In a handbook or some such? 3rd person. It's just easier to keep things straight when reading, particularly if I'm reading up on multiple classes in a row. I think it's more appropriate as well, seeing as you may not actually choose to be a Fighter or whatever - it's a small thing to be sure, but I think it's just a detail that there's no reason not to have. Refer to the class, not the person, since the person may not be picking that class. It doesn't necessarily need to be naming the class, it can be "the character" for example.
In character sheets, I'd go for 2nd or 3rd. The decision has been made, and it's appropriate to speak as such. I'll write my character sheets in 3rd, as though it's a summary of a real person, but if I'm writing up a generic character sheet for beginners or something, I'd write it in 2nd to really nail down what is referring to character, and what is referring to targets etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
2nd person. Older editions were written in 3rd person and the language got pretty garbled in some cases. For all the unclear rules in 5e, it is the cleanest rules set D&D has ever had linguistically speaking. I think that’s in part due to the move to 2nd person.
As a side note, with very few exceptions 5e only uses “may” when giving the player permission to do something, it uses “can” whenever it is stating a PCs capabilities.
2nd person. Older editions were written in 3rd person and the language got pretty garbled in some cases. For all the unclear rules in 5e, it is the cleanest rules set D&D has ever had linguistically speaking. I think that’s in part due to the move to 2nd person.
As a side note, with very few exceptions 5e only uses “may” when giving the player permission to do something, it uses “can” whenever it is stating a PCs capabilities.
As a side note, with very few exceptions 5e only uses “may” when giving the player permission to do something, it uses “can” whenever it is stating a PCs capabilities.
I've noticed that. I always thought it was a weird gramatical choice. Any clue why?
“May” implies permission. It is a way of saying “you have permission/are allowed to do this.” Can implies capability, it is a way of saying “you are capable of/able to doing this.” I can (am able to) drive at 130 mph, I may not (do not have permission to) because the speed limit is lower. One tells the player what they’re allowed to do, the other tells the player what their PC is capable of doing.
4th Person, whenever you consult the rules, you keep looking over your shoulder as they seem to be written for someone else whom you can't place but feel is reading with you.
For rules, I prefer 3rd person, with clear delineation of what a GM, a player, or a character, NPC, or monster is being referred to. I like clear referrents, and 5e's interpretation or assertion of whatever they're calling "natural language" isn't the clarity they think it is.
For play I use the same mix of first, second and third person storytelling techniques that have been in play since humans first thought it might be a good idea to explain what happened or what's happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I picked up "may" from Magic: the Gathering, because it streamlined competitions. Can was replaced with may, as well as several triggered abilities became triggered may abilities, so that if the player forgot there was no chance to rewind. "Sorry, you decided not to. There's nothing here that says the game would play out any differently. We're not forcing anything."
Sort of like in Puffin Forest's 4e video when everyone is prattling on about what modifiers happen and "hey, two turns ago, shouldn't this have happened? And if they did, then this would have happened."
I know that Tournament M:tg isn't the same as D&D, but it's an interesting concept to consider.
Technical 3rd person. At a bare minimum, the game is predicated on a division of responsibilities between two kinds of user, the player and the dungeon master. Characters are divided into multiple race, class, and background groups. No one should be expected to keep track in their head from context who the books are addressing, and it's just clearer to always be specific rather than swapping back and forth for the sake of seeming 'casual.'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
I picked up "may" from Magic: the Gathering, because it streamlined competitions. Can was replaced with may, as well as several triggered abilities became triggered may abilities, so that if the player forgot there was no chance to rewind. "Sorry, you decided not to. There's nothing here that says the game would play out any differently. We're not forcing anything."
Sort of like in Puffin Forest's 4e video when everyone is prattling on about what modifiers happen and "hey, two turns ago, shouldn't this have happened? And if they did, then this would have happened."
I know that Tournament M:tg isn't the same as D&D, but it's an interesting concept to consider.
In older editions they used can and may interchangeably and it caused some headaches. I’m glad they standardized it this edition.
“May” implies permission. It is a way of saying “you have permission/are allowed to do this.” Can implies capability, it is a way of saying “you are capable of/able to doing this.” I can (am able to) drive at 130 mph, I may not (do not have permission to) because the speed limit is lower. One tells the player what they’re allowed to do, the other tells the player what their PC is capable of doing.
This is giving me flashbacks to third grade, when someone would ask the teacher if they can go to the bathroom, and the reply would be, “I don’t know. Can you?” Until we learned to ask “may I go?”
“May” implies permission. It is a way of saying “you have permission/are allowed to do this.” Can implies capability, it is a way of saying “you are capable of/able to doing this.” I can (am able to) drive at 130 mph, I may not (do not have permission to) because the speed limit is lower. One tells the player what they’re allowed to do, the other tells the player what their PC is capable of doing.
This is giving me flashbacks to third grade, when someone would ask the teacher if they can go to the bathroom, and the reply would be, “I don’t know. Can you?” Until we learned to ask “may I go?”
There is an old Benny Hill skit in which he is playing a young boy at the table and he asks "Can I go wee?" And the parent says yes. So he stands up and starts yelling "WEE".
People learn in different ways (you can look up the different learning types) and this can extend to the style things are written in and who is reading the text. For example specific words have very specific meanings in various professions and when people do not use the word correctly it cause problems. Note there is also the issue of word definition drift over time as well as social, geographical and other issues to take into account. So a writer may think they are saying one thing but to a person who is used to using word to mean specific things the authors usage is incorrect, and example would be lawyers and scientist.
In general I find 5e's text to have issues as if you take the text in the best possible light it means what they say but if you look at it from another angle the text does not make sense. Sort of like a house needs to be build to basic standards and then go on to describe those standards, but those standards do not hold for many other environments and situations.
So I have found the focus is simplicity (not necessarily bad) and then want to apply that to very complex issues.
Please not, I have trouble with writing and spelling so in general I have a lot of respect for those who do not.
I hope they properly go over the rules and make them clear to people who haven't played before. We recently had a question where a DM was confused and thinking Hit Dice were added to attacks. I'd never thought about that before, but it makes sense. Why are we calling them Hit Dice...when they have nothing to do with hitting? I'm sure there is some unique and odd angle where it is logical...and I can think of one possible etymology...but I'd bet that it made sense in a previous version, but it doesn't now with the new mechanics etc, but the term was kept for continuity and now makes no sense...but is kept because that's what they're called, right?
I feel they need to just tear up the old handbook completely and re-explain the rules, throwing out the old terminology and coming at it afresh and assuming the reader has never played D&D before in their lives. The rules and their explanations make sense...sort of...so long as you already know what they intend, which shouldn't be assumed.
Sorry, a bit of a detour from what person the text should be written in.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I hope they properly go over the rules and make them clear to people who haven't played before. We recently had a question where a DM was confused and thinking Hit Dice were added to attacks. I'd never thought about that before, but it makes sense. Why are we calling them Hit Dice...when they have nothing to do with hitting? I'm sure there is some unique and odd angle where it is logical...and I can think of one possible etymology...but I'd bet that it made sense in a previous version, but it doesn't now with the new mechanics etc, but the term was kept for continuity and now makes no sense...but is kept because that's what they're called, right?
I feel they need to just tear up the old handbook completely and re-explain the rules, throwing out the old terminology and coming at it afresh and assuming the reader has never played D&D before in their lives. The rules and their explanations make sense...sort of...so long as you already know what they intend, which shouldn't be assumed.
Sorry, a bit of a detour from what person the text should be written in.
They are called “Hit Dice” because they dictate how many “Hit Points” you have.
I hope they properly go over the rules and make them clear to people who haven't played before. We recently had a question where a DM was confused and thinking Hit Dice were added to attacks. I'd never thought about that before, but it makes sense. Why are we calling them Hit Dice...when they have nothing to do with hitting? I'm sure there is some unique and odd angle where it is logical...and I can think of one possible etymology...but I'd bet that it made sense in a previous version, but it doesn't now with the new mechanics etc, but the term was kept for continuity and now makes no sense...but is kept because that's what they're called, right?
I feel they need to just tear up the old handbook completely and re-explain the rules, throwing out the old terminology and coming at it afresh and assuming the reader has never played D&D before in their lives. The rules and their explanations make sense...sort of...so long as you already know what they intend, which shouldn't be assumed.
Sorry, a bit of a detour from what person the text should be written in.
They are called “Hit Dice” because they dictate how many “Hit Points” you have.
It's still not a good term, and is a derivation of a derivation, where it's lost it's context. If you chucked me a die, saying it was a hit die, and I didn't know what a hit die was, I'd assume that it was something to do with hitting, not restoring health.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Your character’s hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations. Your hit points are determined by your Hit Dice (short for Hit Point Dice).
At 1st level, your character has 1 Hit Die, and the die type is determined by your class. You start with hit points equal to the highest roll of that die, as indicated in your class description. (You also add your Constitution modifier, which you’ll determine in step 3.) This is also your hit point maximum.
Record your character’s hit points on your character sheet. Also record the type of Hit Die your character uses and the number of Hit Dice you have. After you rest, you can spend Hit Dice to regain hit points (see “Resting” in chapter 8, "Adventuring").
Sometimes, things are not written very well and can cause confusion, but sometimes people should RTFM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Why are you quoting that to me? I never said it wasn't explained, and it seems your closing remark is ironic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why are you quoting that to me? I never said it wasn't explained, and it seems your closing remark is ironic.
I was not quoting it at you. If I was quoting it directly at you, I'd have quoted your post as you see me doing now. I was making a general response post due to multiple people in this thread complaining about the definition being difficult to figure out, like the situation with the GM who thought they were added to attacks and other people calling the name confusing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
4th Person, whenever you consult the rules, you keep looking over your shoulder as they seem to be written for someone else whom you can't place but feel is reading with you.
Put my rules in 5th person, please -- I want them to be written in the form of a sentient AI, which can then read itself in order for it to play Dungeons and Dragons. (I can't read it. No one can read it. The game is only for the AI now.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do you prefer your D&D rules written?
The personal 2nd Person "You may do this." And "Whenever you ___,"
Or
The technical 3rd Person "Fighters may use action surge." And "Whenever a character enters difficult terrain ___,"
In a handbook or some such? 3rd person. It's just easier to keep things straight when reading, particularly if I'm reading up on multiple classes in a row. I think it's more appropriate as well, seeing as you may not actually choose to be a Fighter or whatever - it's a small thing to be sure, but I think it's just a detail that there's no reason not to have. Refer to the class, not the person, since the person may not be picking that class. It doesn't necessarily need to be naming the class, it can be "the character" for example.
In character sheets, I'd go for 2nd or 3rd. The decision has been made, and it's appropriate to speak as such. I'll write my character sheets in 3rd, as though it's a summary of a real person, but if I'm writing up a generic character sheet for beginners or something, I'd write it in 2nd to really nail down what is referring to character, and what is referring to targets etc.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
2nd person. Older editions were written in 3rd person and the language got pretty garbled in some cases. For all the unclear rules in 5e, it is the cleanest rules set D&D has ever had linguistically speaking. I think that’s in part due to the move to 2nd person.
As a side note, with very few exceptions 5e only uses “may” when giving the player permission to do something, it uses “can” whenever it is stating a PCs capabilities.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Second person
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I've noticed that. I always thought it was a weird gramatical choice. Any clue why?
“May” implies permission. It is a way of saying “you have permission/are allowed to do this.” Can implies capability, it is a way of saying “you are capable of/able to doing this.” I can (am able to) drive at 130 mph, I may not (do not have permission to) because the speed limit is lower. One tells the player what they’re allowed to do, the other tells the player what their PC is capable of doing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
4th Person, whenever you consult the rules, you keep looking over your shoulder as they seem to be written for someone else whom you can't place but feel is reading with you.
For rules, I prefer 3rd person, with clear delineation of what a GM, a player, or a character, NPC, or monster is being referred to. I like clear referrents, and 5e's interpretation or assertion of whatever they're calling "natural language" isn't the clarity they think it is.
For play I use the same mix of first, second and third person storytelling techniques that have been in play since humans first thought it might be a good idea to explain what happened or what's happening.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I picked up "may" from Magic: the Gathering, because it streamlined competitions. Can was replaced with may, as well as several triggered abilities became triggered may abilities, so that if the player forgot there was no chance to rewind. "Sorry, you decided not to. There's nothing here that says the game would play out any differently. We're not forcing anything."
Sort of like in Puffin Forest's 4e video when everyone is prattling on about what modifiers happen and "hey, two turns ago, shouldn't this have happened? And if they did, then this would have happened."
I know that Tournament M:tg isn't the same as D&D, but it's an interesting concept to consider.
Technical 3rd person. At a bare minimum, the game is predicated on a division of responsibilities between two kinds of user, the player and the dungeon master. Characters are divided into multiple race, class, and background groups. No one should be expected to keep track in their head from context who the books are addressing, and it's just clearer to always be specific rather than swapping back and forth for the sake of seeming 'casual.'
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
In older editions they used can and may interchangeably and it caused some headaches. I’m glad they standardized it this edition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is giving me flashbacks to third grade, when someone would ask the teacher if they can go to the bathroom, and the reply would be, “I don’t know. Can you?” Until we learned to ask “may I go?”
There is an old Benny Hill skit in which he is playing a young boy at the table and he asks "Can I go wee?" And the parent says yes. So he stands up and starts yelling "WEE".
People learn in different ways (you can look up the different learning types) and this can extend to the style things are written in and who is reading the text. For example specific words have very specific meanings in various professions and when people do not use the word correctly it cause problems. Note there is also the issue of word definition drift over time as well as social, geographical and other issues to take into account. So a writer may think they are saying one thing but to a person who is used to using word to mean specific things the authors usage is incorrect, and example would be lawyers and scientist.
In general I find 5e's text to have issues as if you take the text in the best possible light it means what they say but if you look at it from another angle the text does not make sense. Sort of like a house needs to be build to basic standards and then go on to describe those standards, but those standards do not hold for many other environments and situations.
So I have found the focus is simplicity (not necessarily bad) and then want to apply that to very complex issues.
Please not, I have trouble with writing and spelling so in general I have a lot of respect for those who do not.
I hope they properly go over the rules and make them clear to people who haven't played before. We recently had a question where a DM was confused and thinking Hit Dice were added to attacks. I'd never thought about that before, but it makes sense. Why are we calling them Hit Dice...when they have nothing to do with hitting? I'm sure there is some unique and odd angle where it is logical...and I can think of one possible etymology...but I'd bet that it made sense in a previous version, but it doesn't now with the new mechanics etc, but the term was kept for continuity and now makes no sense...but is kept because that's what they're called, right?
I feel they need to just tear up the old handbook completely and re-explain the rules, throwing out the old terminology and coming at it afresh and assuming the reader has never played D&D before in their lives. The rules and their explanations make sense...sort of...so long as you already know what they intend, which shouldn't be assumed.
Sorry, a bit of a detour from what person the text should be written in.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They are called “Hit Dice” because they dictate how many “Hit Points” you have.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honestly I really don't care, and don't even notice until it's me trying to write the thing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's still not a good term, and is a derivation of a derivation, where it's lost it's context. If you chucked me a die, saying it was a hit die, and I didn't know what a hit die was, I'd assume that it was something to do with hitting, not restoring health.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Hit dice are explained in the very first chapter of the PHB.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/step-by-step-characters#HitPointsandHitDice
Sometimes, things are not written very well and can cause confusion, but sometimes people should RTFM.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Why are you quoting that to me? I never said it wasn't explained, and it seems your closing remark is ironic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was not quoting it at you. If I was quoting it directly at you, I'd have quoted your post as you see me doing now. I was making a general response post due to multiple people in this thread complaining about the definition being difficult to figure out, like the situation with the GM who thought they were added to attacks and other people calling the name confusing.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think it can be true that Hit Dice is a bad term for its ambiguity AND that players should read the player-oriented book. Hot take?
Put my rules in 5th person, please -- I want them to be written in the form of a sentient AI, which can then read itself in order for it to play Dungeons and Dragons. (I can't read it. No one can read it. The game is only for the AI now.)