Talk:Dungeons & Dragons gameplay

Skill merge

See also the discussion at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons#Skill merge. —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:

• 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)

-Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:37, 13 July 2007 (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 <ref> tags. Just toss in whatever you can,and don't sweat the formatting; it's easy enough for other editors to reformat them. So you might do something like: "<ref>Gary Gygax, Players Handbook, 1978, TSR, Inc., Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, ISBN 0-935696-01-6, pages 20-21, section "Armor Class"</ref>". (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.

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)