#5e is imo only streamlined compared to 3e

[imsobadatnicknames2]

That's... Not really true tho. Or, well, it's true but only if the older editions you're taking as your comparison point only go as far back as 3e/3.5e, which WAS very rules-heavy, bc otherwise there were several older editions that were significantly lighter on mechanics compared to modern D&D.

I have a bit of a reputation for being a D&D hater on here, but I'm actually a big fan of the Basic D&D line from the 80's, and particularly the B/X D&D set from 1981, which I consider to be significantly more streamlined in terms of mechanics compared to 5e. The whole set is barely 1/4 of the length of the 5e core rulebook set, character creation is short and sweet compared to modern editions, initiative in combat is rolled by sides rather than by each character, which significantly streamlines combat, useless annoying mechanics like spell components are nowhere to be seen...

It does have a couple of weird old-school quirks that might seem a little bit clunky in hindsight, like how AC basically works backwards (higher AC makes you easier to hit, lower AC makes you harder to hit), and there are some mechanics that haven't aged quite that well (like how it streamlined character creation by making nonhuman races into classes), but overall mechanics-wise it's a much shorter, simpler, and more accessible ruleset compared to 5e, and basically the only edition of D&D I play regularly. Plus, Basic Fantasy is a very good retroclone of it that has basically the exact same mechanics but getting rid of the weird quirks I mentioned, such as Race-as-class and descending AC (and it's also completely free)

Wait, are you saying that homebrewing is bad?

much like modding, it's not bad and can be good and wonderful -- but if you need to do it for the game to be fun or functional then the game is bad

[imsobadatnicknames2]

I'm sorry but... you said it yourself, D&D is as rules-light as it gets FOR A RULES-HEAVY GAME. That style of game is not representative of the hobby as a whole and comparing D&D only to high-crunch games like Pathfinder or The Dark Eye feels disingenuous when some D&D fans will still claim that D&D is "more accessible" even when what you're pitching them is a 30-page long RPG with 2-minute character creation, and THAT'S when I take issue with the "it's more accessible" argument, not when they say it about Pathfinder or Shadowrun or whatever.

Also I kinda take issue with the "if you have played an older edition" line because I have and 5e only counts as the most streamlined D&D edition to date if you ignore everything outside of the Advanced D&D line (AD&D 1e > AD&D 2e > 3e > 3.5e > 4e > 5e). The discontinued Basic D&D line from the 80's (Holmes Basic > B/X set > BECMI set > D&D Rules Cyclopedia) IMO does a much better job of being a stripped down, simplified version of D&D at the cost of mechanical variety in character creation. B/X in particular (which would be my favorite D&D edition if it wasn't for the Race-as-Class thing) is like 1/8th of the length of the 5e core rulebooks, has much simpler character creation, and nowadays even if you don't want to pirate it, it's officially available for like $10. The only reason why it's not considered 100x more accessible than 5e is still because of community size, everyone and their mother is playing 5e while the only people still playing B/X are weirdos like me lol.

The thing about D&D being The Most Accesible TTRPG is that most of the ways in which D&D IS accesible are more due to having a large community, numerous third-party tools, and sheer force of cultural osmosis rather than due to anything about the actual design, mechanics, or contents of the system, but there's still a lot of people who act like accesibility is an inherent feature of D&D.