I've got two homebrew questions going currently, for a magic artifact level item in Pathfinder.

  1. Original question
  2. Followup question [On Hold]

I really like the modifications done by @william porter in his answer, so I would like clarification on what steps should be taken. The options as I see them are:

  1. Edit the question as requested in the comments, nominate for reopening and accept the answer

  2. Accept the answer as is

  3. Leave the question on hold, and post the "final" iteration as a new question.

  4. Edit the question, nominate for reopening, and still post the final iteration as a new question.

I guess what I'm asking is if we are posting new questions for each iteration of a review, do we indicate the final version by accepting an answer? How do we indicate the end of the process?


1 Answer 1


As the person who primarily pushed to close the question, I really wish that had happened before there were anyone answered. Since it didn’t, this situation becomes more awkward.

I would also say that, generally speaking, it’s not great for iterations to happen so quickly. It is better to get more input, and incorporate all of it as you see fit, before moving on to another iteration. Anyone who might have offered a different perspective on this iteration is now kind of “shut out” of the process. Which is partially my fault for putting it on hold, but honestly I still think that was the right call.

I also still think it should be clarified, opened up, and you should wait and see what else others might have to say about things. At this stage, only clarifying the points I raised, i.e. not invalidating the existing answer, would be crucial. I would say it would be best not to post another iteration at this stage, but to give the existing iteration more time to collect answers—and to give you time to consider those answers and incorporate those parts of them you are interested in into the next iteration.

This will take more time. I understand that you’re happy about the answer you have and want to incorporate that and get going on another iteration. I don’t think that rush is great, either for your process or for the site as a whole. It makes it awkward for anyone to provide an alternative viewpoint to the existing answer. But ultimately, I don’t feel as though I can and/or should “stop you” from doing so. You’re always welcome to ask new questions, and there’s no obligation to fix up questions that have been closed. I wouldn’t want to change that here.

But if you do go ahead and do that, please be clearer about the next iteration. Do not rely on people being familiar with the previous ones (as this one seemed to be, by only defining some but not all of the abilities). Use standard phrasing for things—you have gotten plenty of advice in both iterations about which things are worded awkwardly, unclearly, and/or non-standard-ly, and not all of that advice was followed in the second iteration. Things certainly read as though a lot of what you have in mind for this item is staying in your mind, not making it to the statblock, and that makes it hard to even critique. I’d certainly planned on taking some time in my own answer to your second iteration to try to exhaustively point these kinds of issues out.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. It was 5 days between iterations, and no activity for 3. That might have been a bit quick. I will get the clarifications put in, and nominate (Hopefully in the next day). I look forward to your contribution. \$\endgroup\$
    – JohnP
    Commented Jun 19, 2019 at 20:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JohnP Oh, sorry, no, the time between first and second was probably ok. I meant it would be quick to go to the third at this point, when the question has been on hold. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 20, 2019 at 4:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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