Talk:Dungeons & Dragons gameplay

Skill merge
See also the discussion at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons. —TowerDragon 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ability Scores
Shouldn't it be noted that ability scores have been around since D&D's inception? -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel and am trying to get people to discuss the bias towards 3rd edition and d20 system and its removal for more general game terms since not every edition allows for reprinting its rules under a SRD or OGL, etc. Just didn't want to delete things or change them completely myself without getting a consensus from the people who created the over 1000 articles on D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange Claim
"Dexterity encompasses a number of physical attributes including hand-eye co-ordination, agility, reflexes, precision, balance and speed of movement. A high dexterity indicates superiority in all the above attributes, while a low dexterity may well indicate that one of these attributes is superior, but that the others are very poor."

This last claim is illogical and seems like it's biased in a strange way. I can't ever remember reading something like this in any official ruleset. I'm tempted to edit it. --Ifrit 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is illogical by a game standpoint. How swift you are has no bearing on whether you can cleave someone with a claidheam'mnor.  Sounds like OR. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to edit it away. --Ifrit 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that exact sentence in the official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Edition 1 Player's Handbook that I own. It's quite accurate and makes sense. 24.136.168.48 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Readd it if you provide the citation for the book. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny Math
Was reading through, I'm trying to learn as much of D&D's mechanics as I can without buying anything because I have no money :P, and found some strange math in the 3.0 and 3.5 Edition section. It's mainly small problems but I felt I should mention it.

"Each score has a modifier (mod) associated with it that is equal to half of X−10..."

Should probably read as

"Each score has a modifier (mod) associated with it that is equal to half of (X−10)..."

to avoid confusion over whether X is halved before subtracting 10, sure it's a minor problem that no one who would ever play the game wouldn't know but it might just be a good idea. Also what in the world is the "(7 = 3 × 2 + 1)" doing there? I mean, no offense to whoever wrote it, but everyone should know what 7 is and it doesn't really tell you anything related to D&D. Perhaps "(3 = (17-10)/2 rounded down)) would be better? 70.190.241.113 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Feat types
In regards to Luigifan's marking, I removed the feat types I wasn't sure existed and kept in the ones that do: -Jeske ( v^_^v ) 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Psionic and Metapsionic feats come from the Expanded Psionics Handbook
 * Ambush feats come from Complete Scoundrel
 * Bardic feats come from Complete Adventurer
 * Divine and Wild feats come from Complete Divine
 * Tactical feats are from Complete Warrior
 * Heritage feats come from the racial splatbooks (Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Wild, Races of the Dragon)
 * Vile and Exalted feats come their respective alignment books (Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exalted Deeds)


 * Added:

*Combat from and Ceremony from Player's Handbook II *Domain from Complete Champion *Luck from Complete Scoundrel --Angel Black (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

armor class etc.
fixing a few referenecs and way things are written so they make more sense. if i knew how to properly add footnotes and references to pages of books i would add them. just ask me about each edit i am making to this articles and i will give page references here so someone else can add the proper citation notes. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For citations, the quick and dirty solution is to write a simple citation and wrap it in ". (I didn't bother checking that citation, so it's probably gibberish. :-) Or just put your notes on the citations here on the Talk page, note which text it supports, and someone else can see about integrating them.   Ultimately, roughly formatted citations are easy to polish, and are much appreciated.   Thanks for the work! — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For those who do not play the original D&D you should provide exact examples that clarify the question of is AC = 4 better armor than AC = 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.169.190 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title.
This name doesn't seem to make sense. Parenthetical disambiguators are best avoided if possible; it would be understandable if there was a specific game concept that uses a term, and we're stuck with that term (such as Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) or Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons)). However, there is no magic word in D&D called "Game mechanics." Thus... wouldn't this article be better at Mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons, or even just Rules of Dungeons & Dragons?

Note that similar articles are at Rules of chess, not Rules (chess). SnowFire 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with a rename. However, "Rules of Dungeons & Dragons" probably isn't so good, as we shouldn't try to be a replacement for the rules.  Instead we cover the general mechanics.  Perhaps Mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons, or perhaps Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics? — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Either one of those sounds fine. Anyone else have any thoughts?  By the way, I've made a similar proposal at Dungeons & Dragons manuals. SnowFire 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i prefer D&D game mechanics. but the qustion will be wil the article be needed after 4th edition comes out and what should it be and include then? shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's original research, but...
The article says that 3d6 roll averages about 10 and that a 4d6k3 roll averages about 13. None of this is correct. Rolling one die gives results 1-6, average 3.5 Rolling each of three dice are distinctive events, and as such, a 3d6 roll should average around 3.5×3=10.5, between 10 and 11. The second claim is also a miss. I ran a computer simulation of all 64=1296 possible outcomes of a 4d6 roll and keeping 3 highest averages around 12.24. Someone drew a wrong conclusion from the reference provided. It is true that the most probable outcome of such roll is 13, but the average is not. I think this constitutes original research and I have no idea how to include it in the article, although I'm perfectly sure my results are true. Any helpful ideas? Admiral Norton (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's original research. If it's wrong, then edit it. I'd prefer a correct, unsourced number, to an incorrect, unsourced number. There's probably at least a website somewhere that you could cite. GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

D20 system
It seems like we should focus more on the D20 system, because it's the core of D&D in 3rd ed. Any thoughts? GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

When do we get 4.0 info here?
I'm looking forward to a section on the new mechanics in the fourth edition. Wadsworth (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It will probably be a while before people figure out exactly how to write it up. With all the things changed to amke 4th edition an entirely new game it is hard to tell what to really say since its departure from any other form of D&D before it. It may mean that the whole edition needs its own section since very little of the mechanics remain intact form former editions. shadzar-talk 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the update template to the page. However, an equally acceptable way of moving forward would be to rename this page "Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition game mechanics" or somesuch. Whatever the solution, the main D&D page points here, which is unsatisfactory as info on the latest edition is expected. CapnZapp (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be a wise idea to split the page into an article about pre-3.0 versions, an article about 3.0 and 3.5 and a new article about 4.0 to prevent a pile-up of different versions confusing the reader. There is a good reason why few people read computer program changelogs. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some problems with that idea: separate articles on the subject are unlikely to facilitate direct comparison in the same way that one article can; a split-up of articles is likely to yield several lesser quality articles than the single article we currently have; and the lack of content (and perhaps singular notability) for separate articles would likely cause the articles to be deleted at worst or merged at best. This page does need to be restructed to remove the focus from a single edition, however, since that will obviously cause a problem every time a new edition of D&D is published. --Muna (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added information where I can, but I balk at the Ability Scores section. It seems very difficult to add 4e information there, since all the abilities are the same in essence but different in almost every detail. In particular, the references to which abilities govern which skills is irrelevant with the revamped skill system, and likewise with class features (paladins' Lay on Hands is now linked to WIS, not CHA, etc). It would be easier if every section had its information sorted into different subsections based on edition, if the need for comparison between editions is seen as more important than being able to gather information on a single system at once. NotARusski (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Infravision and ultravision
Currently, the infravision and ultravision entries have vague tags. I'm pretty sure that Infravision has been around since OD&D, however I don't know if it was in BD&D, so I'm not comfortable editing the entry to state that it was present in all editions of D&D prior to 3e. I'm less sure about Ultravision, it was definitely in 2nd edition, but I'm not sure if it was in AD&D 1st edition, OD&D or BD&D. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it reversed on ultravision; I'm pretty sure it was in 1E but not in 2E (Unearthed Arcana?) 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys sure that Infravision was attributed to surface dwellers while Ultravision was meant for underground and complete darkness (Underdark)? Assuming Infravision is like IR and Ultravision like UV, this does not make any sense from a physics point of view... I used to play AD&D 2nd Ed. and D&D 3rd Ed. a lot and my understanding was that Infravision worked without any light source except heat sources, so it would work everywhere, while Ultravision depends on an external UV source (the sun) and only works above ground. In reality UV can be used for night vision instruments because UV is scattered strongly in the atmosphere so that enough UV-light reaches the night side of the Earth. Maybe I'm interpreting too much, but the way it is described doesn't make sense (maybe the rulebooks are wrong though...). Khopstick (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all about getting the sources right. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edition bias
This article is far too skewed towards 3rd edition. It needs commentary on all editions. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Psionic ability
Should Psionic ability, a superhuman ability stat that rarely, if ever, occurs by chance in some gifted characters read Psionic ability, a superhuman ability stat that rarely, if ever, occurs by chance except in some gifted characters?Autarch (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is probably more accurate. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Small quibble on the "Hit points" section...
"Zero Hit Points: When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a draught (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life." — 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 82 (December 1979 revision) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.195.54 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So what are you disagreeing about? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "...as well as first edition AD&D, a character died when his/her hit point total reached 0." A slight inaccuracy. Essentially the rule was core in first edition, switched to optional in second, and returned to core in third. Original and classic D&D had the 0 hit points thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.195.54 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! That's very interesting, I never realized 1E started that rule, I thought it started as the optional rule in 2E. 24.1.246.28 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say the same thing. In addition, in the early editions, even if a character were brought back up to positive hit points, the character was still 'disabled' in that no adventuring could be done until after a full week of rest.  An exception to this rule was allowed if the character were the recipient of a Heal spell.  Jokem (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Determining ability scores in AD&D inaccuracy
The current article states, "In AD&D, ability scores were 'determined by rolling three 6-sided die and adding up their values'", but this is incorrect. It's true that original D&D used 3d6; but the 1E AD&D DMG by Gygax actually recommends *not* doing that, and instead introduces the 4d6-drop-lowest method as "Method I" for generation (plus a few other alternatives).

The article currently cites Frank, "Statistics: Concepts and Applications Workbook" (1994), but this is not a reputable source -- it contradicts the primary rules sources, which we can quote directly.

In the past I've submitted edits on this section but had them reverted. Can we agree it would be better to correct this and reference the primary sources? Danielrcollins (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, a reference that quotes the actual rules as published is better than a third-party source here. Those who claim we should always prefer third-party sources are misinterpreting the guideline, and ignoring that for establishing uncontroversial facts first-party sources are not only acceptable, but on some cases preferable on a "straight-from-the-horse's-mouth" principle, like here. Make the change, and if someone reverts I'll point to this discussion. oknazevad (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just looked at the edit history and turns out I was the one who reverted you previously. Looking at it, I think my reversion was based on a correct statement. The 1e PHB does assume 3d6 straight, even if the 1e DMG recommends 4d6k3. It's one of those inconsistencies that creep up in 1e because the core books were written separately over a two and a half year period as a consolidation of changing practice, not as a coherent planned revision. So the question comes down to which is more the default. I'd say the PHB because it came out first, and was the book everyone had and used, the DMG being just for the DM. oknazevad (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)