D&D 5E Cosmetic Changes You'd Like to See

[DonAdam]

What are the mostly superficial changes you'd like to see in D&D Next, whether from previous editions or from the current version of the rules?

There are a couple things I can think of that would make little difference but would give me some warm fuzzies.

I would be very happy if a space/square was defined as a yard or meter instead of 5 feet. That means a medium sized creature is 2 squares tall, but so be it. It would also mean that fights in non-gigundous rooms could actually allow for some maneuverability.

I'd also like to see the Monk renamed the Mystic (a la Rules Compendium), so that the "Monk" moniker would be freed up for a background. Then we could have monk fighters, monk clerics, etc.

Of course all of this stuff is easily refluffable, but that doesn't mean you don't have preferences for what's in the core books. What are they?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm with you on the 1 square = 1 yard/meter. Because every time I look at the shortbow's range of 80 / 320 my eyes go crossed trying to do the math in my head for how many squares that actually is. Maybe some folks can divide 80 by 5 in a split second... but I can't. But if squares were yards/meters... it would say the shortbow's range was 16 / 64 and we'd know that meant both length of distance and number of squares.

I never understood the point of having distances written out anyway, seeing as how if you don't use a grid/game table... the specific feet/yardage mean pretty much nothing. You're either within melee range or with spell range, which can be written just as easily as "short", "medium", "long" rather than 30 feet, 100 feet, 500 feet.

So if specific distances only matter when you are actually measuring them out with a ruler... make the distances as easy to use that way as possible. And 1 Inch = 1 Square = 1 Yard/Meter does that.

 

[YRUSirius]

Yay for yards! Yay for paces!

-YRUSirius

 

[Blackbrrd]

.... Because every time I look at the shortbow's range of 80 / 320 my eyes go crossed trying to do the math in my head for how many squares that actually is. Maybe some folks can divide 80 by 5 in a split second... but I can't....

Well, I just remove a zero and multiply by 2. 80 = 8*2 = 16. 320 = 32*2 = 64. Should be doable in a split second.
Other than that I agree, using 5 feet as the base for calculations is really awkward.

 

[amerigoV]

If we are talking cosmetic: less rogue, more rouge.

 

[RangerWickett]

Let the short sword slash as well as pierce.

Orcs can keep darkvision, but half-orcs (and all other PC races) shouldn't have any better than low-light. I want scary adventures at low levels requiring torches that might go out.

 

[Ramaster]

No boobs on dragonborn females, for a start. Since that doesn't make any freaking sense!

And roll up knowledge History, Engineering, Nobility and Geography into a single "Knowledge: Academics" Skill. But that's more mechanical.

 

[YRUSirius]

Give orcs and goblins light sensitivity. Like Kobolds. And like Tolkien orcs and goblins.

-YRUSirius

 

[Stalker0]

I like a return to the old style of book. I loved 3e's "tome" style, the 4e whiteboard style just felt clinical at times, and cartoony at others.

 

[am181d]

No boobs on dragonborn females, for a start. Since that doesn't make any freaking sense!

I've never had a problem with this. In the one campaign I ran that used Dragonborn heavily, they were explicitly created by the Dragons to serve as intermediaries between dragons and men. (So it made perfect sense that they would share physical traits with humans.)

This is only really an issue if you are insistent that (a) a fantasy world observe the rules of real world evolution and (b) you refuse to accept that reptilian species could evolve the capability to nurse their young.

Now, if you don't like it as an aesthetic choice, that's fine. But it makes exactly as much sense as anything else in D&D.