Advice for getting this question about the overseer's major creation reopened

Question

The question "In this situation, what are the best tactical uses for at-will major creation?" seems complete except for perhaps needing more information about the environment in which the final confrontation will occur. A user experienced with the ins and outs of the major creation spell (and, maybe, the creatures listed in the question) should be able to help the asker with appropriate strategies.

I imagine determining a best answer is possible: a good answer recognizes both the power and limits of the spell then offers specific suggestions to deal with the PCs, their allies, and—perhaps—the primary antagonist's own ex-allies. And an answer that does that in an innovative and outside-the-box way—suitable for the antagonist's massive intelligence—would be exceptional.

If the question needs to offer more information, edit history will show that the asker is willing to provide that. Additional suggestions as to how to get this question reopened are welcome, of course.

---

Note: To be clear about where I stand, as a DM I've used the creature that the question asks about in a campaign, and the creature is enormously complicated. That the asker's struggling only with this one aspect of the creature and only in this situation seemed to me to make this question sufficiently narrow, especially after the user provided more information so as to make this essentially a monster optimization question. However, after the asker's edit, I thought that readers might find some of that new information overwhelming, so in an attempt to get the question reopened, I edited it. Moments after I did, the question received a commentless downvote for which I now hold myself partially responsible. To be extra clear, I don't already have an answer prepared for this question, and now I'll probably avoid answering it on principle.

Answer 1

Ok, I can't actually speak for the users who closed, but here's what it looks to me like has happened.

The original question was framed with:

What sorts of items might it create?

Which is a query best served by a flood of unsorted responses with ideas - i.e., better served by a traditional forum.

The question was then appended with a wall of additional information ending in:

So, what specific items might the overseer create for the beholderkin that survive?

This is moving in the right direction, but still has the same issue and the original question is still there. At this point as the question was edited it goes through a reopen review which leaves it closed.

Then your edit comes in and reframes it to actually ask for what would be best for it (and not just what it can or could do). This makes it probably workable (I'll get back to that).

Unfortunately, we haven't got that many users who are invested in 3.5, so a closed question getting an edit might not get the attention it needs to get reopened. Particularly if it is still borderline on opinion based so it'll need users to champion it and be willing to be proven wrong.

So what's the current concern? It is still very close to "How do I optimally use this inherently open ended thing?" which might attract sprawling idea generation. I'm saying the concern is that it might. It might also not, and if so it sounds like it would be a very good question to me.

So, unless anyone voices concerns about something I've missed (if I have missed anything I would love to hear it), I think we should take the chance on the question in its current state. Put another way, I think it is borderline enough that we should try it by fire, and let the answers come in determine whether it is focused enough. If the answers that come in are too idea sprawl or show other issues, it will need to be closed. Let's hope that doesn't happen.