Fuck sake Perkins is turning out to be worse than Crawford.
https://www.gamesradar.com/dandd-dev-says-there-isnt-a-new-edition-of-the-game-because-players-cant-get-enough-of-this-one/ (https://www.gamesradar.com/dandd-dev-says-there-isnt-a-new-edition-of-the-game-because-players-cant-get-enough-of-this-one/)
Quote"Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."
Has he even read the classes? Apparently not?
Quote"That said, it's OK if some things go away because they still exist in the game. This is still Fifth Edition. So if you want to play something and there is an option that has changed and you don't want to play the changed version, that's OK.
So it is "Still 5th ed" but "Not really."
Fuck sake can wotc tell the truth ever?
QuoteSo in things like the Unearthed Arcana [playtests], we will sometimes put things in the articles that we know probably won't fly, that the community will push back on because they're not ready for it or they don't think it's right for the game that they want to play. We do that because we have to know, and that's the only way we can really know.
So they test stuff they know will fail to know if it fails... W-T-F????
Greetings!
Yeah, Omega, Perkins is sadly a clown as well. I remember him from way back, when he was a guy just involved with Dungeon Magazine. Like so many, years ago, they seemed sane, normal, and even talented, skilled, and cool.
Fast forward, especially since 2016, and we can see that so many of them are jello-filled morons, and absolutely pathetic. It is all that Woke Kool Aid, man. It rots their brain, and just opens them up to being filled with Woke Jello.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Perkins"Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
Quote from: PerkinsBy the end of the third edition, we were seeing a trend, a downturn [for] every product... And that's a signal to us... [but] the trend that we've seen in the last 10 years is not what we've seen with Third [Edition], not what we've seen with Fourth. The game is doing better and better and better. So we're not at a point in the life in Fifth Edition where we feel like, OK, the fans are telling us this is not the game for them. They're not saying that. They're saying 'we love Fifth Edition.'
So the books about gay proms, coffee shop dramas, and rainbow citadels are flying off the shelves? What about the re-done properties, like Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape? How are those selling?
It's hilarious that he think that the community pushes back against UA content because we're just not ready for it or think it doesn't fit this specific game. I have never encountered a DM that disallowed UA content for either of those reasons. DM's disallow UA content because it's poorly thought out and imbalanced. Take the silvery barbs spell for example. It imposes disadvantage on an opponent of your choice and gives to an ally of your choice advantage on their next attack, save or ability check. It's castable as a reaction. This would be quite good for a 3rd level spell. It's a 1st level spell. People don't disallow this because they just not ready for that. They disallow it because it's way too good. The flipside of this are all the UA options that are just bad but no one wants to take those.
Perkins is a doofus but I agree with him on number of classes; 1e AD&D got it about right IMO with classes & subclasses.
Congratulations Chris Perkins. You have just "invented" Basic Fantasy Role Playing.
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird. It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players. So it's 5e but it's also not 5e. It's the same but different. It's okay if things go away because they will still be there? What the fuck? Either it goes away or it doesn't go away. Is it 5e again or is it different? If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it? Are they removing things or not? Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?
Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.
All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.
Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.
Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like "Str vs. Dex based" Fighter options... with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM
Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.
All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.
Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.
Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like "Str vs. Dex based" Fighter options... with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.
I know you mean well, but thank goodness I don't play this fucktard edition. Even with the so-called fixes you propose, IMO it still sounds like a convoluted mess.
Lipstick on a pig.
Keep it original. Keep it Old School. OSR forever.
(mic drop)
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 28, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird. It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players. So it's 5e but it's also not 5e. It's the same but different. It's okay if things go away because they will still be there? What the fuck? Either it goes away or it doesn't go away. Is it 5e again or is it different? If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it? Are they removing things or not? Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?
Easy: they have no fucking clue what they're doing. Not in marketing. Not in game design. Not in anything.
WoTC is a company that has a chronic case of cranial rectum-itis.
I wonder if this is to encourage people to buy more current D&D products? I'm sure there are plenty of people waiting for the "new" edition. Perhaps the projected quarter numbers for WotC are worse than expected?
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.
In 5e, Bards are neither traditional arcane or divine casters. From the 5e PHB:
QuoteBards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos . The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers.
The bard spell list is actually pretty sparse in the PHB (some later supplements add a lot of other stuff to it, and therefore, a lot of power to the bard). Bards are intended to supplement these spares spells with access to
Magical Secrets at high levels, letting them grab a few spells from any other classes in the game with no ability to change your mind on this mini-multiclass power. In any event, this "words of creation" bit explains why they get access to such a unique set of spells, and why their spell list leaves off so much baseline.
Also while 5e bards and clerics are both full casters that are intended to use a weapon more than a wizard does, clerics have better access to offensive cantrips and at mid levels either get a boost to cantrip damage or their single attack a round. The bard has to actively pick a martial themed subclass to be able to really hold his own without expending spell slots.
Out of all the people who say "I just want the core three (or the core four) classes" the only time I've seen anyone create anything with that idea that I personally want to play or run is Kevin Crawford, creator of
Stars Without Number and
Worlds Without Number. He also doesn't just limit you to his core three classes (warrior, expert, and either psychic or mage, depending), he also gives you "partial" classes that split the difference. His splat content for classes are usually partial things as well.
Mostly when I hear that, I just walk on by, because someone advocating for a game with just fighter, mage, rogue, cleric is one paladin player away from learning why there's more than just four classes. The druid started as a subclass of cleric, but it sure works wonderfully once it's been established as its own class, as it can stop wasting space on things you can't do that a normal cleric can, like turn undead.
Hyperborea and
ACKS both offer up the four standard classes, then spend a decent amount of pages giving you other classes too. The obvious implication is that if you want to run the game and limit it to the basic classes, you can, and they are an intended and well designed part of the game (versus the power creep we saw historically, where the base clasess got sorta overwhelmed by later offerings).
But a game with just the four base classes, I just don't need. I'm not gonna run that game.
Quote from: Silverblade on March 28, 2024, 11:25:13 AM
I wonder if this is to encourage people to buy more current D&D products?
I legitimately believe this is the
entire reason that they are claiming "it's not a new edition".
I've paid a good amount of attention to the playtest, and while I have no idea what's coming out in September, they have really changed a lot of how the game balance works. For instance, the feats, which previously were just all generally meant to be worth +2 stats (with some being way better or way worse) are now being lined up into lesser feats and greater feats, and the idea is that you can't get the greater feats until like 4th level. Even those greater feats are nowhere near as powerful as the top feats used to be in 5.0. So the feats are nerfed!
But all the "martial" classes, are buffed. This is received pretty well as 5.0 has this as a common criticism (most of them don't know that this critique kinda goes back to early D&D and has always had some validity), because 5.0 lets casters move out of hiding, cast, and move back into hiding, depending on the shape of the place- a far cry from having to declare your action before initiative is rolled and risk interruption or your spell not being aimed at the correct target, or the scenario changing a lot. Anyway, the playtest stuff had more impressive martial class scaling.
Ok so, 5.5 comes out. It's all the same version, so you grab the variant human from 5.0, use it to take a really strong feat like 5.0 sharpshooter, and then take your first level in 5.5 fighter. Now you have a character more powerful than can be created in either version, but it's all the same version, right?
No way. They have to ramp up power options to sell books, and they can't let you pick and choose between versions. There will be some kind of creation rules to prevent that. By contrast, your 5.5 PHB built guy using something from
Tasha's Cauldron Of Retcons And Apologies will be allowed, because they haven't reprinted that one yet, or... something.
So when they say that it's all the same version:
1- They want you to keep buying the existing products now.
2- They probably have a plan to keep you buying the non-directly-replaced existing products as well, later.
But I think (1) is enough to explain this obvious lie they keep pushing.
Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
heh-heh. Same here. And honestly alot of folk initially felt the barbarian should have been a fighter subclass.
Quote from: S'mon on March 28, 2024, 04:09:51 AM
Perkins is a doofus but I agree with him on number of classes; 1e AD&D got it about right IMO with classes & subclasses.
Then you open up Dragon and its a new class every 5 issues.
AD&D expanded classes slowly, much as 5e did. Fiend Folio and Oriental Adventures, and technically Dragonlance were about the only books to add new races or classes.
That all changed with 2e.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 28, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird. It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players. So it's 5e but it's also not 5e. It's the same but different. It's okay if things go away because they will still be there? What the fuck? Either it goes away or it doesn't go away. Is it 5e again or is it different? If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it? Are they removing things or not? Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?
Because if they told us we'd wouldnt buy it. Perkins has already stated the DMG will practically push storygamer screeds like "The DM is there to serve the players and every player is a DM!" What DM is going to buy a book that tells them they have to be the players slave?
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM
Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.
All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.
Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.
Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like "Str vs. Dex based" Fighter options... with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.
Chris,
Excellent ideas. And it totally works, it's True 20! Except for the awful damage save. X Without Number does soemthing like this as well.
Just like Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, there isn't a new edition... until a few years from now, we've always been at war with Eurasia and they admit there is a new edition and your old stuff isn't compatible.
I'm still on the fence with Perkins. On one hand, all of the evidence in front of my face. On the other, this dude has a true and deep love of the game. From being an absolute pest until getting his stuff published as a teenager to DM'g on stage for years and years despite reportedly suffering from crippling anxiety, my current status with CP is...complicated.
I'm taking a wait and see with this one. Although, if I pushed my chips in...my guess is he'll make all the concessions he needs to the overlords and we'll have Soy D&D.
Quote from: Omega on March 28, 2024, 09:04:49 PM
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 28, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird. It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players. So it's 5e but it's also not 5e. It's the same but different. It's okay if things go away because they will still be there? What the fuck? Either it goes away or it doesn't go away. Is it 5e again or is it different? If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it? Are they removing things or not? Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?
Because if they told us we'd wouldnt buy it. Perkins has already stated the DMG will practically push storygamer screeds like "The DM is there to serve the players and every player is a DM!" What DM is going to buy a book that tells them they have to be the players slave?
Slave is a banned word at Wizards of the Woke. The DM will be referred to as the facilitator of player fantasies while players are editors of their own unique stories. That is woke speak for slave to to a bunch of narcasisstic wanna-be actors.
Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:34:31 AM
I'm still on the fence with Perkins. On one hand, all of the evidence in front of my face. On the other, this dude has a true and deep love of the game. From being an absolute pest until getting his stuff published as a teenager to DM'g on stage for years and years despite reportedly suffering from crippling anxiety, my current status with CP is...complicated.
I'm taking a wait and see with this one. Although, if I pushed my chips in...my guess is he'll make all the concessions he needs to the overlords and we'll have Soy D&D.
There's a disconnect in Perkin's brain between what he writes and what he means--this was true even in his first adventures for Dungeon magazine. When I see that kind of pervasive disconnect, I suspect lots of minor fudging in his games to make it work. He's just not really a mechanics/system guy, and it shows.
While I agree the game has more classes then it needs the argument that it might be confusing for a newbie seems to forget about the starter set or the DM. Those won't apply to the vtt-d$d though so I wonder if he isn't floating an idea to see how it's taken.
Play vtt-d$d newbie level with fewer classses at a lesser price or play the advanced version and get all the options and more, now for a limited time only, at $$$$$$
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 29, 2024, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 28, 2024, 09:04:49 PM
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 28, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird. It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players. So it's 5e but it's also not 5e. It's the same but different. It's okay if things go away because they will still be there? What the fuck? Either it goes away or it doesn't go away. Is it 5e again or is it different? If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it? Are they removing things or not? Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?
Because if they told us we'd wouldnt buy it. Perkins has already stated the DMG will practically push storygamer screeds like "The DM is there to serve the players and every player is a DM!" What DM is going to buy a book that tells them they have to be the players slave?
Slave is a banned word at Wizards of the Woke. The DM will be referred to as the facilitator of player fantasies while players are editors of their own unique stories. That is woke speak for slave to to a bunch of narcasisstic wanna-be actors.
The word "Slave" is banned at WoTC?
What the actual fuck?
That's just...stupid.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 29, 2024, 09:05:44 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:34:31 AM
I'm still on the fence with Perkins. On one hand, all of the evidence in front of my face. On the other, this dude has a true and deep love of the game. From being an absolute pest until getting his stuff published as a teenager to DM'g on stage for years and years despite reportedly suffering from crippling anxiety, my current status with CP is...complicated.
I'm taking a wait and see with this one. Although, if I pushed my chips in...my guess is he'll make all the concessions he needs to the overlords and we'll have Soy D&D.
There's a disconnect in Perkin's brain between what he writes and what he means--this was true even in his first adventures for Dungeon magazine. When I see that kind of pervasive disconnect, I suspect lots of minor fudging in his games to make it work. He's just not really a mechanics/system guy, and it shows.
When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense to me. I never ran his material, and I only knew some of the story leading up to them being published.
Quote from: blackstone on March 29, 2024, 11:36:33 AM
The word "Slave" is banned at WoTC?
What the actual fuck?
That's just...stupid.
I mean no, they never said it is banned. But kinda yes because they have stripped out every reference to slavery that they can. This is done for real world political reasons, and no other thing. It is unrealistic, as slavery exists in almost all times and places, with the exception of like, some white countries fighting against it over the last couple centuries, and a few other small places here and there. Their likely reason for removing it is that portraying historically realistic racism in fantasy gaming puts it into an accurate historical perspective, and avoiding that is a top task by people who want to do anti-white propaganda.
Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Perkins"Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
[/quote]
That's exactly what I advocated for at the time. My suggestion to Mearls was that there be four core classes, and all kinds of others could be presented as optional classes in the DMG or elsewhere, for the DM to use if he wished to allow.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2024, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
That's exactly what I advocated for at the time. My suggestion to Mearls was that there be four core classes, and all kinds of others could be presented as optional classes in the DMG or elsewhere, for the DM to use if he wished to allow.
It's what I would have wanted as well. The Sorcerer and Warlock are the worst offenses. I could have lived with the Paladin, Bard, and Ranger. But four classes would have been ideal.
More radically, I would have done away with most of 5E's "class abilities." The designers went overboard with those, giving characters a new super-power every few levels. Keep it simple, I say.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 29, 2024, 07:48:26 AM
The DM will be referred to as the facilitator of player fantasies while players are editors of their own unique stories.
Player: I wanna do the thing.
DM: ok, roll a d20.
Player: I got a 12, what does that mean?
DM: <soul crushing sigh> whatever you want it to mean.
I liked what d20 Modern did with classes. Six. Each based on a core attribute. They should do something closer to that and have subtypes.
Quote from: blackstone on March 29, 2024, 11:36:33 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 29, 2024, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 28, 2024, 09:04:49 PM
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 28, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird. It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players. So it's 5e but it's also not 5e. It's the same but different. It's okay if things go away because they will still be there? What the fuck? Either it goes away or it doesn't go away. Is it 5e again or is it different? If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it? Are they removing things or not? Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?
Because if they told us we'd wouldnt buy it. Perkins has already stated the DMG will practically push storygamer screeds like "The DM is there to serve the players and every player is a DM!" What DM is going to buy a book that tells them they have to be the players slave?
Slave is a banned word at Wizards of the Woke. The DM will be referred to as the facilitator of player fantasies while players are editors of their own unique stories. That is woke speak for slave to to a bunch of narcasisstic wanna-be actors.
The word "Slave" is banned at WoTC?
What the actual fuck?
That's just...stupid.
Oh it gets better. (worse)...
They has a list of "bad" words they intend to get rid of with "really real 5e still!" Ki, fat, witch, think barbarian was on the hitlist too. And at one point they were planning to go through all the old D&D material and censor them.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2024, 03:27:00 PM
That's exactly what I advocated for at the time. My suggestion to Mearls was that there be four core classes, and all kinds of others could be presented as optional classes in the DMG or elsewhere, for the DM to use if he wished to allow.
Or if they had just gone with some classes as subclasses instead. Barbarian, Sorcerer and Warlock.
DND will stay bad until they give us options to decide the power level (and type of power) of our homebrew worlds. Superhuman martials and wimpy casters in one campaign, wimpy martials and superhuman casters in another, or both or neither.
But of course no one at WOTC will do this. They're too stupid.
Quote from: Nakana on March 30, 2024, 12:30:19 AM
I liked what d20 Modern did with classes. Six. Each based on a core attribute. They should do something closer to that and have subtypes.
d20 Modern is a good game. It's actually, legitimately, the first and only good skills-based game derived from D&D. Certainly no BRP/Runequest, I think it's "good enough". And Urban Arcana is one of the better settings inRPG history since Shadowrun, so there's that.
Quote from: Brad on March 31, 2024, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Nakana on March 30, 2024, 12:30:19 AM
I liked what d20 Modern did with classes. Six. Each based on a core attribute. They should do something closer to that and have subtypes.
d20 Modern is a good game. It's actually, legitimately, the first and only good skills-based game derived from D&D. Certainly no BRP/Runequest, I think it's "good enough". And Urban Arcana is one of the better settings inRPG history since Shadowrun, so there's that.
And yet somehow White Wolf botched it with (not) d20m Gamma World.
Polyhedron showed just how versatile d20 and d20m were. Pulp Heroes. Flash Gordon style planet adventures. Cross country car racing. Mystery solving teen bands. WWII. Gundam style mecha. Trapped in VR.
Quote from: Omega on March 31, 2024, 03:27:01 AM
And yet somehow White Wolf botched it with (not) d20m Gamma World.
As a fan of Gamma World since the original edition it is hard to put into words how badly White Wolf's Gamma World was. Everything was wrong, almost as bad as KK Disney Star Wars. Such a disappointment because the author had previously written a great Pulp RPG. The only designer of that era who "got" Gamma World right was Jonathan Tweet in his "Omega World" game he wrote for Polyhedron magazine.
Quote from: Omega on March 31, 2024, 03:27:01 AM
Polyhedron showed just how versatile d20 and d20m were. Pulp Heroes. Flash Gordon style planet adventures. Cross country car racing. Mystery solving teen bands. WWII. Gundam style mecha. Trapped in VR.
True. d20 Modern was excellent, but the design flaws of d20 overwhelmed its potential as a universal RPG that could dethrone GURPS, though I thought they were on the right track. Too bad they abandoned that idea.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 30, 2024, 07:23:18 PM
DND will stay bad until they give us options to decide the power level (and type of power) of our homebrew worlds. Superhuman martials and wimpy casters in one campaign, wimpy martials and superhuman casters in another, or both or neither.
But of course no one at WOTC will do this. They're too stupid.
Why sit around and wait for WOTC to give you something? Run your campaign with rules that fit the style of game you like. I started tweaking 5E almost right out of the gate starting with the resting & healing rules. Published stuff is just framework from which to start. Adjust to taste until you get the game that you want.
This totally not a new edition seems to have a very different theme both mechanically (removing races as a term for example) and visually (class iconics looking like illustrated Harry Potter/D&D hybrid cosplayers)...
Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:34:31 AM
I'm still on the fence with Perkins. On one hand, all of the evidence in front of my face. On the other, this dude has a true and deep love of the game. From being an absolute pest until getting his stuff published as a teenager to DM'g on stage for years and years despite reportedly suffering from crippling anxiety, my current status with CP is...complicated.
I'm taking a wait and see with this one. Although, if I pushed my chips in...my guess is he'll make all the concessions he needs to the overlords and we'll have Soy D&D.
Perkins was never "on the fence" about anyone like us.
And he is not "making concessions" to anyone. He is down for the ride. He is one of the chief instigators of 'Soy D&D'
Because D&D is now being shepherded by two homosexuals:
Chris Perkins Loves the direction of D&D:Quotehttps://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/06/inside-dungeons-dragons-chilling-new-adventure-rime-of-the-frostmaiden/
"..."As people have grown accustomed to seeing in our books, you're going to get to see the art people of all sorts from many different backgrounds," Crawford, himself not just an openly gay man, but a champion for diversity and LGBTQ representation at Wizards, concluded. "And then also in the story, you're going to get to meet people and help people who reflect the wonderful diversity of people in our world."
"One example I love that Chris put in and he basically it was a pleasant, pleasant surprise when I came through [Frostmaiden], is you get to help a scrimshander [someone, typically a sailor, who whittles handicrafts using materials gathered on their voyages] and his husband for one of those as standalone quests," Crawford said. "We now consider this to be a core, non-optional part of our work. And I love that, basically, if you come to one of our adventures, you're going to see a wonderful spectrum of humanity represented there."
Jeremy Crawford on the future of D&D:Quotehttps://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117
In the Dungeons & Dragons adventure Storm King's Thunder, which Crawford helped publish in 2016, three enormous rocks have crushed the Osstra family's farm in the abandoned village of Nightstone, spurring them to flee the town. ... If players choose to rescue Nightstone's villagers, they'll meet the 52-year-old wheat farmer Thelbin Osstra, his husband Brynn, and Brynn's adopted nephew Broland.
"That was a nod specifically to our household," Crawford said of himself, his husband, and his nephew, who lived with them in 2016 when Storm King's Thunder was in development.
Crawford told me that publisher Wizards of the Coast is making D&D more gay, and why that's a great thing.
"Ever since we brought our adventure design fully back in-house," he said, "all of our new adventures contain LGBT characters. This is true of our next adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, and it will be true of our stories after that."
"It's important to many of us personally in the company for the game to acknowledge our existence," Crawford said of publisher Wizards of the Coast, ..."
It literally doesn't matter what
"true and deep love of the game..." they may have; Because they demonstrably love their own faggotry even more.
The Future of D&D?
The Future of D&D is that it will be Fake and Gay.
I actually don't mind the inclusion of homosexual NPCs in the game save for two things:
1. When is the last time you played a game where the spouse of the NPC was relevant or even mentioned at all?
2. When is the last time you played a game where the sexual orientation of an NPC was relevant or even mentioned at all (unless your group plays it where you sleep with them, in which case do whatever)?
The whole "we're going to go out of our way to ensure we have gay representation" even when it's irrelevant is when I start to roll me eyes.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:34:31 AM
I'm still on the fence with Perkins. On one hand, all of the evidence in front of my face. On the other, this dude has a true and deep love of the game. From being an absolute pest until getting his stuff published as a teenager to DM'g on stage for years and years despite reportedly suffering from crippling anxiety, my current status with CP is...complicated.
I'm taking a wait and see with this one. Although, if I pushed my chips in...my guess is he'll make all the concessions he needs to the overlords and we'll have Soy D&D.
Perkins was never "on the fence" about anyone like us.
And he is not "making concessions" to anyone. He is down for the ride. He is one of the chief instigators of 'Soy D&D'
Because D&D is now being shepherded by two homosexuals:
Chris Perkins Loves the direction of D&D:
Quotehttps://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/06/inside-dungeons-dragons-chilling-new-adventure-rime-of-the-frostmaiden/
"..."As people have grown accustomed to seeing in our books, you're going to get to see the art people of all sorts from many different backgrounds," Crawford, himself not just an openly gay man, but a champion for diversity and LGBTQ representation at Wizards, concluded. "And then also in the story, you're going to get to meet people and help people who reflect the wonderful diversity of people in our world."
"One example I love that Chris put in and he basically it was a pleasant, pleasant surprise when I came through [Frostmaiden], is you get to help a scrimshander [someone, typically a sailor, who whittles handicrafts using materials gathered on their voyages] and his husband for one of those as standalone quests," Crawford said. "We now consider this to be a core, non-optional part of our work. And I love that, basically, if you come to one of our adventures, you're going to see a wonderful spectrum of humanity represented there."
Jeremy Crawford on the future of D&D:
Quotehttps://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117
In the Dungeons & Dragons adventure Storm King's Thunder, which Crawford helped publish in 2016, three enormous rocks have crushed the Osstra family's farm in the abandoned village of Nightstone, spurring them to flee the town. ... If players choose to rescue Nightstone's villagers, they'll meet the 52-year-old wheat farmer Thelbin Osstra, his husband Brynn, and Brynn's adopted nephew Broland.
"That was a nod specifically to our household," Crawford said of himself, his husband, and his nephew, who lived with them in 2016 when Storm King's Thunder was in development.
Crawford told me that publisher Wizards of the Coast is making D&D more gay, and why that's a great thing.
"Ever since we brought our adventure design fully back in-house," he said, "all of our new adventures contain LGBT characters. This is true of our next adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, and it will be true of our stories after that."
"It's important to many of us personally in the company for the game to acknowledge our existence," Crawford said of publisher Wizards of the Coast, ..."
It literally doesn't matter what "true and deep love of the game..." they may have; Because they demonstrably love their own faggotry even more.
The Future of D&D?
The Future of D&D is that it will be Fake and Gay.
So you're telling me that they put a chick in it, and made her lame and gay...?
Ah, yes, Rime of the Frostmaiden... the mega adventure where the only confirmed hetero people in the entirety of the Ten Towns encountered in the first roughly 40% of the book we played through were the incestuous couple living in the outskirts of the southern most town bordering on the mountains whose residents don't like outsiders. In other words, inbred xenophobic southern hillbillies living in abject poverty with their mutated children. I don't think that "representation" was on accident given the political stances of the company and its employees.
You find the magic sword you've always wanted, it's intelligent, it grants flying and teleporting and summoning and can shoot a freakin laser 3 times a day...
...but it's racist and homophobic and has tourettes. come on, earn that roleplay xp...
Quote from: RNGm on March 31, 2024, 07:39:48 PM
Ah, yes, Rime of the Frostmaiden... the mega adventure where the only confirmed hetero people in the entirety of the Ten Towns encountered in the first roughly 40% of the book we played through were the incestuous couple living in the outskirts of the southern most town bordering on the mountains whose residents don't like outsiders. In other words, inbred xenophobic southern hillbillies living in abject poverty with their mutated children. I don't think that "representation" was on accident given the political stances of the company and its employees.
There's also stuff like this
"Tali is a neutral good half-elf researcher (scout) who is in Icewind Dale to study how changes in climate alter the nature of the animal wildlife. Tali presents as neither male nor female and requests to be referred to as "they" or by name in conversation."
Why is there a they/them who does the "muh pronouns" thing? No reason. There just is. Would it change anything if you just made this character a woman? No, not at all. Am I going to do the whole pronoun song and dance for what amounts to a quest giver NPC who doesn't matter after you do that one quest? No and fuck WotC for shoe-horning in this bullshit.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 31, 2024, 05:02:42 PM
...
So you're telling me that they put a chick in it, and made her lame and gay...?
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 31, 2024, 10:43:35 PM
There's also stuff like this
"Tali is a neutral good half-elf researcher (scout) who is in Icewind Dale to study how changes in climate alter the nature of the animal wildlife. Tali presents as neither male nor female and requests to be referred to as "they" or by name in conversation."
...
Confirmed.
Greetings!
I had a group encounter an evil Human sorcerer that was gay. The evil sorcerer was tracked down, and brought to the local Baron's castle to face justice. The evil, gay sorcerer was guilty of Blasphemy, Sodomy, Heresy, Murder, Rape, Kidnapping, Worship of the Dark Gods, Human Sacrifice, Black Magic, Treason, and Rebellion. The gay sorcerer was extensively interrogated down in the Baron's shadowy dungeon, and then promptly dragged in chains to the town square.
At High Noon, the evil gay sorcerer was publicly burned at the stake, for all to witness the fierce wages of Darkness and embracing Wickedness.
In any event, homosexual NPC's periodically make an appearance in my campaigns. I suspect, however, that the ways in which homosexual characters appear in my campaigns is very different from how Jeremy Crawford shoves them into every WOTC adventure. Very, very different. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Thor's Nads on March 31, 2024, 03:59:38 AM
As a fan of Gamma World since the original edition it is hard to put into words how badly White Wolf's Gamma World was. Everything was wrong, almost as bad as KK Disney Star Wars. Such a disappointment because the author had previously written a great Pulp RPG. The only designer of that era who "got" Gamma World right was Jonathan Tweet in his "Omega World" game he wrote for Polyhedron magazine.
I was thoroughly unimpressed with Tweets OW, but it was still not the complete botch of 4e D&D GW. "hilarity ensues"
Only in the RPG world could you make substantial textual revisions a few years after the fact, and claim it's not a new edition. What RPG publishers call printings would be equivalent to new editions in some corners of the publishing world.
I don't get the really inconsistent position some of y'all take on queer characters. Apparently, if you make a character non-binary, you should make them a female character because it doesn't matter. But if you take a female character and make them non-binary, suddenly it does matter to you.
Quote from: SHARK on April 01, 2024, 12:52:33 AM
...
At High Noon, the evil gay sorcerer was publicly burned at the stake, for all to witness the fierce wages of Darkness and embracing Wickedness.
...
Once again, SHARK shows us the way.
Quote from: pawsplay on April 01, 2024, 02:32:14 AM
Only in the RPG world could you make substantial textual revisions a few years after the fact, and claim it's not a new edition. What RPG publishers call printings would be equivalent to new editions in some corners of the publishing world.
I don't get the really inconsistent position some of y'all take on queer characters. Apparently, if you make a character non-binary, you should make them a female character because it doesn't matter. But if you take a female character and make them non-binary, suddenly it does matter to you.
Like, that's just your opinion, man.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 03:16:13 PM
The Future of D&D is that it will be Fake and Gay.
That's the present. The future will be worse!
Quote from: Spinachcat on April 02, 2024, 03:34:29 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 03:16:13 PM
The Future of D&D is that it will be Fake and Gay.
That's the present. The future will be worse!
Their future will be bankruptcy and death... so is that worse? Or BETTER? ;D
Quote from: Slipshot762 on March 31, 2024, 08:54:33 PM
You find the magic sword you've always wanted, it's intelligent, it grants flying and teleporting and summoning and can shoot a freakin laser 3 times a day...
...but it's racist and homophobic and has tourettes. come on, earn that roleplay xp...
Reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jm-WwZnvLY
Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 30, 2024, 07:23:18 PM
DND will stay bad until they give us options to decide the power level (and type of power) of our homebrew worlds. Superhuman martials and wimpy casters in one campaign, wimpy martials and superhuman casters in another, or both or neither.
But of course no one at WOTC will do this. They're too stupid.
I actually kind of agree with this. If D&D is going to aspire to be the universal fantasy game, it really needs to be more of a toolkit. The sales pitch has always been that the D&D classes are universal fantasy archetypes you can fit into any setting with at most minor re-flavoring. This has essentially never been true, but it's even less the case with 5e, now that almost every class is defined by very specific powers with all the setting implications those inevitably carry.
Of course doing this would require a ground-up redesign of the system, which at this point is about the only thing that would me interested in a new official edition of D&D. The reason they won't do it is that there are more than enough people out there who are lazy or have limited imaginations, and are happy to accept that every fantasy setting they play in really is just D&D with slight re-skinning. For those people, not having to learn any new rules or class features to change setting is a feature rather than a bug.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM
All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.
Classes are weird.
Another thread got me thinking of Savage Worlds and it's Fantasy Companion (or SW Pathfinder if you prefer). There you build your character. Want to play a monk? Take these Edges. Cleric? Take those. Want to play a hybrid? Choose which parts of both you want and make yourself a Ascetic or a Dervish or whatever. Similar approaches exist in Fantasy Hero and other games with a DIY attitude.
But people like Classes to the point they're iconic to D&D games. "Elven wizard", "halfling thief", "dwarven fighter", "human cleric", you know exactly what I'm talking about. They provide consistency (ideally) and make it easy for new gamers to "jump in" and for new GMs to work around their powersets. If I talk about a 2nd level fighter in any edition of D&D, you know what that character's class abilities are. Compare that to me talking about the barbarian I built in SWADE; you might have some idea of his field of expertise, but no idea what his build is because there is no set build in SWADE. I could make a barbarian in SWADE and send him down the path of shamanism, developing all sorts of spells and such to go with the combat focus he also has. However, this approach also requires players to invest more into systems, understanding why they might want to take X now, Y later, and never bother with Z. (It's a shame SW/SWADE has so many wonky little bits to it.)
Personally, I don't care for Classes any more, but I can see the appeal.
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on April 02, 2024, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM
All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.
Classes are weird.
Another thread got me thinking of Savage Worlds and it's Fantasy Companion (or SW Pathfinder if you prefer). There you build your character. Want to play a monk? Take these Edges. Cleric? Take those. Want to play a hybrid? Choose which parts of both you want and make yourself a Ascetic or a Dervish or whatever. Similar approaches exist in Fantasy Hero and other games with a DIY attitude.
But people like Classes to the point they're iconic to D&D games. "Elven wizard", "halfling thief", "dwarven fighter", "human cleric", you know exactly what I'm talking about. They provide consistency (ideally) and make it easy for new gamers to "jump in" and for new GMs to work around their powersets. If I talk about a 2nd level fighter in any edition of D&D, you know what that character's class abilities are. Compare that to me talking about the barbarian I built in SWADE; you might have some idea of his field of expertise, but no idea what his build is because there is no set build in SWADE. I could make a barbarian in SWADE and send him down the path of shamanism, developing all sorts of spells and such to go with the combat focus he also has. However, this approach also requires players to invest more into systems, understanding why they might want to take X now, Y later, and never bother with Z. (It's a shame SW/SWADE has so many wonky little bits to it.)
Personally, I don't care for Classes any more, but I can see the appeal.
I'm in roughly the same boat. I'm kind of over the standard classes, but I do see a use for the concept. To my mind, the point of a class/profession etc. is to "do what it says on the tin". It's so a player can make the kind of character they want without needing an intimate knowledge of the game system. In simplest terms, it should be that if a player picks "fighter" they can count on the character being pretty good at fighting. I've seen novice players in more open systems think they're making a fighter and accidentally make one that turns out to be bad at fighting. In fairness, that's mostly down to bad system design and presentation, but it's the kind of thing a class system reliably prevents. As a player, I tend to prefer a hybrid approach: broad starting packages or archetypes and then a lot of freedom to customize through character progression.
What I like about classes:
- Quickly tells the player the character types that fit in the world.
- Provides a package of stuff for new characters that speeds up creation.
What I don't like about classes:
- Tracking experience points to gain levels.
- Stuck on a track to only play that class.
Classes are the IKEA furniture of RPGs; prepackaged sets of components used to build a specific concept without having to go find all the parts you'd need to build it yourself and leave you reasonably confident it will provide everything needed to end up with the desired piece, even if there were a few bits in the box you never figured out how to make fit.
As such, they are extremely useful for newer and/or uninspired players (and we're all uninspired some days), but can be annoying for craftsmen with the skill to create something better from raw materials.
The trick is to figure out what works best for your group because there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
Getting the class list down to only three options is a little too much for me. If those are generic, then I'd just as soon the system remove the classes altogether. If they aren't generic, then three isn't covering the setting as well as I'd like--or it's covering some parts of it in a more limited sense. I'm fine with fighter, wizard, cleric (or fighter, wizard, thief even) for a party of dungeon delvers, but when we get out into the larger world, I'd like something akin to druid or bard or along those lines, if not necessarily those exact options.
Plus, don't get me started on false symmetry. The "one class for each attribute" idea is brain-dead design. The whole point of having attributes and classes is so that the mix and match of the two axes will produce some variation from a limited list. If the "melee" guy is just going to buy a lot of Strength for everything and ignore the rest, then it's all just cosmetics.
OTOH, I very much dislike the laundry list of classes that seem to be rather narrow archetypes encoded in specific abilities. Not least because such things tend to leave all kinds of gaps and still manage to overlap in ways that aren't very helpful. I'm not sure whether the WotC wizard/sorcerer thing annoys me more because of the overlap or because it cuts out using a core class slot for something with a more differences. I guess embrace the power of "And"? I can accept it in early D&D and some of the early D&D clones because its organic out of what was wanted at the table, at the time. In such a system, the answer for "druid" doesn't fit my world is to drop the druid in favor of some other simple class that does fit. Once a game is purportedly designed to cover more ground than that organic growth, that reason goes out.
It seems to me that classes work best when they are either a limited list custom fitted as archetypes to mostly cover the setting, OR they are a limited list designed to provide clear character types with recognizable differences. In both cases, it is critical that the list be short enough that a player can absorb the options.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 02, 2024, 12:22:16 PM
I actually kind of agree with this. If D&D is going to aspire to be the universal fantasy game, it really needs to be more of a toolkit. The sales pitch has always been that the D&D classes are universal fantasy archetypes you can fit into any setting with at most minor re-flavoring. This has essentially never been true, but it's even less the case with 5e, now that almost every class is defined by very specific powers with all the setting implications those inevitably carry.
...
This has been the disappointing thing with the spate of 5e "conversions" of other games in the past few years.
Every single one has been a conversion of the other games setting to the 5e core mechanics.
Not once has there been a conversion of the 5e core mechanic to another setting. They are all just 5e D&D in a setting skinsuit.
The Dark Souls RPG actually gave an honest effort, but fell short in other ways.
Quote from: pawsplay on April 01, 2024, 02:32:14 AM
Only in the RPG world could you make substantial textual revisions a few years after the fact, and claim it's not a new edition. What RPG publishers call printings would be equivalent to new editions in some corners of the publishing world.
I don't get the really inconsistent position some of y'all take on queer characters. Apparently, if you make a character non-binary, you should make them a female character because it doesn't matter. But if you take a female character and make them non-binary, suddenly it does matter to you.
I could be wrong but I think the issue is that none of that belongs in the rules. And when it has been put into modules it feels like a lecture and forcing 21st century opinions into a world where it doesn't belong. If
you make a character you'd have to ask the folks at your table what they think because nobody else should care, and you shouldn't care what anybody else thinks about it.
WotC still has PTSD over the feces-haiku that was 4e. They NEVER wanna go back to that shit. EVER. So yeah they will dance and lie all around whatever ONE D&D is suppose to be in order to keep the troops from defecting again.
It's pathetic: they created a version of whatever their game is so fkn bad it split their player base. Paizo's STILL slurppin' that milkshake to this day.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/yv104URDdt3u95MVMj/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9522egyqbas3q7kzxprw6vcallshazqyydw8w141lv2&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Quote from: pawsplay on April 01, 2024, 02:32:14 AM
Only in the RPG world could you make substantial textual revisions a few years after the fact, and claim it's not a new edition. What RPG publishers call printings would be equivalent to new editions in some corners of the publishing world.
Only to morons.
A new printing is not a new "edition" unless it changes things up in a way that is not error fixes.
Quote from: Jaeger on April 01, 2024, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 01, 2024, 12:52:33 AM
...
At High Noon, the evil gay sorcerer was publicly burned at the stake, for all to witness the fierce wages of Darkness and embracing Wickedness.
...
Once again, SHARK shows us the way.
Greetings!
Thanks, my friend! And yes, I am always glad to help! ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Omega on March 28, 2024, 08:58:50 PM
Quote from: S'mon on March 28, 2024, 04:09:51 AM
Perkins is a doofus but I agree with him on number of classes; 1e AD&D got it about right IMO with classes & subclasses.
Then you open up Dragon and its a new class every 5 issues.
AD&D expanded classes slowly, much as 5e did. Fiend Folio and Oriental Adventures, and technically Dragonlance were about the only books to add new races or classes.
That all changed with 2e.
Not really, no. Dragon Magazine options weren't core, and they'd say as much. The only Drmg stuff that got made core were the things Gary cherry picked for Unearthed Arcana. Had there been no need to save TSR from going down the financial toilet in '85 I think those would've been much, much better refined.
But the fan-submission level stuff in Dragon was never ever core classes. Nothing in Drmg was, and they'd flat out tell you so, unless it came from Out On A Limb of From The Sorcerer's Scroll.
If anything 2e speeded up the bloat with garbage like "kits".