33

Let experts make expert decisions. This is the essential premise of Stack Exchange. People come here because they expect experts to be equipped to solve their problem - and they are right. We have an active community of RPG experts engaging with questions to provide expert guidance for solving a broad range of RPG problems. Our experts do not need a rigid ...


28

I’m gonna go ahead and just say “yes” Warhammer 40k is a campaign setting for an RPG. It’s also the setting for a bunch of other things, which means you could reasonably ask about it on SF&F or BCG or Arqade or probably a few other places within Stack Exchange. But the existence of other places where you could ask doesn’t mean you can’t ask here. And ...


27

Of course it should be re-opened. “This question cannot be answered as expected” is a good answer. The particular rendition of that sort of answer here isn’t just a good answer, but a great one. And most crucially, the fact that “this question cannot be answered as expected” is the right answer to the question does not, and never has, and never should, mean ...


22

This category of question is on topic. Stack Exchange's Q&A doesn't just take the form of question and answer. It also takes the form of problem and solution. This principle is why our topicality help says “You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.” It's also the principle that allows frame challenges to ...


16

Recommendation: Rescind the policy - Guessing the system is permissible, but you do so at-risk Going forward, we will adopt a policy to allow experts to be experts, but in that vein, we will expect that they be correct. This recommendation puts the burden of guessing upon the respondent: Don't edit the question tags: Do not edit tags into the question ...


11

I present exhibit A: Do Kaladesh Dwarves get +4 in Constitution? The most recent example of how we make this site a worse place by having this rule. This question was not unclear. It could be answered. And yet, we deleted the answer (don't know what actually happened, but our community acted in a way that in the end as a result we had a deleted answer). Why? ...


11

As long as they are tied to the RPG The Warhammer (both Fantasy and 40k) lore is a mess. Many things are spread out among the board/card games, novels, PC games, tabletop army books, and the RPGs. As long as the question asks about the RPG aspect, it is on topic. This might or might not include bits from other than the RPG books as sources, but the question ...


9

In a comment, I stated explicitly what I wanted to see for my reopen vote. I wrote a comment right after rolling back the edit: I've rolled back the edit for now, as iterations of homebrew reviews should be posted as new questions at least 72 hours after the first posting. The details I wanted to see for reopening were answers to NautArch's two comments ...


5

Yes, it needs more details And the kicker is that at any time a DM can rule that an attack or an ability check can have advantage, or disadvantage, regardless of what other mechanical bits are in play. This question style is quite common, and not just on this site: someone has a disagreement at the table, they want an answer that affirms their opinion, so ...


4

No, but a follow up question would need more details. I think the question is pretty clear. As I read it, the question is asking, how to determine for how many attack rolls on the attacker's turn does an advantage exist. And there is no clear statement in the rules telling this, so it seems quite fine question to me. – WakiNadiVellir 12 hours ago This ...


3

Yes, the arcane-focus tag should be renamed to spellcasting-focus The arcane-focus tag seems to be narrowly scoped to focus (heh) on one particular type of spellcasting focus that exists in at least some versions of D&D and Pathfinder. However, there doesn't seem to be a particular need for such a specific distinction between arcane focuses and other ...


2

Yes, we should rename it. We are already using it this way, and we should merge it with holy-symbol. Both will be useful synonyms. Using "arcane focus" and "holy symbol" as synonyms keeps current searchability and functionality and expands it.


2

It should be reopened. As you say, one is a question about a feat, and the other is a question about a class feature. These are two clearly distinct rules items, even if the wording is similar (or even identical), and as such, the two questions are distinct rather than duplicates. As such, the question should be reopened, simply because of that difference ...


2

As we pretty much agree there are various kinds of these questions. Let'S call them numerical: I don't understand Rule X on [Topic]. How does it work? I know there's a rule for [Topic] ([at Location]). What is it? I have no clue if there are rules on [Topic]. What are they? I can't find the rule for [Topic]. Where is it? Type 1 is pretty much the bread and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible