-2
\$\begingroup\$

For transparency: the answer in question that did not receive the bounty is mine. The two answers in question are:

This question, Can a single dose of poison applied to an edged weapon be used multiple times?, had a bounty placed on it with the specific stated intent of gathering an updated answer that took errata concerning poisons into account. The errata was issued to the DMG after the question was originally asked and answered.

A couple noteworthy points about this question are that it refers to "regular poison" which is not a term used in the PHB or DMG and the user who placed the bounty was not the OP (and thus had no available info concerning what the term "regular poison" was intended to mean).

The chosen answer, while commendable, does not address the full scope of the question/errata, nor does it accurately address if the errata is relevant to the answer in all situations, nor does it address what "regular poison" actually is.

Additionally, the user who posted the answer that was awarded the bounty commented on the other answer (mine) stating

Well researched and better than my answer. I've up voted yours and would down vote my own if I could ... I would think this should be made the official answer.

They also suggested an edit which I felt I added. I understand the issuer of the bounty alone makes decisions concerning the awarding of the bounty, but I think it's telling that the user with the selected answer preferred another answer.

My answer, while long, addressed the ambiguity of the term "regular poison" and also addressed how/if the errata would affect the ruling based on what this term was intended to mean.

I'm not interested in receiving the rep points of the bounty, but I am very curious why these answers were judged this way.

Can anyone shed some light on why this bounty was awarded this way?

\$\endgroup\$
13
\$\begingroup\$

It was specifically awarded that way. I placed and awarded the bounty.

I am going to preface this by saying I am not interested at all in debating any points about your (or any) answer, and am tempted to answer here simply by saying "because bounties may be awarded at the offerer's discretion with any or no justification" to avoid a round of "but but my answer..." So I'm going to answer why I awarded the bounty the way I did in this case but am not going to engage in any debate about it, it's not subject to change.

First, I prefer answers that are concise. Answers that are super long and range into all kinds of related topics are in my opinion suboptimal answers. Especially if some of the ranging is due to an unclear question that should probably be clarified in the first place. This question should basically merit a "yes and here's the cite" or a "no and here's the cite," so I preferred the direct answer.

Second, in this specific case, I believe your answer makes an overly legalistic differentiation between "basic poison" and "injury poison" that a plain-text reading of the rules, which is the kind of reading the 5e designers have indicated is how to parse their rules, does not warrant. I get your line of argument, I read it, I understand it, and I disagree with it. Basic poison is a poison that hurts you when it injures you, therefore it falls under the new injury poison rule even if they didn't add that clause in for every individual poison listing (that's kinda the point of having the general rules, so you don't duplicate the same text everywhere). It also does not stand to reason a basic poison would be more powerful (not ending when it procs) than all the other poisons now affected by the ruling.

So that's why I bountied the other answer. Again, I am not interested in any debate on the merits of any of these, as it's my 200 rep to give as I please; I will not engage with any rehashing of the 5e-specific points of this issue.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for clarifying. Debate was never the purpose of this post so we're on the same page there. I appreciate your honesty about your decision and your willingness to share +1 \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 22:14
10
\$\begingroup\$

It was up to the Bounty creator

If they didn't choose an answer, then it defaults to the highest voted. If they did, then that was their choice.

There are times when selected bounties and answers are just what the bounty creator(or asker in some cases) wanted to read - but we have to trust that others looking can see beyond those cases.

We don't ask people to justify their choices in selected answers, and we shouldn't do it with bounties, either. We may not like all decisions, but it's the individual's decision to make.

\$\endgroup\$
18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough, but I don't think this one expired. I'm almost certain it was specifically awarded this way. I'm more just curious if I'm missing something and there was something ineffective or off about my answer. I felt it was complete. If bounties are awarded haphazardly like this it really doesn't motivate people to give complete answers or "go the extra mile" in the future, which is kind of the whole purpose of a bounty in the first place. \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 15:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ What if I'm not certain who placed it? Is there a way to see that information? \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 15:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @lightcat Looking at the edit history, it was mxyzplk - but remember, they don't have to disclose their rationale. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Mar 7 '19 at 15:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ There's a bit of sleuthing that can be done to determine if the bounty was awarded or defaulted. (First, if the bounty went to an answer other than an accepted one or to not-top-voted-where-no-accepted-answer-exists we know it was a manual award.) In the case of a default award the awardee receives half the bounty. So one can look at the question's edit history to see how much the award was for, then at the awardee's reputation log to see whether they received that amount of half that amount. Then you work on your election questionnaire, because if you have that much time to spend on site.... \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Mar 7 '19 at 15:49
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Or, it turns out... you can just look at the post history to see whether Community awarded the bounty with a "no answer chosen" note... </facepalm> \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Mar 7 '19 at 15:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Ah, I see. Thank you for that. Also good to know where to find that info. How would I contact them? Just post a comment? I think we've had some pointed words in the past, but I'd rather address it, hear what they have to say (or not, if they choose not to say anything), and move on. \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:03
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @lightcat You don't really, that's not how the stack is set up. They may respond here, but they don't have to. At this point, I'd very much suggest letting it go. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 lol, yeah it was right in front of me and I never saw it until NautArch pointed out it was in the edit history. What's an election questionnaire? \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ NautArch I'm certainly not opposed to letting it go, and also wouldn't mind hearing a reason, simply to sate my curiosity, if @mxyzplk is willing. If not, this is the last I will mention it, and will absolutely let it go. Thanks for your input, I do appreciate it. \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @lightcat I understand your logic here, but I think it's a lot of hoops to jump through to show that general poison delivered via injury is not an injury poison and therefore doesn't fall under those rules. That being said, i don't think there's anything wrong with the logic - just that it's more complicated than highbandwidth's answer and that may be why mxy went with that answer. KISS (keep it simple, sir.) :P \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch It all comes from answering a poorly stated question that uses terms that aren't established in the official texts and can be interpreted in numerous ways (and maybe that's part of my lesson here - to find clarity before answering a question). Also it's very clear to me that basic poison is not part of any category, though admittedly I was long winded in stating that. Still I don't expect, nor have I seen evidence that the stack generally frowns on that. TL;DR doesn't seem to apply so much here, at least not to the extent that it does elsewhere. \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I prefer "Keep it simple silly" because it reminds me that I often am (silly), especially when I'm not keeping it simple. :P \$\endgroup\$
    – lightcat
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @lightcat Sure, I'm just giving my reason as to why I didn't upvote or downvote you - and in extension why someone may have chosen the other answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Mar 7 '19 at 16:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ ... like this I'd probably go a few days or even a week before thinking to myself "well, I guess they're not going to answer." \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Mar 7 '19 at 17:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @lightcat For what it's worth, a ton of words are wasted in your answer on justifying whether or not the OP meant "basic poison" when they said "regular poison," to a distracting degree. It's unlikely the OP is going to respond for clarification, and it's pretty obvious that that they're referring to the regularly available poison (hence basic poison). So at most it should take one sentence of justification: "I'll assume the author is asking about the basic poison listed in the DMG." \$\endgroup\$ Mar 8 '19 at 13:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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