Flagging misinformation.

[JohnDoe]

There is a lot of misinformation on these forums. Posters assume that extra attacks allow the use of Cantrips, multi-classing grants all proficiencies ("fighter dip for heavy armor"), multi-classing has no ability score requisites, players can use any bonus action at any time, have multiple reactions per round, etc.

1. As a DM it's a headache when players do their 'research' and come back completely misinformed.

2. As a member of the forum, threads become terribly disorganized when people have to constantly correct one another.

3. People regurgitate some broken idea they've seen in a post, and spread that misinformation even further.
"X does Y" "X does Y" "X does Y"
No it doesn't...

I understand that people are probably coming to forums because they don't have access to the relevant texts. Most of these things are self-explanatory if you've just read the books.

Is there any way to flag posts that are incorrect?


_____________
Also: Are we allowed to directly quote the text? Or take a screenshot of a given spell description?

I'm assuming we can't because of copyright issues, and people would abuse that source of information...

[CantigThimble]

Convincing the poster to edit their post through PM is the only way to achieve what you want. It isn't reasonable to expect mods to spend hours going through posts and rulebooks to determine if a flag is correct or not.

[Douche]

You can't control me! I main a misinformation rogue so telling people they can use Wish to wish that they can use wish as a reaction is totally in character.

[DracoKnight]

I understand what you're saying, but I think that when people say:


"fighter dip for heavy armor"

They mean start out at level 1 as a fighter, and then multiclass.

[JohnDoe]

I understand what you're saying, but I think that when people say:



They mean start out at level 1 as a fighter, and then multiclass.

I wish they did.

I'm talking about multi classing into other classes without understanding proficiencies or requisites.

People recommend 'dipping into' fighter @X level for heavy armor... Because multi classing is a matter of 'when'

[JumboWheat01]

You can't control me! I main a misinformation rogue so telling people they can use Wish to wish that they can use wish as a reaction is totally in character.

Even better and easier to sell if you're an Arcane Trickster and can just pull of enough magicky goodness to make it seem like you know exactly what you're talking about.

[goto124]

Convincing the poster to edit their post through PM is the only way to achieve what you want. It isn't reasonable to expect mods to spend hours going through posts and rulebooks to determine if a flag is correct or not.

Or post in that thread to correct them. That way, if the poster doesn't edit the post, people reading the thread still know what got wrong.

[CantigThimble]

Or post in that thread to correct them. That way, if the poster doesn't edit the post, people reading the thread still know what got wrong.

I realize, but part of his complaint was thread clutter caused by corrections. I'd still prefer the correction posts to the PM's though.

[Officer Joy]

.., players can use any bonus action at any time, ...

I mean they have to have access to a "bonus action", and some bonus actions clarify that you can only use it after a certain condition is met (you can attack as a bonus action, if you use your action to attack).
But other than that, cant you always use any bonus attack that you have access too?

[Whisper Knight]

Another issue I could see happening with misinformation is getting homebrew options mixed with official rules. In fact, I think I saw those multi-class options in the Homebrew forum.

In those cases, you'll just have to make sure players know to categorize those two. If the homebrew issue and the genuine misinformation issue become too much, it could be a good idea to limit your players to the PHB only.

[MeeposFire]

I mean they have to have access to a "bonus action", and some bonus actions clarify that you can only use it after a certain condition is met (you can attack as a bonus action, if you use your action to attack).
But other than that, cant you always use any bonus attack that you have access too?

Technically speaking you don't really have a bonus action unless an ability says you do for a situation (which is often fairly specific).

IN practical terms it is very mcuh a chicken and the egg sort of thing where either way can work and it does not make much of a difference assuming you remember the specific situation.

THere really isn't much of a difference between "when you use the attack action and you are wielding a pair of light weapons you can use a bonus action to attack with the second weapon" and "You have a bonus action. If you use the attack action and both weapons are light you can use that bonus action to make an attack with the second weapon".

Technically there is a difference (one says that you gain the bonus action the other assumes it is already there and just gives you the circumstance that can use it) but practically it is essentially the same thing.

[djreynolds]

Just be happy Mr. Crawford, says for shield master you can shove first. That's a huge ruling IMO.

As for flagging, people often are just juggling too much.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One of the biggest problems is that people don't want to be wrong so bad that they won't ever admit when it happens.

JC straight up said that invisibility doesn't automatically make you hidden and yet I know a few people (not just on this forum) who won't admit that they were wrong about invisibility and the stealth rules while continuing to say the wrong thing.

Even when the creator tells them the RAW and RAI they just don't care.

[MaxWilson]

Expanding on (and agreeing with) what MeeposFire said:


Technically speaking you don't really have a bonus action unless an ability says you do for a situation (which is often fairly specific).

Often, but not always--most PCs should have at least one way to spend their bonus action in most situations.

The DMG has an "Overrun" variant combat rule which lets anyone at all use their "action or bonus action" to try to move through a hostile creature's space. If your DM is using those rules, everyone has at least one potential use for a bonus action.

Two-weapon fighting is another broadly-applicable bonus action.

[CantigThimble]

One of the biggest problems is that people don't want to be wrong so bad that they won't ever admit when it happens.

JC straight up said that invisibility doesn't automatically make you hidden and yet I know a few people (not just on this forum) who won't admit that they were wrong about invisibility and the stealth rules while continuing to say the wrong thing.

Even when the creator tells them the RAW and RAI they just don't care.

Are you talking about people who don't accept that JC's ruling is official or people who don't care about what the official rules are and would rather play their own way?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Are you talking about people who don't accept that JC's ruling is official or people who don't care about what the official rules are and would rather play their own way?

People who say RAW and RAI = X, but when JC tells you that RAW and RAI = Y, they don't accept it.

It's ok if people say "I will/would rule it this way in my game" but they continue to say "the RAW/RAI is X" even when the developer has said what the RAW/RAI is.

[Slipperychicken]

Is there any way to flag posts that are incorrect?
Same way forums have been doing it for more than a decade: Reply, correct the post, explain why the post is wrong and you are right.


If we put in that sort of thing, we might as well throw in an upvote/downvote system while we're at it. Though as far as features go, I certainly wouldn't mind each post displaying links to its replies, like on 4chan. That could make it easier for users to see corrections to wrong posts.

[MaxWilson]

If we put in that sort of thing, we might as well throw in an upvote/downvote system while we're at it. Though as far as features go, I certainly wouldn't mind each post displaying links to its replies, like on 4chan. That could make it easier for users to see corrections to wrong posts.

I'd settle for the forum not snipping quote context by default, so people can tell what the person you're responding to was responding to. :) Links to the thing you're replying to wouldn't be amiss, either.

Upvote/downvote would be interesting. And a Laugh button, like Enworld, for things that are not useful but are amusing.

[Desamir]

Being able to hide misinformation is perhaps the greatest benefit of upvote/downvote forums, e.g. /r/dndnext.

[PersonMan]

Being able to hide misinformation is perhaps the greatest benefit of upvote/downvote forums, e.g. /r/dndnext.

In my experience, it can work to get rid of misinformation few people believe is true, but it can also just push misinformation to the top. If someone presents something with confidence they can be absurdly wrong, but if they get upvotes they become more visible so they get more upvotes, which eventually turns into a comment at +481 saying X does Y, with the correction saying 'well, on page 31 of the PHB it says that it doesn't' at -34. It's not a perfect system.

[georgie_leech]

In my experience, it can work to get rid of misinformation few people believe is true, but it can also just push misinformation to the top. If someone presents something with confidence they can be absurdly wrong, but if they get upvotes they become more visible so they get more upvotes, which eventually turns into a comment at +481 saying X does Y, with the correction saying 'well, on page 31 of the PHB it says that it doesn't' at -34. It's not a perfect system.

It's a perfect system for a perfectly rational community that wouldn't get such misinformation in the first place. :smalltongue:

[Spore]

And do you know why that is? Because there is no solid community for 5e in this forum yet. I can strive and we could work against misinformation together but for that we need a lot of effort. Do you know why that doesn't really happen in the other forums? Because they are older, and not necessarily because people know the rules better. There are just several hundre people who know the correct rules and are tireless in correcting others.

This has negative consequences as well for other forums such as the common misconception that TO builds are actually playable in real games. Or that a Wizard IS always prepared whereas in most thread they only talk about Wizard that CAN be prepared. Or talking about how "no respectable Wizard would prepare Fireball", yet 80% of Wizards cast that spell at least once every so often - and with very good results.

[Temperjoke]

I think part of the problem is that a group's DM may homebrew or modify rules, but won't mention that the rules were altered. So the players think that version is correct, so they bring it to various forums, just creating more confusion.