This question already has an answer here:
This question refers to the closing of a question I submitted a few years ago.
At the time, Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition had a gap, in that there were no player races with a +2 Wisdom modifier.
I didn't know why this was the case. Was it an oversight? Was it a game balance issue? Was it prohibited? Was there errata I had overlooked, or a supplement that would fill it? Particularly in the context of January 2015, the question of whether 5th Edition allowed, prohibited, or merely overlooked allowing a +2 racial bonus to Wisdom was something I thought was fair game. The manner in which I asked strictly discouraged speculation. I was seeking a published statement. Rules. Confirmation. In the first few months of 5th edition, a lot of rules were clarified and defined by statements from the designers.
The question is now closed, because the verbiage of the title and some of the discussion rely upon the opinions of game designers. I disagree with the closure. The question can easily be rephrased as "Is a +2 racial modifier to Wisdom prohibited?" without changing anything else, and it would seem to me to remain on topic. The question has a clear answer, now, in that there are publications--that is, not designer opinions--with racial counterexamples.
So, then, why do I not simply rephrase the question and submit it for reopening? I consider it a bad move for three reasons. The first is the relationship between the title and the URL, and it seems a shame to interfere with that after nearly two and a half years. The second is that rephrasing the question adds little value to a conversation that took place years ago. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if I overhaul the question, it may interfere with the quality of the responses, which were so well written for the original question.
For these reasons, I would like to politely challenge the notion that questions touching upon designer intent should all be considered off-topic. Questions for which the gist is to understand whether some detail is by design have value. To me, an answer of, "The designer explicitly intended it to be this way, and here is the tweet/errata/website/supplement that confirms this as a rule" means the same thing as, "These are the rules."
Should the definition of on-topic for this exchange be relaxed somewhat on questions such as this, or does the community agree that questions like mine no longer have a place here?