Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.
Not exactly. Because the whole problem is that they will claim something as a D&Dism that isn't. So, sure, all the obvious D&Disms, the ones that really are, those need to be avoided entirely. Keeping those in is just asking for trouble.
At the other extreme, there are things like having "gambeson" or "brigandine" as an armor type. Far as I know, D&D has never had those embedded in the rules, and with the possible exception of historical source books, may not have ever used the terms. But it doesn't matter, as those can't be restricted anymore than "claymore" or "human" could be.
For the vast stuff in the middle, it's more about the individual author's comfort with risk. The closer you get to the first category, the more risk you run. Me, I'm renaming "Fighter" and keeping "Wizard". Because my "wizard" bears only a vague resemblance to theirs as an academically-minded spell caster, but I don't have similar spell mechanics or leveling scheme, my wizards fight differently than theirs, my wizards aren't tied to "arcane" magic or even a stand-in for it, yada, yada, yada. My very martially-oriented class is much more capable than a D&D fighter, is built using very different mechanics, etc., but that label just screams D&D to me in a way I don't care to tempt--and it's kind of bad terms anyway.
Moreover, I was in the process of doing a revision to my rules anyway, as another round of playtest feedback gets resolved. There were bits and pieces left as a nod to D&D, as a homage to a game that has given me so many years of enjoyment. Between the normal revision, removing the nods, and continuing to try to streamline and name things what they are, a few terms are getting swapped. It's making my game better. Changing "wizard" to something else wouldn't make it better.
