Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase or elaborate?
Little arcane, huh? Yeah, can't help. A day later, I have no idea what I was trying to say. Looks like I was drawing a parallel, not refuting something, but other than that, I don't remember. Good example of why if you are rushed to post something (I do know I had a meeting to go to right after that), it's best to wait and post later rather than confuse yourself.

Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
Might be good to touch base with Rob Conley and see if he's still playing 5E today.
I don't think he ever was going to start playing it regularly, and that wouldn't really be the point. Rob is absolutely happy with the OSR as his primary avenue for gaming. He just noted that, yeah 5e was a fine choice too.

Quote Originally Posted by OverLordOcelot View Post
SAS and Navy SEALs can't last for weeks without water, and there's no training that lets you go for weeks without water intake. Having a high level fighter live for weeks without any water is just silly; it's a goofy result from an ad-hoc ruling, not some clever system that produces better game fiction.
Well, this is going back to the question of what a D&D PC (particularly the martial ones) are supposed to be. Are they realistic humans in a low-resolution reality simulator? Are they characters like folklore Robin Hood? Or more like a cinematic action hero? Or a character from some of the more fanciful folklore like King Arthur or Greek myth where heroes are nominally bound by laws of physics (they can't just fly, for instance), but clearly violate what could physically happen (stay awake for 40 days or the like)? If the later, than live for weeks without water is right in line with (and probably mollifies some of the complaints that, in a game with PC wizards, expecting nonmagical characters to conform to rigid reality is being selectively stringent, or however you want to frame that argument). However, I agree that I don't see it matching game fiction particularly well (since there's no agreement on what that is).

Quote Originally Posted by OverLordOcelot View Post
No, that's not a published rule. That's a vague description of what a particular save generally represents, and the ad-hoc rule you came up with interacts poorly with the fiction and gives downright silly results, like a fighter living for weeks without drinking a drop of water (Which is an absurd result if you know much about dehydration). A published rule is like the clear one on page 185 of the PHB that says clearly what to do and when to do it. The vague mention under constitution states that a DM 'might' call for a constitution check in similar circumstances, but is not actually a contradictory rule. The fact that a DM can decide to handle a specific situation in a different way than the published rule doesn't change the fact that there is a clear, concise rule for how to handle the situation.

This weird argument that 2e is better because you can make weird ad hoc rulings that produce silly results while 5e provides an actual rule you can use, as well as guidance for making an ad hoc ruling if you want to do it differently just doesn't make sense.
5e has both attribute saves and attribute checks (with fairly different interactions with other rules like bardic inspiration), and some of the guidance on when to use which seems pretty bizarre. 5e could have been tightened up on that and I consider it a reasonable critique of the system. 2e, OTOH, has plenty of this as well. Sticking with the enduring physical hardship scenario, there are proficiency checks, death saves, system shock, and resurrection survival %. In many cases, there's more guidance on which to use when (or at least a precedence, as no, it does not say to use death saves for thirst situation). However, I don't feel that the result is universally better in any way. Certainly not in terms of emulating fiction. Example: in the fiction, having a mad wizard (/witch/curse/whatever) turn you into a frog is supposed to be horrible because, well, you're a frog. In 2e, the ruleset makes one of the most horrible part of it being that you have to make two system shock checks (once when you are turned into a frog, and again when changed back) to survive the experience. Another example (this one perhaps unintended): Ghosts have the ability to possess a PC, as if using the magic jar spell. However, there is no jar, and by (a rigorously harsh interpretation of) the rules, that means that when the ghost is ejected from the possessed individual, the PC's soul/spirit has already left for the afterlife. Getting possessed by a ghost, in the fiction, is supposed to be horrible because someone else has taken control of your body, potentially harming your loved ones, and leaving you to explain your (their actions), not because possession is supposed to kill you.