This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also the discussion at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons#Skill merge. — TowerDragon 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
*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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm looking forward to a section on the new mechanics in the fourth edition. Wadsworth ( talk) 17:01, 20 June 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also the discussion at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons#Skill merge. — TowerDragon 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
*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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm looking forward to a section on the new mechanics in the fourth edition. Wadsworth ( talk) 17:01, 20 June 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)