I don't measure quality from a business perspective.
That's the thing. 5e is so popular that WotC no longer has to actually produce quality product to sell tons. They have no motivation to do their best work, because they're popular enough that it won't affect the bottom line.
Its focus on combat, how any non combat action is linked to the same proficiency value which is mainly affected by your level (and thus combat power) and, by now, the class and level system itself.
In 5E its impossible to make a character which is good at non combat skills but bad at combat nor is it possible to make an expert for one skill but bad at every other skills.
I think that modular systems like the one from Shadowun, Traveller or DSA are vastly superior to restrictive class/level system like in D&D.
Spend a feat and your one skill will get double the benefit of level it allows you to somewhat specialize... go ahead and put the wrong attribute for combat as your best but which is best for that skill... tadah bad at combat great at a skill. Not as extreme as you mentioned but definitely hinting at it.Its focus on combat, how any non combat action is linked to the same proficiency value which is mainly affected by your level (and thus combat power) and, by now, the class and level system itself.
Their goals were to cleave pretty tight to 5e for balance but they also did many subtle things which could have surprising effects shrug... I just see it as a better starting point. And yes I prefer the more interesting martial types and the abilities for exploration/social interactions. The cleave in Level Up is stronger than in 5e by the way... far less situational. The two weapon fighter actually gets 2 offhand attacks if you have extra attack. In other words a bit of buff for melee combatants.On a side note, I am of the few who do not believe Level up 5e corrected many issues
The single biggest issue is that people are incapable of differentiating their personal preferences from judgements of quality.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a subjective judgement of quality. Most quality judgements are subjective.Well as a lot of discussion in this thread has shown, "quality" always has an at least significant subjective element. In the end, in anything but certain extremely "functional" things, that's almost always true. You have to have a criterion for what you expect something to be to assess it's quality. Otherwise you're stuck either going by popularity or by financial success, and the problems with using those isn't any less than the million subjective taste judgments.
It just also tends to be a thing that the wider a net a game system tries to spread the harder it is to judge what "quality" means.
To put it another way, one person's cash grab crap is another person's ideal situation.
And, honestly? That's where the conversation should end. I don't like it is a perfectly fine thing to say. "I don't like it and I want to change it at my table, how can I do that?" is also a perfectly understandable conversation. "I don't like it, therefore it's poorly designed and needs to be changed for everyone who plays the game" is a conversation that will almost never go well.Yeah, but some of it can't be baked down because its a dislike on a fundamental level to something done.
As an example, I find Advantage/Disadvantage does at least two things I don't find at all attractive. But if someone else doesn't have an issue with either of those and/or considers things A/D brings to the table more than a fair tradeoff, what do we have to talk about regarding it? Not much, far as I can tell.
Don't forget that Gygax cites the Thief influences as being Zelazny's Shadowjack (i.e. Jack of Shadows) and Vance's Cugel.Exactly.
So I wanted to do a short series on some of the history of D&D, and I thought I'd start with a fun and relatively easy one- the original class system, as codified in the AD&D (1e) Player's Handbook of 1978. For those of you unfamiliar with that 1e PHB, it was a...www.enworld.org
The point is ... of the original AD&D classes, only three* were based on any specific antecedent (as opposed to general tropes)-
The Ranger (Strider)
The Paladin (Three Hearts, Three Lions)
The Monk (Remo Williams)
....and none of them were actually very good at capturing the specific antecedent.
*The Cleric was generally based on a Van Helsing idea from Hammer Horror films, but was transmogrified prior to publication with Gygax additions, so it's hard to really determine.