 15:57
9
\$\begingroup\$

They look like the same question to me, just with different wordings. Words stripped away and just looking at meaning, both are asking if Holy Nimbus sheds sunlight-sunlight such that things that care about sunlight care about Holy Nimbus.

Sometimes a new question will have more to it such that its meaning is related and close but still different from an existing one, but that doesn't appear to be the case here: their meanings match. They're worded in reverse, but that's just kind of like how “What is 5 + 3?” is the same question as “What is 3 + 5?”

(The issue of one’s answer relying on the other is a bit of a red herring, I think: it doesn't matter if an answer relies on the other, but whether the question-post has the same question-meaning as the other. That there's an answer that uses the other as support is a hint to us that we might want to check if they're same question, but it's not the reason they're duplicates.)

I see that the new is already marked a duplicate of the old. I think that's the right state of affairs.

|
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ For question-meaning: the new question is indirectly asking if Holy Nimbus provides sunlight. But they are directly asking how HOly Nimbus interacts with the racial trait. The answer 100% answers their question, but it doesn't seem like a duplicate of the question they asked (but maybe it's a duplicate of the question they meant...but i feel like trying to figure out what they meant and assigning duplication to that is kinda tricky.) \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 13 '18 at 18:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch It might be tricky but that's the very purpose of duplicates: to collect together the same question that has different wordings. So far machines can't do meaning very well, so SE harnesses the judgement of humans, who might doubt our ability to discern fine distinctions of meaning sometimes, but even then we are really good at it in general. (Resolving fine distinctions like that are why SE crowdsources such judgements.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 13 '18 at 18:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Please remember that being marked a duplicate isn't necessarily a bad thing. The duplicate system is meant to make it easier to find relevant information, by collecting all the myriad ways people may look for it and redirecting them to a known-good answer. Different people may need the information for different reasons, and in different contexts, and are liable to enter different questions in their search engines. Marking questions that can be reduced to the same base question (e.g., ‘What are the properties of the aura of sunlight emanated by "Holy Nimbus"?’) as duplicates... \$\endgroup\$ – Justin Time - Reinstate Monica Jul 15 '18 at 0:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ ...Thus makes it more likely that the same information will reach anyone that needs it, regardless of why they needed or what prompted them to search for it. \$\endgroup\$ – Justin Time - Reinstate Monica Jul 15 '18 at 0:41
1
\$\begingroup\$

You're looking at it all wrong. When you boil both questions to their core, it is "Is Holy Nimbus Actual Sunlight?" Sure, one is in regards to a particular racial trait, but it is affected by Sunlight. Holy Nimbus is Sunlight, therefore it affects the Kobold's Sunlight Sensitivity. While the specific application of both questions is different (one looking in general and the other at a specific instance)...

They are asking for the same fundamental answer: "Is It Sunlight?" to which the answer is a resounding "YES."

|
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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