5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[The Heretic]

Multi-classing is for non-humans. Dual-classing is for only Humans. Why? Because reasons.

DP category 2: I have not read Appendix N/Archetypes are not a thing so I don't get this and therefore stupid. Counter 2: So read Appendix N/a book.

Now I'm intrigued. Where do you find this in Appendix N?

 

[squeen]

@PrinceofNothing: I am thankful you picked up this burden in my stead. At times, it does feel as though the return on effort in posting is minimal, and that one is alone in their earnest desire to grow and learn. I am also appreciative of your insights. From you, and other careful reasoners, I have learned much about how to understand (and play) D&D.

@Grützi: Hi back. You encouragement to solider-on in a public space is similarly welcomed.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

@PrinceofNothing I'm not going to counter your points individually - too much work, no real payoff. Also, one thing I've learned about arguing with someone is to realize when they're stuck in so far that you'll never change their mind - this is clearly one of those cases.

I noticed your points waffle between "you don't understand the theme-y style of the game originally and how it ties into the fantastical" and "you should have read through Appendix N". Anything in between seems to be either "whatbout5e?", or some kind of veiled sleight at me personally like "Are your players so dull they cannot remember their actions a round ago?" (Great argument tactic! Boy, am I ever convinced!)

In a nutshell, I've noticed your defense against AD&D rules being both broken and archaic seems to hinge on "they're broken because of fantasy-realism" and "they're not archaic so long as you've read this collection of books from old-timey days". Here's the rub: things like "skill bonuses are depicted as a bell curve, that's why it confuses you" falls under evidence of the system being archaic. Things like "well 5e isn't much better" falls into evidence that the system is broken (also the whatboutism is strong here). Those arguments do not dispel mine, they just deflect them. You are a master deflector.

Your arguments about/against 5e generally prove you are almost totally ignorant of 5th edition. Stuff like "is there no clause for henchmen treatment?" or the fact that you believe flanking is a thing that exists in 5e pretty much goes to show you are basing all your arguments off older editions (likely 3e or 4e). So while you can say "go read Conan the Barbarian/some other Appendix N thing before you post", I can say "go read the actual rules for the system you are denouncing before you post". I think my statement holds a little more impetus.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Now I'm intrigued. Where do you find this in Appendix N?

It is aderivation from DnD's interpretation of demi-humans vs humans, which derives primarily from Appendix N, specifically Broken Sword, Lord of the Rings, the Elf King's Daughter etc. etc.. Demi-humans are archetypal, originally so rigid in nature they were confined to a singular separate class or rather a combination of existing classes. One assumes the multi-classing is meant to provide further variations in what part of their archetypal nature is emphasized. Elves could not originally be resurrected correct, implying they are almost soulless, more akin to spirits? Humans are supposedly full of potential, mutable, the source of their extra skill point and feat in D20 no mere coincidence. It seems fitting that they can change their career and direction, whereas the demi-human remains more static, too confined on destiny's path to change its fundamental nature.

But 5e (and D20 before it) makes barely any difference between men and humanoid, they are stripped of their archetypal roots and eventually there will be nothing to differentiate man from elf but statt bonuses and vague cultural differences, a disillusioning grey banality.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Certainly because of the overwhelming influence of Three Hearts and Three Lions on the concept, I insist that all paladins must be Swedish antifascists who use portals to travel between worlds at the brink of death.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

@PrinceofNothing I'm not going to counter your points individually - too much work, no real payoff. Also, one thing I've learned about arguing with someone is to realize when they're stuck in so far that you'll never change their mind - this is clearly one of those cases.

Dude, this entire thread is you repeating points and people pointing things out to you.

I noticed your points waffle between "you don't understand the theme-y style of the game originally and how it ties into the fantastical" and "you should have read through Appendix N". Anything in between seems to be either "whatbout5e?", or some kind of veiled sleight at me personally like "Are your players so dull they cannot remember their actions a round ago?" (Great argument tactic! Boy, am I ever convinced!)

This is because all your criticism can be boiled down to several essential gripes. This is what I recommended you do in the first place. The whatabout5e is a vain attempt to illustrate that your line of argumentation can easily be applied elsewhere to the same effect. I cannot fathom why you would dish it out by calling people old folks or their preferences rigid but the moment you get a whiff of the same treatment you yelp and retreat with your tail between your legs.

In a nutshell, I've noticed your defense against AD&D rules being both broken and archaic seems to hinge on "they're broken because of fantasy-realism" and "they're not archaic so long as you've read this collection of books from old-timey days". Here's the rub: things like "skill bonuses are depicted as a bell curve, that's why it confuses you" falls under evidence of the system being archaic. Things like "well 5e isn't much better" falls into evidence that the system is broken (also the whatboutism is strong here). Those arguments do not dispel mine, they just deflect them. You are a master deflector.

First of all, let us begin by pointing out that nowhere in your laundry list have you demonstrated anything is broken. You have demonstrated things you don't like because they are supposedly archaic and contain too many modifiers, and I have pointed out that those extra modifiers add a depth that is not present in simpler systems. I have pointed out that you state things are arbitrary while they are very much not. I have addressed your points, yet you refuse to defend any of them with anything but vague generalities.

Here's the rub: I don't think you know how to argue a point, and you take it personally when someone points this out to you. If you knew how to argue you would understand that you not understanding the logic behind a system even though it is explained in that very same treatise does not make it 'arbitrary for no reason' nor does it make it archaic by any definition of the word. 'whataboutism about 5e' even if true, which it is not, is still not evidence of a rule being broken, which, again, you would know if you could argue a point. You will also note that every time I whaddabouted you I pointed out why your argument was faulty in the first place, and that I actually conceded on several points, because you are right, those things are old fashioned and a waste of space.

As for me being ignorant of 5e, don't readily assume. I played 5e for quite some sessions and I have a working knowledge of the basics. If flanking isn't a thing, who cares? There's a condition dependent Sneak Attack, there's Blanket Advantage, there's plenty of arbitrary things I can take issue with, elegant though the system certainly is. The fact that you are grasping at straws in order to disqualify what is a perfectly valid set of counter-arguments, only tangentially involving 5e (Indeed, even if i were ignorant of 5e in its entirety they would still hold up) is yet more indication that you just can't admit a bad position when you take it.

I change my mind pretty often; on adventures, on politics, on games. It's fine to do so. I don't get the dogged adherence to an untenable position. Adjust accordingly and soldier on, no biggy.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Certainly because of the overwhelming influence of Three Hearts and Three Lions on the concept, I insist that all paladins must be Swedish antifascists who use portals to travel between worlds at the brink of death.

Fucccckkk an Eternal Champion derived Paladin class that could only come from WW2 era Northern Europe would be so fucking awesome.

 

[squeen]

Certainly because of the overwhelming influence of Three Hearts and Three Lions on the concept, I insist that all paladins must be Swedish antifascists who use portals to travel between worlds at the brink of death.

For most of the PC paladins I have seen in D&D...that would be a BIG improvement.

@DP: Your role as provocateur is invaluable (here) to initiating discussions, but you unwillingness to concede even the tiniest scrap of intellectual ground is detrimental to collective learning. The topic of this thread is "Why 5e doesn't suck." I argue that "doesn't suck" is a much higher standard to prove than "is broken". The first is a matter of personal preference, that latter just says it's internally consistent (functional).

In most of your points (and I don't have time to address them individually as Prince did), speak to "this is dumb or not fun". As Prince said, much of that is based on your dislike for a complex game. A Gaussian distribution (or bell curve) is definately harder for the human brain (all human brains) than a linear one. We like lines. We can't extrapolate much else.

Please just acknowledge that WotC looked at 4e and said to themselves somethng like: "This has gotten too complex. We need to simplify it. Our best selling edition of D&D was the Original Basic Set. Let's shoot for something easy to learn and run like that." It's OK to like Holmes Basic D&D. It's OK to like OD&D/Swords&Wizardry. It even OK to like 5e --- BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLE. Simple can be beautiful.

Similarly, it also OK to want a bit more complexity. Especially, if you and your players are ready to handle it. That's where I am right now. I want a bit more---but I need to put in the hard work to master it. That's what the Me and the DMG thread is suppose to be about---the discovery process---mentally connecting those pieces and understand where they fit in the whole. To my current thinking, without the full set of 1e parts --- you do get a broken system. But with all the pieces intact: EUREKA, IT WORKS! (Thank you EOTB and others at K&KA.)

A quick summary of this thread so far from my perspective::

• 1e is not broken. You may not like it's aesthetic or it's math, but it's proven to be functional and resilient. Suck != Broken.
• 5e is simpler than AD&D. That's OK. Other systems are too.
• Personally, my biggest dislike of 5e (and why I wouldn't play it) is that it caters too much to the players---success comes too easy. My one big take-away from years as a player is that only hard-won victory tastes sweet (or maintains my interest). I am trying to pass that lesson along to the next generation. The whole "everyone can be a Paladin/Ranger/Bard or special-race without limits" is a perfect example of my dislike of the 5e "everyone's a winner" aesthetic. Adding +2 to your ability attributes every 4 levels is another. Magic-users not being one-shot push-overs at 1st level is third. Ubiquitous darkvision is a 4th. Healing surges a 5th. etc. == Not my idea of fun.

One point I feel compelled to touch on is the "gender limits" as being archaic. The fact that there is an on-average discrepancy between the strength of the two sexes is precisely why men and women do not complete directly in professional sports. Sure, there are always going to be the "Billy Jean King beats Bobby Riggs" counter-examples, but the "on average" part still holds true. It may be archaic (today) to point this out in a fantasy game, because of the social climate, but AD&D is not "broken" for thinking it was correct to reflect it. Furthermore, there are some women (my wife being one) who will take exception to anyone trying to white-wash away this or other real differences in the sexes. But, hey, if in your fantasy world this difference doesn't exit---that's a perfectly legitimate "house rule". Removing it (unlike race-limits) certainly has zero in-game consequence, and, in that respect, could have easily been left out of 1e.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Addressing points one by one now because apparently I need to...

You assume standard ability score generation, not one of the half-dozen alternate methods of ability score generation but that is acceptable. You also ignore 1e's adminition that it is 'usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above)' (PHB p.9) so this mediocre scenario is much less likely then you make it out to be.

Yes, I assume the standard rules-as-written ability score generation, because I am reading directly from the rules (as written). I could argue each of the tangential rules and variants and all that jazz, but I am criticizing the RAW system, so I am quoting the RAW system. As to the second part, if your rules need a stipulation that something is "usually essential", that's poor design (and not just for the blatant oxymoron of "usually essential"). Give the stats a baseline minimum if there is one required for play. Category: I'd consider this "Broken".

The whole point of these classes is that they are meant to be fairly rare, professions for exceptional men, and the ability requirement rules enforce this rarity so the GM doesn't have to step in when the party is composed entirely of paladins and gnome illusionist, much less when the GM conceives of a nation where all fighting men are paladins. They are meant to enforce a sort of fantasy realism for both player and GM. The very idea of the paladin is one of exceptionalism, and with good reason. A holy warrior imbued with supernatural gifts by the forces of good should be much rarer then a fighting man under the assumptions the fantasy system is based on. Contrast this with 5e, where no rules-based argument may be formulated for the frequency of Fighters over Paladins, Barbarians over Monks etc. etc.

Forgive me for assuming that the players might like to play the game. The adherence to Fantasy-realism goes off table the second you read the word "Dragons" in "Dungeons & Dragons". So flying lizards that breathe fire and transform their shape is fine, but a whole group of paladins working together is not? The fact that a holy warrior is super rare, yet clerics who are granted miraculous powers by an actual, provably-extant deity are a normal everyday thing is nonsensical, and doesn't really serve as evidence of a strict adherence to fantasy-realism. I get that many classes are derived from Appendix N works (Rangers from LOTR and whatnot), but their origin was phased out in later iterations... why? Because they are irrelevant. We aren't playing Lord of the Rings simulator. We aren't playing Three Hearts Three Lions simulator. We are playing D&D; a standalone, self-contained game. The fact that every later edition migrated away from these concepts is evidence that the old vestigial Appendix N stuff should not have been feeding directly into the rules, but rather just inspiring plot ideas and themes.
Category: Archaic.

It is curious, in your line of argumentation, everything, even seemingly complex things, seem so very straightforward or otherwise entirely arbitrary. Perhaps it is because of your dizzying intellect, piercing through mists of obfuscation? In general I will wholly admit a straightforward d20 + ability score mod versus a DC is more intuitive, and is also the reason I prefer Basic DnD. In defence of AD&D; These percentages are so wildly different because the chance of success should realistically be wildly disproportionate depending on one's strength score, and the increase in success chance is not a linear +5% with each two points of Strength as in 5e, but follows a more realistic bell curve distribution (i.e. the same door is not 25% more likely to be broken open by a man with 20 str then a man with 10 str). The exceptional strength, while certainly unwieldy compared to the simple model of 5e and basic, is designed along similar lines. The idea of the system is to simulate, for fighters, characters of exceptional strength at the edge of the bell-curve without relegating them to the domain of superhuman ability (hill giant strength).

Ignoring the jab at my intellect (thanks, by the way!), if you want to argue exceptional strength scores are that way to capture disproportionate stats, then why only Strength? What about the otherworldly creatures with such immense force of personality that they have CHA scores of 18/XX? What about creatures so swift that to them the world looks to be in slow motion - where is their DEX 18/XX? The line is totally arbitrary, that's why they nixed it as soon as a newer edition came along. It wasn't added to "capture disproportion" - it was added because some guy after the fact said "gee, so the super strong monster is already at Strength 18, but what if some bigger, stronger monster came along?". As for a realistic bell-curve distribution: fair point, but still not user friendly.
Category: Archaic, probably also broken by virtue of creating a STR bias where one does not exist in other stats.

First of all, in order for it to be sexist it has to be based on prejudice, not reality, no matter what your college professors tell you. Female upper body strength is statistically much lower. Since most adventurers were considered exceptional individuals anyway, this rule was later dropped, probably with good reason. I'll fully agree its antiquated because it doesn't reflect actual play

So, someone can gesture their hands to make another person explode with magic energy, yet adherence to females being weaker is where we draw a realism line. I want to know why - the only reason I can come up with is sexism, but any other explanation would be appreciated.
Category: Archaic.

Again, just because you cannot find a pattern does not mean no such logic exists. Clearly removing traps is considered a more complex task and therefore only 18 dex gives +5%, while it also gives a +10% to lock picking. Are you starting to see a pattern? Can you infer what bonus 19 dex would give? It is almost as if there were some sort of...distribution, some sort of...curve? that is being modelled for some reason. You can say its less streamlined or harder to use but it is more realistic. That's the central tradeoff that is being considered.

Oh I saw the pattern immediately, but it doesn't mean that it's the best approach. If people could infer what a 19 DEX score would give to their lock pick bonus, there wouldn't be a need for tables - you could remember these bonuses using a formula. But there is no formula, there are only tables. Tables are clunky. Tables slow down play. Tables mean you can't play without reference materials on-hand. Now you can say "then this isn't the game for you DP", but honestly, that kind of bookkeeping and information hunting makes it "not the game" for most people, which is why TSR/WotC ditched tables as much as they could in later editions. I get that the game had realistic roots from historical wargaming, but we aren't playing with roots... we are playing a different, more self-contained game. These bell curves and stat distributions - this is all vestigial stuff that was cut out in later editions for good reason. I don't say this from a position of "simple = better"; I say it from a position of "pointless = bad".
Category: Archaic.

Argument against the layout, not the substance. You can argue that 1e is poorly laid out, I think few will disagree with you.

Category: Broken. The rulebook is the nexus of the game - if it can't be navigated properly, that will ripple into play, manifesting as lost time, missed rulings, and a needlessly steep learning curve. While my initial point may have been about one specific rule listed, consider it an indictment of the entire system based on sloppy core technical writing.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Where do you think halflings and dwarves come from DP? Have you heard of something called an Archetype? Do you think a race of stone age bird people living on mountain crags and worshipping the spirits of their ancestors should have the equivalent of a christian crusader class? Your demand for no restrictions actually makes the game much more arbitrary and races and classes less meaningful.

Again, restrictions meant to simulate a certain fantasy milieu and its underlying assumptions. One might argue it explains why all the greatest practitioners in the world are not held by longer-lived demi-humans. You also omit the possibility of multi-classing for demi-humans, which increases this longevity well into the higher reaches of a DnD campaign. A molehill is turned into a mountain range.

These two points are comparable, so I have the same retort for both.

Here's the thing - the PHB is not a Setting book. Those types of things - which races can be which classes, whether or not dwarves have paladins in their society, etc - are Setting-dependent. If I were playing a game set in medieval France, there wouldn't be halflings and elves, would there? Because that shit is setting-dependent! If my elf village has paladins, then there would be paladins. But here's how rules work: they set a framework for how the game plays, and an adherence that must be maintained throughout the course of the game for the sake of balanced consistency. If you've stated explicitly that halflings cannot be clerics, you are thereafter nixing any future possibility of a player using a halfling cleric, because the rules for it just don't exist - you ban it by omission. But since the setting dictates what does or doesn't exist in the play world, then the rules are overriding the setting by virtue of their non-adherence. By pigeonholing races and classes with specific requirements and prohibitions, the game is stomping over whatever setting nuances the DM may have had wanted to use. I get that AD&D was designed with Greyhawk in mind, and so is reflective of the race/class situations in Greyhawk, but that's hardly a reason to keep up with the tradition. I doubt everyone playing AD&D is playing in Greyhawk. Newer editions give you all the rules for all the situations because it understands that the system doesn't dictate the setting, and DMs are better off cutting out what they don't want in their game rather than trying to invent rules for what they do want in their game.
Category: Archaic and broken.

Do you understand there is always a trade-off between usability and complexity/realism? All your argumentation is based on simplicity and ease of use, which is fine, but then you don't get to complain when people write you off as a filthy casual or call your edition a baby's edition right? Why is a separate category for magical devices versus the personalized spellcasting done by spellcasters a problem? You can use different saving throw progressions to fine-tune the effectiveness of some classes versus enemy spellcasters in this fashion. Under the current ruleset the resistance is explicitly tied to a Dwarf's natural hardiness, under Advantage this is A) not the case and B) is much more powerful.

Whatboutism aside, you bring a compelling point, but my major point here is that it sounds like you're arguing that things are complicated because they just are, and maybe in some very specific circumstances people might take advantage of that to tweak their class effectiveness (which is not a raison-d'etre for the complexity, but rather a silver lining deliberately dug out specifically in attempt to counter my point about needless complexity). I get it - "if you don't like complex, play a simple version"... an easy dismissal, but not one that demonstrates why the complexity is a good thing. FYI I pointed out the little caveats and stuff because I was demonstrating needless complexity inherent in the system. Yes, there is a very specific instance where maybe saving better vs. rods/staff/wands comes into play than just a blanket bonus against magic, but does it really enhance the game so much that we need to burden every player with remembering these rules?
Category: Broken, or I should say "vulnerable to breaking because overly complicated".

If this feels tiresome it is only because the counter-argument has been repeated to you so often one would think it is imprinted on your optic nerve by now. AD&D has a much firmer idea of the type of fantasy it is trying to be (poorly articulated though it may be) and its rules reflect that at the cost of simplicity.

It takes two people to communicate: one to speak, and one to listen. If the speaker can't articulate what it is they're trying to communicate, no amount of maneuvering by the listener will fix it. You claim the counter-argument is brought up again and again, but I claim that I have yet to see a compelling reason supporting AD&D beyond "we like the feel of it". If I just say "because" over and over again to you, am I really repeating the counter argument? If you can oblige with something objective instead of subjective, I'm all ears.

 

[squeen]

The two cases you cite as "broken" are low-ability scores prevent being any class your want, and level-limits prevent being any race you want to any level.

Again: you can legitimately say "sucks", but not "broken". You can play the game as written just fine with a human that's one of the non "powered up" classes. If fact, I'm pretty close to house-ruling both of those because I'm starting to think it may actually help the short-sighted player ("oooouuu! special!") have more fun.
Category: NOT BROKEN.

Similarly, I think the PHB & MM are both very well laid out. As evidence: how many times they've been copied.
DMG...err...not so much. Yeah, broken (in layout only).
In defense, I don't think I've seen a DMG that's really any good. It's a hard craft to learn.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Similarly, I think the PHB is very well laid out. As evidence: how many times it's been copied.

Cool, do me a favor and give me a quick ruling on a grapple between a 7th-level Gnome Fighter with 18/75 STR, and a Type III Demon...

If you took any action beyond "wait, Gnome Fighters can't go beyond level 6!", you've already reinforced my earlier points.

 

[squeen]

Cool, do me a favor and give me a quick ruling on a grapple between a 7th level Fighter with 18/75 STR, and a Type III Demon...

That's in the DMG, not PHB (as it should be---and I do know where to find it.).

EDIT: And...ad nausium...quick = easy, not broken.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

That's in the DMG, not PHB (as it should be---and I do know where to find it.).

So your "quick" ruling is limited to "let me check a different book, but not the one the players (who are doing the grappling) will be able to reference"... Got it.

EDIT: Got it, you take offense to my use of the word "broken". Feel free to do a Find/Replace on my posts; replace the term "broken" with "needlessly convoluted and annoying".

 

[squeen]

So your "quick" ruling is limited to "let me check a different book, but not the one the players (who are doing the grappling) will be able to reference"... Got it.

Is this to the point or just snarkasm? Whatever...
I posted in the Illusions thread my preference for the DM to manage detailed mechanics vs. players. That's me. That's my experience.

Either way: quick/easy does not equal broken. (rise. repeat). Just admit 1e is not broken and we are good. 5e can get the "easier" award without push-back from me. End of discussion. We can then move on to "sucks".

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I use the term "broken" because these things were "fixed" in later editions.

If you want a hard example of "broken" though, I defer you to PHB Appendix 1: Psionics

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Yes, I assume the standard rules-as-written ability score generation, because I am reading directly from the rules (as written). I could argue each of the tangential rules and variants and all that jazz, but I am criticizing the RAW system, so I am quoting the RAW system. As to the second part, if your rules need a stipulation that something is "usually essential", that's poor design (and not just for the blatant oxymoron of "usually essential"). Give the stats a baseline minimum if there is one required for play. Category: I'd consider this "Broken"

Actually, some sort of sub-clause where if you have zero exceptional ability scores you are assigned one would prevent these types of rerolls, so you could argue the system could use fine-tuning if it is truly essential, but even then you cannot state this is a broken system, for the simple reason that even under this RAW system there is nothing preventing you from running a character with less then ideal ability scores, it merely indicates the general survivability. This is, however, a peripheral point, since your initial gripe was that you cannot play all classes always. Or is your argument that because the character generation system does not 100% generate a suitable character it is fundamentally broken?

Forgive me for assuming that the players might like to play the game. The adherence to Fantasy-realism goes off table the second you read the word "Dragons" in "Dungeons & Dragons". So flying lizards that breathe fire and transform their shape is fine, but a whole group of paladins working together is not? The fact that a holy warrior is super rare, yet clerics who are granted miraculous powers by an actual, provably-extant deity are a normal everyday thing is nonsensical, and doesn't really serve as evidence of a strict adherence to fantasy-realism. I get that many classes are derived from Appendix N works (Rangers from LOTR and whatnot), but their origin was phased out in later iterations... why? Because they are irrelevant. We aren't playing Lord of the Rings simulator. We aren't playing Three Hearts Three Lions simulator. We are playing D&D; a standalone, self-contained game. The fact that every later edition migrated away from these concepts is evidence that the old vestigial Appendix N stuff should not have been feeding directly into the rules, but rather just inspiring plot ideas and themes.
Category: Archaic.

You have broken up your initial point into three points, one of them improperly categorized, one irrelevant, the other invalid. You are committing an age old fallacy, that because there is fantasy therefore all semblance of realism must be thrown out the door and any sort of restriction on the frequency of exceptional heroes must also be done away with and anything goes. This point only works if you assume that there is no such thing as an immersive component to roleplaying games that could be served by having such mechanisms, that there are no degrees of realism, and that anything goes and therefore this system can have no justifiable basis. Since there are clearly people that get immersed in their characters, and some people clearly crave some baseline of versimilitude, this argument is faulty and you are wrong.

You then follow up by stating that because other editions migrated away from appendix N by taking in other influences that this is somehow beneficial but you have not demonstrated that this is the case at all. 4e was the farthest from the roots of Dnd and it clearly split the hobby in half, thus the nature of the game cannot be arbitrarily shifted. You then compound this error in logic with a second erroneous statement, that DnD is a self-contained game. You could not be more wrong. DnD is immediately recognizable and playable where other, more self-contained games are not BECAUSE so many of its concepts are borrowed from the collective fantasy consciousness. Do you think it came up with medusas, elves, dwarves, dragons, paladins? Why do you think people recognize those things without having read the monstrous manual? In fact, you will find there is an Appendix N, largely unchanged, in 5e asswell so the creators clearly thought it important. Its just that 5e players are functionally illiterate.

EDIT: In fact, one could argue, based on the recent shift TOWARDS a more prominent Appendix 'E' versus nary a headnod to its source material from 4e that the evolution is TOWARDS a firm fantasy foundation, not away from it.

Ignoring the jab at my intellect (thanks, by the way!), if you want to argue exceptional strength scores are that way to capture disproportionate stats, then why only Strength? What about the otherworldly creatures with such immense force of personality that they have CHA scores of 18/XX? What about creatures so swift that to them the world looks to be in slow motion - where is their DEX 18/XX? The line is totally arbitrary, that's why they nixed it as soon as a newer edition came along. It wasn't added to "capture disproportion" - it was added because some guy after the fact said "gee, so the super strong monster is already at Strength 18, but what if some bigger, stronger monster came along?". As for a realistic bell-curve distribution: fair point, but still not user friendly.
Category: Archaic, probably also broken by virtue of creating a STR bias where one does not exist in other stats.

First of all, your statement r.e. nixing it is inaccurate, they kept exceptional strength for 2e and only revised it with 3e, keeping it for almost 2 decades. If I were to hazard a guess I would say that strength was given an extra dimension to give more depth and playability to the fighter, and while there have been attempts to broaden all ability scores (with Dark Sun I think, though they just used an expanded decimal system) my guess would be that the practice was not adopted because it did not add overmuch. Your statement r.e. str bias is simply wrong, Dex has been the best statt for decades (and still is). You can decry that there is no such mechanism for other statts but I would argue why it is needed for other statts?

So, someone can gesture their hands to make another person explode with magic energy, yet adherence to females being weaker is where we draw a realism line. I want to know why - the only reason I can come up with is sexism, but any other explanation would be appreciated.
Category: Archaic.

This is because you judge easily and do not question your conclusions, assuming all others are foolish for not having reached the same. If everyone was born as a 300 foot tall helium-breathing spider baby before morphing into a human at their 19th birthday and then every villager in every village would have the exact same statts (18 in everything), what would your response be? What if daggers did d100 and two-handed swords did 1d2? This is a tired point, easily refuted.

Oh I saw the pattern {etc. etc}

Sorry for snipping your point old son, but you aren't saying anything new. Tables are no longer used, says you, this is the future. They said that with 4e, and they rolled back a lot of 4e. It's a fallacious argument, and as I already pointed out it can be boiled down to your preference for simpler, more intuitive systems. This is fine (I like simple systems too), but until you can address my point that this is a matter of preference, not an indication that one is broken whereas the other is hale, you aren't proving much.

Category: Broken. The rulebook is the nexus of the game - if it can't be navigated properly, that will ripple into play, manifesting as lost time, missed rulings, and a needlessly steep learning curve. While my initial point may have been about one specific rule listed, consider it an indictment of the entire system based on sloppy core technical writing.

No you are shifting your goalposts. Your point was about the rules and system as written, not the technical writing. No one is going to argue that PHB could use an edit. If you want to have a discussion about that you won't get it from me. It is also not Broken because if pointed out there are no barriers to implementation.

Part I.

 

[squeen]

I use the term "broken" because these things were "fixed" in later editions.

Simplified to my mind. Streamlined to yours. OK. But (can we agree at long last?) AD&D is tricky to master, but not broken.

If you want a hard example of "broken" though, I defer you to PHB Appendix 1: Psionics

Ouch. I'll admit, I've never played with them (as written) and leave them out of my own campaign. However, others such as Huso claim they are entirely usable as written. Again, the "not easy" bin (I think).

But heck!...what a great name to have brought into the vernacular! Mind powers were all the rage in SciFi and Horror back in the 70's. Uri Gellar. New age mysticism and all that. An understandable stumble, best treated as "optional".

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

AD&D 1e and Runequest are two works motivated by two radically different design philosophies that occur near the start of the hobby. Aspects of Runequest's design philosophy have become the norm in the field, while AD&D 1e's have not. In particular, Runequest's strong emphasis on parsimony and uniformity of mechanics have influenced even D&D from 3.0 onwards, as well as many other popular RPGs.

Looking at AD&D 1e through the lens of a Runequest-derived design philosophy (and I will admit that I love RQ-derivatives and my own design preferences are shaped by its legacy), it's always going to come across as needlessly complex because it does not value parsimony and uniformity in the same way that RQ does. I think one outstanding challenge for fans of AD&D 1e would be to try to characterise the essence of the design philosophy in a way that sets it off from RQ-derivatives usefully.

Gygax's introduction to the DMG does this a bit, but I think it actually mischaracterized its own design philosophy in some important respects. This is probably because the book's contents are as much a curation and standardisation of rules people in the midwestern groups were using as it is an expression of Gygax's own preferences, whereas the introduction is wholly his. So a faithful or at least reasonable reconstruction of the curatorial principles and rationalizations applied would be a good start IMHO to characterising AD&D 1e's design philosophy and then evaluating whether rules fulfill those values or not.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

For example, my impression of the design philosophy / curatorial philosophy behind the rules systems is that Gygax felt that complex, drawn-out operations by the referee were bad (he says so in the introduction) but also felt that they were less bad than endless variations across groups. So he prioritised uniformity over parsimony while reasoning that people would simply disregard (outside of tournaments) anything they found too convoluted in their home games (just as he did, in practice).