Dungeons and Dragons Wiki talk:Homebrew Variant Rules

Personally, I'm getting tired or reading lots of 'you' and 'it' and whatnot littered in articles. --Havvy 05:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apollogize if my work falls under this perview. A bit of finement on your point, I believe that even "player" is very ambigous, and carries often unintended consequences. Monster balance is such a point, any any variant that lists "Player" as it's focus point can easily argue that monsters and NPCs can not benefit from the change. I would recommend specific terms, like my use of "caster" in the Book of Foreign Magic, or "defender" and "target" in the Book of Frenzied Warfare. In short, be as specific as possible.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, creature when you mean players and monsters...but the distinction is when writing the non-rules text, such as when authors try to explain why a rule is needed. --Havvy 05:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On that, I think variants should not focus on why it is needed so much as where and why it would help the game. D&D is already a complete game by itself, it needs no other rules. I'd argue that 3.5 actually needs a chainsaw in the rules department. But as it stands, despite the claims of the designers, it is not an "end all be all" game and caters to a certain group of players. Thus, variant rules should instead describe what their target audiance is, not "why you must use this rule."--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the record holding shitty speller on this wiki, thought I might add that almost every poster is perfectly fine with other fixing typos, this is rarely consider rude behavior, and the original poster should owe you a favor for doing so. I know, I am now the butt-baby spawn of cthulu and garth brookes for double posting, but I think it fits that this be said in a discussion on proper grammer.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)