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

[Jeff Carlsen]

Oh Gods, yes, times a hundred. Can't stand it.

Might as well have called it "D&D X-treeeeeeme!" with a big splashy Mountain Dew banner across the cover...and Red Bull, of course. Red Bull being the apparent endorser of all things x-treeeeeme. The box cover could be a warrior, coming off a half-pipe using a shield as a snowboard and attacking a giant red bull.

Is it edgy enough? OO! How 'bout both? "D&D NEXXXTREEEEEEM!" We're hip. We're aware of the cool lingo of young folks.

Just shoot me. You're trying too hard and it's painfully obvious. Call it 5e and leave it alone. Make the game great. It doesn't need a hokey label.

Not that I disagree with any particular point, but it is just a development label.

 

[KidSnide]

Oh Gods, yes, times a hundred. Can't stand it.

Might as well have called it "D&D X-treeeeeeme!" with a big splashy Mountain Dew banner across the cover...and Red Bull, of course. Red Bull being the apparent endorser of all things x-treeeeeme. The box cover could be a warrior, coming off a half-pipe using a shield as a snowboard and attacking a giant red bull.

Yes, as stated, D&DN is a working title -- not what they expect to put on the cover. (I think they chose it over "5e" because they didn't want a working title they couldn't get rid of.)

What's more interesting is what they have said about the name they want to use. They want to call it just "Dungeons & Dragons", apparently without an edition signifier. Whether you think it provides a cool "edition-less" feel or is just annoying probably depends on whether you believe a 6th edition is inevitable.

-KS

 

[timASW]

hands down get rid of next. And just calling it D&D is dumb too. Sooner or later there will definately be a 6th edition. WoTC will cover all the bases, print everything of any worth crunch wise and run out of stuff that can sell in enough numbers to keep a company that size afloat.

So then they'll announce 6e.

 

[the Jester]

I would like diagonals to be back to being diagonals.

YES- but that is far more than a cosmetic change IMHO.

 

[Argyle King]

Not that I disagree with any particular point, but it is just a development label.

I'm aware it's just a development label, but I still hate it. I'd go so far as to say it makes me feel somewhat negative toward the product. I'm aware that's illogical, but it's the truth. There's something about that as a name -even as just a development label- which causes me to feel negative toward the product.

I used to think "XBox Durango" was horrible as a code word for whatever the next XBox will be called. Thanks to "D&D Next" and how negative I feel toward that as a name, I've gotten to a point where "Durango" actually sounds pretty good to me now. I'd be ok with "D&D Durango" at this point.

 

[S'mon]

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

They're lactating mammals that lay eggs, like a platypus. What could make more sense than platypi?

 

[Falling Icicle]

* I also hate the name "D&D Next." Please, just call it 5th edition.

* I'd also like to see darkvision removed from core races. It puts everyone on a much more even footing. Yes, even dwarves should need torches. Do you really think they went to all the painstaking work to craft their vast, great halls underground only to leave everything pitch black and scurry around in the dark? I don't think so!

* "Monk" should be a background, represeting a cloistered, ascetic lifestyle. The Monk class should be renamed to Martial Artist.

* "Barbarian" should be a background, not a class. What used to be the Barbarian class can easily be included in the fighter class as a berserker path. "Barbarian" is a culture, a way of life, and I should be able to be a barbarian druid, ranger, or anything else.

* Silver pieces, not gold, should be the standard currency.

* Swords should be P or S, not one or the other. (You're telling me a longsword can't both stab and slash? Really?)

* As for dragonborn having breasts, it makes perfect sense if they are dragon-blooded human(oid)s (much like how tieflings are fiend-blooded humans). That way, they'd still be (mostly) mammals.

* Creatures should never have "Always X alignment" in their entry. There are always exceptions, and it makes good or evil seem like something you're born as, rather than choose to be. Mindless undead (such as skeletons and zombies) should be Neutral, as they always were prior to 3.5.

 

[The Human Target]

I'm not sure people get what cosmetic means.

The only thing mentioned so far in this thread that is cosmetic that I fully endorse is the silver standard.

I'd like to see.... hmmmmmm... more difference in the hair/skin color/eye color/general physical traits of the races.

 

[Aeolius]

I would love more "art-themed" rpg books/projects like Diterlizzi did for Planescape and Brom did for Dark Sun

It would suit me just fine if the Monster Manual had more of a SpiderWick Field Guide feel to it, with DiTerlizzi's illustrations and loads of fluff.

(Granted, I may be biased; I recently asked DiTerlizzi about a tattoo inspired by a Spiderwick mermaid. His reply: "A Sargassum mermaid definitely exists. It must. It HAS to. What a great idea." )

 

[Kavon]

Hm, from what I remembered other people saying:
• Silver standard
• Units based around yards/meters (you know, for the rest of the world which uses the metric system)
• No "Always X alignment". Unless something simply can't grasp morality or ethics (like a mindless skeleton), it always has a choice (though I suppose alignment will be optional anyway).

Things like "dragonborn shouldn't have boobs" aren't really.. a thing. Don't like the boobs? They don't have boobs in your game, simple as that. I don't like that they don't have a tail, for example.
It's like wanting your orcs to be green while they're shown to be reddish brown in the artwork..