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

[Jester David]

+1 to squares being "paces" that can be either yards or meters.

I'd love dwarves to get darkvision back and return undergound.

And, most of all, the halflings need their racial traits swapped. They have the hobbit-like stouts being fearless and kender-like lightfoots being stealthy.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'd like more diversity in the "monstrous" humanoids: how many low-Intelligence low-Charisma CE races does the game need?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I also concur with spaces measured in paces, yards, or meters, though I'd go with two yards per inch instead of one. It lines up with d20 modern, SWSE, and Savage Worlds, and is closer to the old five feet per square, which is better for backwards compatibility with maps and miniatures.

 

[Sunseeker]

I also concur with spaces measured in paces, yards, or meters, though I'd go with two yards per inch instead of one. It lines up with d20 modern, SWSE, and Savage Worlds, and is closer to the old five feet per square, which is better for backwards compatibility with maps and miniatures.

I think what's most important is just to adjust ranges to make them easily divisible. So a weapon with a range of "30 feet" could be easily be divided by a measurement of "yards", seeing as a yard is 3 feet or a spell with "range: 120", same deal. Six feet(two yards) works here as well, but the problem remains that making 1 unit of anything be two units of something else can be sticky. It's nice right now that 1"=1 square=1 medium creature=1 range increment. If one square is one yard, then a medium creature is two squares, and technically they have a reach of 1.(average human arm-legnth from fingertip to fingertip is the same as height). Put that in the middle of the square and you have 1.5 feet(16 inches) to the edge of a square, that's easily the length of an arm....then throw a 2' pointy metal stick on the end of that arm and you've got a good 4.5'-5' of length on that weapon, which easily clears your own square and will cover the majority of the distance in the adjacent square.

I don't really expect D&D to go metric....

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

As far as that goes, I'd prefer they keep going back. Gimme some B&W line art, and clear pages. 2e and BECMI style suits me just fine.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think what's most important is just to adjust ranges to make them easily divisible. So a weapon with a range of "30 feet" could be easily be divided by a measurement of "yards", seeing as a yard is 3 feet or a spell with "range: 120", same deal. Six feet(two yards) works here as well, but the problem remains that making 1 unit of anything be two units of something else can be sticky. It's nice right now that 1"=1 square=1 medium creature=1 range increment.

The symmetry is nice, I'll admit. But the tradeoff is pretty significant. In addition to the scale of my miniature, tile, and terrain collection being off, the battlefield will take up more of the table if you want to represent objects to scale.

If only we could retroactively change the scale of the past.

 

[Prickly]

The symmetry is nice, I'll admit. But the tradeoff is pretty significant. In addition to the scale of my miniature, tile, and terrain collection being off, the battlefield will take up more of the table if you want to represent objects to scale.

If only we could retroactively change the scale of the past.

I my experience scaling doesn't matter much when using the grid.

if a room is 30 feet in a 3rd ed module which is equal to 6 squares, and you draw it that way in your game where each square is a yard...
no one notices.

Also the mini size is more of an abstract representation so that doesnt really matter in my experience. Considering I usually have one player using a mini and the rest using d12's or erasers to mark their place on the grid.

I would also like to mention that as I live in one of the many many metric countries distances in feet mean nothing to me and I constantly have problems trying to picture sizes when DMs describe rooms and such in feet or how big spell effects are. Especially when going grid less. with a 1=1=1 ratio I just mentally work in metres.

 

[Klaus]

1 square = 1 yard = 1 meter
Silver standard (long sword = 150 sp)
Half-orcs = orc mixed with *something else* (not just humans).
Orcs = no Str bonus (bringing them closer to 1e/2e orcs)
3e/4e orcs = Orogs
Gnomes = "people under the hill" fey type (closer to folkloric elfs)
Leather Jacket = AC 11 (soft leather)
Leather Armor = AC 12

Less-than-cosmetic changes:
Move monk abilities like "Purity of Body", "Clear Mind", "Diamond Body", "Diamond Soul", "Tongue of Sun & Moon" and "Perfect Self" to a Monastic specialty.

 

[Argyle King]

I agree on the change of scale. 1 inch = 1 yard is a scale I would highly prefer.

I also somewhat agree on dragon boobs. I feel as though it would be more interesting to have the sexual dimorphism of dragonborn to be indicated in a manner more similar to the reptilian races of The Elder Scrolls Series. Females could have head frills of various shapes, sizes, and styles; males could have bone spur formations on their heads, vestigal horns, and etc.

I hate the name D&D Next. I wish it would stop being called that.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

Absolutely. +1. This kind of immersive feel is priceless. It always make me want to play the game, while the 4e book was filled with all this rules text that was visually easy to follow, but was never inspiring in the same way.

I also loved the "sketch" style art in the 3.x books. It had a certain de Vinci style to it, where you could believe that it existed in the game world, like the rest of the book.

And, yeah, the less Wayne Reynolds the better. There is a lot I really like about PF and Golarion, but the art turns me off every time. "Please do not look at the art while imagining the game world" is not the kind of thing I like to say.

-KS