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

[Roland55]

I would like diagonals to be back to being diagonals.

This.

Most definitely.

I'm an engineer, scientist and mathematician. I can't stand the current rule for diagonals. It just drives the obsessive-compulsive* part of me crazy.



[*And the older I get, the larger this part seems to become. Worrisome.]

 

[innerdude]

100% agree. I only have a few 4e books and they rarely make the cut for "bathroom reading", and a good part of that is the style of the books (plus I did not get into 4e - but I can still mine for ideas while on the Throne). I got Menzo for Xmas (editionless), and it just not look right up there with all my 3e FR books with its sky/caribbean blue colored cover. And the whiteboard looks seems really odd for a book about the Underdark, Drow, and running evil campaigns (do you sense a theme here? its not florescent white or sky blue...).

4e Dark sun is the same way on the inside. This a post apoc setting, but all the powers and such have such clean lines, bright colors, etc. Very sanitary and bright. The bright might fit the world theme, but crisp and clean does not. As a comparison, I got Pinnacles Hell on Earth (updated for their Savage Worlds system) recently - and everything about the book -- fonts, framing, art, layout -- added to the post apoc feeling of the setting. I just do not understand how a company the size of Wizards/Hasbro can just fumble that kind of stuff away and a small shop nails it right on the head. If there is any advantage that Wizards should have its the ability to make top notch products from a look/feel/theme given the economy of size for their print runs.

Having worked in marketing for some time, in a lot of cases the "brand" or "product image" takes on a life of its own, and is often driven by nothing to do with the product, company, usability, or even good taste or common sense.

In a lot of cases it's some "brand manager" or designer who gets an idea, then pitches a fit if their "awesomely realized design concept" doesn't get used. (Designers are often the first to say "Well, you just don't understand the design." No, I understand the intent of the design perfectly, and it just sucks.)


Frankly I think much of the 4e book design falls into this category. They went down the initial road, and were too invested in it to change it later. Personally, on an aesthetic level I'd take pretty much any other core RPG artwork--even GURPS' or stuff by Green Ronin--than 4e's.

 

[delericho]

Art-wise, although the 3e 'tome' style is my favourite of the various editions to date, I don't want 5e to revert to that style. 5e should have a new art style, something we've not seen before.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I'd like infravision as a simplified version of low-light/darkvision. It was simpler and had great flavor!

I'd like to see optional tables for rolling age, height and weight again.

I'd like small creatures to get a benefit to offset the penality due to their size.

I'd like stats to range between 3-25 again, with humans and demihumans naturally capping at 18.

 

[delericho]

Dinosaur names. Just like renaming Demons and Devils in 2nd Edition never quite worked, so too renaming the Dinosaurs in 4e (and Eberron) hasn't quite worked.

I have no problem with them keeping the alternate names as alternates, in the same way that the names Baatezu and Tanar'ri are are still around - but they should be present as alternates.

 

[Kavon]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]: I actually thought it was an interesting idea to give dinosaurs such names (maybe not call each and every one of them "something" behemoth, but still). I'd say it's much more likely that people would call it a "Macetail Behemoth" rather than "Ankylosaurus".
I'd agree that both names should be given in the entry, though.