I personally love almost all of the art in official 5e books. There's a lot of amazing stuff. The only art in Spelljammer that I thought was legitimately bad (probably the fault of WotC, not the artist) was that of the Hadozee, due to how dumb their design looked.
Cool, art is obviously subjective. I do think some of it is good, and I was being a bit hyperbolic when I called some of it 'garbage.'
Just an example, here's their Halfling. On technical merit it's okay, but not great. But I hate it based on concept. Halflings are supposed to be brave little bad@**es, and this art reduces them to being a happy little leprechaun joke.
Below is the old school version. Granted it's just a simple sketched and inked outline, but it really captures the flavor. Given their small size, some might not take them seriously. But they're as tough as anyone and your larger size means nothing to them.
I have never met anyone, even people that generally do like 5e art, that likes the 5e halfling art. I personally don't have strong feelings on it and I have never gotten why people love the older halfling art that much. But using the worst example to demonstrate "5e art sucks" is not a good argument.
I mean I can go on, that was just the first that came to mind.
Your 5e images aren't working for me. What piece of art did you choose? And, again, the worst art from 5e isn't indicative of the general style and quality of 5e art. I could find hundreds of pieces of bad art from previous editions, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm Quoting my reply to this, so you can see the link to Esper the Bard, who does a video series that's really good on this subject. Not all the 5th ed art is bad, but in many ways it is lacking compared to past editions. IMO 4th edition was peek Lore and Art, even if the system was meh. I feel a lot of the creepiest and scariest art was done before Hasbro purchased WotC. The art these days feels sanitized a bit. ie that halfling feels like safe art. Were that old 1st edition art seems like it's something that could get them sued for Copyright issues, and feels a bit sexist at the same time.
I'm watching that Esper video right now. It's really good! He very eloquently expresses the way I have also felt about 5E art.
I saw a documentary on Amazon, Eye of the Beholder, about D&D art, mostly focusing on 1e days, and it really being a seat of their pants system. They had a lot of the old artists, it was fascinating. Sorry about the thread hijack. It was just really good and people should know about it.
I mean I can go on, that was just the first that came to mind.
The half-orc paladin art didn't seem that bad to me. As you said, art is subjective.
That being said, the adventure modules in 5e tend to have some gems when it comes to the art, and if there's one thing people who have criticized Spelljammer have consistently pointed out as good in those books, it's the art.
IMO They should have acknowledged their error, fired the guy who wrote it, put the person who approved it on a sensitivity training course, with a serious warning never to allow for this again. And then rewritten the background using many of the themes they had but not as a racist version, but from the point of view of an enslaved people who fought and gained their freedom with their own agency.
Ie wizard wanting a Slave Army finds a Sentient race of gliding simians, enslaves them, forces them to learn military tactics, they rebel and gain freedom for themselves.
Recapping the original blurb you appear to hate like everyone else:
A wizard wanted a slave army, so he found what was most likely a lot of sugar gliders, then used alchemy to modify them in a similar way to how owlbears presumably came about, creating a sapient race. Then he enslaved said race, and then they rebelled and gained freedom by slaying him, having recruited his apprentices in the process.
If you're claiming the racist part was the apprentices, that's news to me.
IMO They should have acknowledged their error, fired the guy who wrote it, put the person who approved it on a sensitivity training course, with a serious warning never to allow for this again. And then rewritten the background using many of the themes they had but not as a racist version, but from the point of view of an enslaved people who fought and gained their freedom with their own agency.
Ie wizard wanting a Slave Army finds a Sentient race of gliding simians, enslaves them, forces them to learn military tactics, they rebel and gain freedom for themselves.
Recapping the original blurb you appear to hate like everyone else:
A wizard wanted a slave army, so he found what was most likely a lot of sugar gliders, then used alchemy to modify them in a similar way to how owlbears presumably came about, creating a sapient race. Then he enslaved said race, and then they rebelled and gained freedom by slaying him, having recruited his apprentices in the process.
If you're claiming the racist part was the apprentices, that's news to me.
The original version has the apprentice being the one who kills the evil wizard and liberates all the slaves as some sort of Great White Savior character: the hadozee have no agency in their emancipation. That's one of the reasons it's far more problematic than the Gith's slavery backstory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
IMO They should have acknowledged their error, fired the guy who wrote it, put the person who approved it on a sensitivity training course, with a serious warning never to allow for this again. And then rewritten the background using many of the themes they had but not as a racist version, but from the point of view of an enslaved people who fought and gained their freedom with their own agency.
Ie wizard wanting a Slave Army finds a Sentient race of gliding simians, enslaves them, forces them to learn military tactics, they rebel and gain freedom for themselves.
Recapping the original blurb you appear to hate like everyone else:
A wizard wanted a slave army, so he found what was most likely a lot of sugar gliders, then used alchemy to modify them in a similar way to how owlbears presumably came about, creating a sapient race. Then he enslaved said race, and then they rebelled and gained freedom by slaying him, having recruited his apprentices in the process.
If you're claiming the racist part was the apprentices, that's news to me.
3 major changes in my blurb.
1st I said Sentient Gliding Apes, instead of unintelligent. The problem solved, slavery gave them civilization/intelligence.
2nd No Modification in who or what they are with magic during their slavery. The problem solved "Slavery was good for them""
3rd They fight back as soon as they can, gain freedom on their own agency much like the Githyanki did. The problem solved "White Savior"
Couldn't they have just put like a trigger warning or extreme content warning or something like that? Didn't they do that for Dragon Heist, particularly with the Summer variant? I feel like, as abhorrent as the original hadozee origins are, to change them completely ignores a very real aspect of life that happens and has happened. There's nothing wrong with art imitating life. Again, this is a world full of villains that are plain evil, but then there's some evil that we are supposed to just erase?
If you didn't want the origins in your game, change it. Now that WotC took the route they did, if you want the original origins in your game, change it. The real effect doesn't matter. I don't agree that they should have modified the text, but instead I think they should have made some type of content warning like "This section includes mention of some materials that some may find triggering."
Couldn't they have just put like a trigger warning or extreme content warning or something like that? Didn't they do that for Dragon Heist, particularly with the Summer variant? I feel like, as abhorrent as the original hadozee origins are, to change them completely ignores a very real aspect of life that happens and has happened. There's nothing wrong with art imitating life. Again, this is a world full of villains that are plain evil, but then there's some evil that we are supposed to just erase?
If you didn't want the origins in your game, change it. Now that WotC took the route they did, if you want the original origins in your game, change it. The real effect doesn't matter. I don't agree that they should have modified the text, but instead I think they should have made some type of content warning like "This section includes mention of some materials that some may find triggering."
Could they? Yes - Looney Tunes did this with their old content. Should they? That is their decision as the creator of the art.
Trigger warnings are generally insufficient - Wizards is operating in a medium where it is easy to skip over any trigger warning, unless it is so blazingly obvious and situated right next to the offensive content, as to look out of place and feel jarring. There also is simply no historical or cultural importance to preserving the lore - it is two paragraphs in a D&D sourcebook, hardly something that is going to revolutionise the world itself and would be worth preserving (see Looney Tunes again, where WB knows their cartoons contain hate, but can legitimately say “we think these are culturally critical and revolutionary and want to use them as a teaching tool of how casually cruel entertainment used to be.”)
Given the choice between insufficient protections and continuing to offend players with something both “abhorrent” and not important and removing the chance to offend players (other than the racists who get inexplicably upset over these kinds of changes - and preserving the feelings of the hateful should not dictate actions), I think it is pretty clear why Wizards chose the path they did, and it likely was the right choice by every conceivable metric of empathy, business, and basic morality.
That's a very important thing to keep in mind, as well - this text was by no means some great tour de force of writing. The hadozee blurb was not some culturally impactful mastersmithing of words that left a permanent lasting impact on all of American society. This was not a tale of Epic Villainy that moved people to deep thought in consideration of the evils they were combatting. It was two paragraphs of uncomfortable, problematic tossed-off text that clearly should never have made it into print anyways, and whose loss does nothing to affect the book. This crap is not worth preserving. It wasn't worth writing in the first place. It should never have seen the light of day, and arguing that it should remain just because of the mistake that allowed it to exist at all ignores the very real harm those otherwise pointless words inflicts.
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Much that once was is lost. Objects in Mirror Image are closer than they appear. All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players, performers and portrayers...
This is not some kind of scourge spreading through the media. This is one instance of self-editorial based on feedback.
This is also not something new to the entertainment industries. There's no slope to slide down. Stuff like this has been happening since before I was born a half-century ago. It's not rampant, yet, after all this time. I doubt it will ever become rampant.
Should they keep a record of the content that was reconsidered? That's up to them. Do they need to show us the editor markings? Not really. Do they need to show us the old content? That's still up to them. It's their presentation.
Should they show us the old content when few are demanding it? That's not the same volume as the demand for recognition of the implications. It's still up to them, but take a larger perspective on it.
Do I agree with the changes? Does it matter? The changes are made. I work with what I got. If I can't work with the direction things are going, I can (and will) go my own way. For many properties I've liked, I have walked away from them and do so more frequently in my recent years. I'm still here, though. So, that's a statement that I can accept the edits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
How is this mess not "on permanent record"? Anybody, at any time, can Google this crap. It's not like the knowledge was deep-sixed in the Vault of Forgetfulness. Dozens of media sources ran stories on it, Wizards couldn't obscure it if they tried.
I am glad of the removal as I have seen small things grow into bigger things and people say "why is this an issue as we have these other things that were not an issue (or in this case were printed)"
I think WotC should do an internal investigation asking the tough question necessary to see if there was any conscious action(s) on the part of the writer/team/editor to promote the issue in question or if it was a simple mistake. That can be hard to do.
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
Next set of books, and board game "Dragonlance" a setting about race wars, and systemic racial divides.
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
Next set of books, and board game "Dragonlance" a setting about race wars, and systemic racial divides.
And several races who exist as little more than ableist jokes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
And several races who exist as little more than ableist jokes.
I don't have that much of an issue with the dragons and dragonborn, because, well, dragons, but kender and gully dwarves always made me cringe. (edit: I forgot tinker gnomes. Really, every short race in Dragonlance is horrific).
And several races who exist as little more than ableist jokes.
Which is why when they announced Dragonlance books, and games, I was like, gawd, why. I love Tracy Hickman and Margaret Wise, their books are well written, and I love their other series The Death Gate Cycle one of the best Fantasy series from the 90s. But OMG Dragonlancehas always been problematic. Even in the 90s when reading the first book, I was "Oh, wow, that's racist" Mind you I'm white passing Turkish Jewish of ancestry. And being autist and still learning empathy at 20 something I had a harder time than most to pick up on subtle racism. And sadly Dragonlancethe last few years has become the favorite setting of Hard Reich Wing players. So you can see why I feel that the can of worms that the Hadozee were is just a drop of water in the ocean that is Dragonlance.
Couldn't they have just put like a trigger warning or extreme content warning or something like that? Didn't they do that for Dragon Heist, particularly with the Summer variant? I feel like, as abhorrent as the original hadozee origins are, to change them completely ignores a very real aspect of life that happens and has happened. There's nothing wrong with art imitating life. Again, this is a world full of villains that are plain evil, but then there's some evil that we are supposed to just erase?
If you didn't want the origins in your game, change it. Now that WotC took the route they did, if you want the original origins in your game, change it. The real effect doesn't matter. I don't agree that they should have modified the text, but instead I think they should have made some type of content warning like "This section includes mention of some materials that some may find triggering."
Could they? Yes - Looney Tunes did this with their old content. Should they? That is their decision as the creator of the art.
Trigger warnings are generally insufficient - Wizards is operating in a medium where it is easy to skip over any trigger warning, unless it is so blazingly obvious and situated right next to the offensive content, as to look out of place and feel jarring. There also is simply no historical or cultural importance to preserving the lore - it is two paragraphs in a D&D sourcebook, hardly something that is going to revolutionise the world itself and would be worth preserving (see Looney Tunes again, where WB knows their cartoons contain hate, but can legitimately say “we think these are culturally critical and revolutionary and want to use them as a teaching tool of how casually cruel entertainment used to be.”)
Given the choice between insufficient protections and continuing to offend players with something both “abhorrent” and not important and removing the chance to offend players (other than the racists who get inexplicably upset over these kinds of changes - and preserving the feelings of the hateful should not dictate actions), I think it is pretty clear why Wizards chose the path they did, and it likely was the right choice by every conceivable metric of empathy, business, and basic morality.
Just to add on to what Yurei and Caerwyn have said, there is absolutely no reason to keep this lore. Different lore could be invented and take its place easily, but there is no reason to whatsoever for this lore to stay. As far as I'm aware, nothing in the Spelljammer bundle uses the Hadozee lore as a plot-point or anything.
This lore is not important, putting a trigger warning in is still keeping the same offensive content there, even if people are warned about it. Also, it's hard to put a trigger warning in print that people like me, who skim things before reading them, will easily notice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
Next set of books, and board game "Dragonlance" a setting about race wars, and systemic racial divides.
And several races who exist as little more than ableist jokes.
*cough* Dragonlance and Ravenloft *cough* (Caliban, Tinker Gnomes, Gully Dwarves, Kender). Oh, and the Derro, but Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman had nothing to do with them, that was all Gygax (which isn't that surprising).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
Next set of books, and board game "Dragonlance" a setting about race wars, and systemic racial divides.
And several races who exist as little more than ableist jokes.
*cough* Dragonlance and Ravenloft *cough* (Caliban, Tinker Gnomes, Gully Dwarves, Kender). Oh, and the Derro, but Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman had nothing to do with them, that was all Gygax (which isn't that surprising).
5e's Ravenloft is a lot more inclusive from what I can tell, which might be why some grognards think it was "ruined".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your 5e images aren't working for me. What piece of art did you choose? And, again, the worst art from 5e isn't indicative of the general style and quality of 5e art. I could find hundreds of pieces of bad art from previous editions, too.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I saw a documentary on Amazon, Eye of the Beholder, about D&D art, mostly focusing on 1e days, and it really being a seat of their pants system. They had a lot of the old artists, it was fascinating.
Sorry about the thread hijack. It was just really good and people should know about it.
The half-orc paladin art didn't seem that bad to me. As you said, art is subjective.
That being said, the adventure modules in 5e tend to have some gems when it comes to the art, and if there's one thing people who have criticized Spelljammer have consistently pointed out as good in those books, it's the art.
Recapping the original blurb you appear to hate like everyone else:
A wizard wanted a slave army, so he found what was most likely a lot of sugar gliders, then used alchemy to modify them in a similar way to how owlbears presumably came about, creating a sapient race. Then he enslaved said race, and then they rebelled and gained freedom by slaying him, having recruited his apprentices in the process.
If you're claiming the racist part was the apprentices, that's news to me.
The original version has the apprentice being the one who kills the evil wizard and liberates all the slaves as some sort of Great White Savior character: the hadozee have no agency in their emancipation. That's one of the reasons it's far more problematic than the Gith's slavery backstory.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
3 major changes in my blurb.
1st I said Sentient Gliding Apes, instead of unintelligent. The problem solved, slavery gave them civilization/intelligence.
2nd No Modification in who or what they are with magic during their slavery. The problem solved "Slavery was good for them""
3rd They fight back as soon as they can, gain freedom on their own agency much like the Githyanki did. The problem solved "White Savior"
Couldn't they have just put like a trigger warning or extreme content warning or something like that? Didn't they do that for Dragon Heist, particularly with the Summer variant? I feel like, as abhorrent as the original hadozee origins are, to change them completely ignores a very real aspect of life that happens and has happened. There's nothing wrong with art imitating life. Again, this is a world full of villains that are plain evil, but then there's some evil that we are supposed to just erase?
If you didn't want the origins in your game, change it. Now that WotC took the route they did, if you want the original origins in your game, change it. The real effect doesn't matter. I don't agree that they should have modified the text, but instead I think they should have made some type of content warning like "This section includes mention of some materials that some may find triggering."
Published Subclasses
Could they? Yes - Looney Tunes did this with their old content. Should they? That is their decision as the creator of the art.
Trigger warnings are generally insufficient - Wizards is operating in a medium where it is easy to skip over any trigger warning, unless it is so blazingly obvious and situated right next to the offensive content, as to look out of place and feel jarring. There also is simply no historical or cultural importance to preserving the lore - it is two paragraphs in a D&D sourcebook, hardly something that is going to revolutionise the world itself and would be worth preserving (see Looney Tunes again, where WB knows their cartoons contain hate, but can legitimately say “we think these are culturally critical and revolutionary and want to use them as a teaching tool of how casually cruel entertainment used to be.”)
Given the choice between insufficient protections and continuing to offend players with something both “abhorrent” and not important and removing the chance to offend players (other than the racists who get inexplicably upset over these kinds of changes - and preserving the feelings of the hateful should not dictate actions), I think it is pretty clear why Wizards chose the path they did, and it likely was the right choice by every conceivable metric of empathy, business, and basic morality.
That's a very important thing to keep in mind, as well - this text was by no means some great tour de force of writing. The hadozee blurb was not some culturally impactful mastersmithing of words that left a permanent lasting impact on all of American society. This was not a tale of Epic Villainy that moved people to deep thought in consideration of the evils they were combatting. It was two paragraphs of uncomfortable, problematic tossed-off text that clearly should never have made it into print anyways, and whose loss does nothing to affect the book. This crap is not worth preserving. It wasn't worth writing in the first place. It should never have seen the light of day, and arguing that it should remain just because of the mistake that allowed it to exist at all ignores the very real harm those otherwise pointless words inflicts.
Please do not contact or message me.
Frankly, I would prefer some way of preserving the message that the book originally contained problematic material, the apology and that a correction was made. Knowing that their mistake was on permanent record might make WotC a little more cognizant about not making similar mistakes in the future.
Much that once was is lost.
Objects in Mirror Image are closer than they appear.
All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players, performers and portrayers...
This is not some kind of scourge spreading through the media. This is one instance of self-editorial based on feedback.
This is also not something new to the entertainment industries. There's no slope to slide down. Stuff like this has been happening since before I was born a half-century ago. It's not rampant, yet, after all this time. I doubt it will ever become rampant.
Should they keep a record of the content that was reconsidered? That's up to them. Do they need to show us the editor markings? Not really. Do they need to show us the old content? That's still up to them. It's their presentation.
Should they show us the old content when few are demanding it? That's not the same volume as the demand for recognition of the implications. It's still up to them, but take a larger perspective on it.
Do I agree with the changes? Does it matter? The changes are made. I work with what I got. If I can't work with the direction things are going, I can (and will) go my own way. For many properties I've liked, I have walked away from them and do so more frequently in my recent years. I'm still here, though. So, that's a statement that I can accept the edits.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
How is this mess not "on permanent record"? Anybody, at any time, can Google this crap. It's not like the knowledge was deep-sixed in the Vault of Forgetfulness. Dozens of media sources ran stories on it, Wizards couldn't obscure it if they tried.
Please do not contact or message me.
I am glad of the removal as I have seen small things grow into bigger things and people say "why is this an issue as we have these other things that were not an issue (or in this case were printed)"
I think WotC should do an internal investigation asking the tough question necessary to see if there was any conscious action(s) on the part of the writer/team/editor to promote the issue in question or if it was a simple mistake. That can be hard to do.
Next set of books, and board game "Dragonlance" a setting about race wars, and systemic racial divides.
And several races who exist as little more than ableist jokes.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't have that much of an issue with the dragons and dragonborn, because, well, dragons, but kender and gully dwarves always made me cringe. (edit: I forgot tinker gnomes. Really, every short race in Dragonlance is horrific).
Which is why when they announced Dragonlance books, and games, I was like, gawd, why. I love Tracy Hickman and Margaret Wise, their books are well written, and I love their other series The Death Gate Cycle one of the best Fantasy series from the 90s. But OMG Dragonlance has always been problematic. Even in the 90s when reading the first book, I was "Oh, wow, that's racist" Mind you I'm white passing Turkish Jewish of ancestry. And being autist and still learning empathy at 20 something I had a harder time than most to pick up on subtle racism. And sadly Dragonlance the last few years has become the favorite setting of Hard Reich Wing players. So you can see why I feel that the can of worms that the Hadozee were is just a drop of water in the ocean that is Dragonlance.
Just to add on to what Yurei and Caerwyn have said, there is absolutely no reason to keep this lore. Different lore could be invented and take its place easily, but there is no reason to whatsoever for this lore to stay. As far as I'm aware, nothing in the Spelljammer bundle uses the Hadozee lore as a plot-point or anything.
This lore is not important, putting a trigger warning in is still keeping the same offensive content there, even if people are warned about it. Also, it's hard to put a trigger warning in print that people like me, who skim things before reading them, will easily notice.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.*cough* Dragonlance and Ravenloft *cough* (Caliban, Tinker Gnomes, Gully Dwarves, Kender). Oh, and the Derro, but Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman had nothing to do with them, that was all Gygax (which isn't that surprising).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
5e's Ravenloft is a lot more inclusive from what I can tell, which might be why some grognards think it was "ruined".