Ranting, just ranting.

[Zombimode]

Ok, I'm not saying that you're wrong.
Instead I try to offer new ways of framing actions either within the rules interface or the context of game.

Because sometimes you just can't make sense of a particular rule or you just don't know how to model an action within the rules. A change of perspective can help sometimes: a different interpretation of a rule interaction, or a different approach of modeling an action within the rules.

In other cases thinking not only in terms of what is fitting to the genre but also in terms of what is fitting for the actual activity. You know, sitting down with friends and playing the game.

Smaug was killed by a skilled archer with his lucky arrow.

What exactly do you want to be possible?
That a dragon could be killed by a single arrow? How likely it should be? Should it be possible for everyone or just select individuals?

If your point of reference is a static narration (like a movie or a book) you get no information about possibility outside the context of the scene and no information whatsoever about probability.
The only thing you know is that is was possible for in that specific situation with that specific actors.

For D&D 3.5 it is possible to recreate the scene with Smaug and Bard (basic principle: get to <=50 damage with one attack, probably thanks to a crit, and then Smaug failing the Fort save vs. massive damage (always a 5% chance).)

If you stabbed Conan in the heart he'd die.

First, this statement is not quite correct. If you stabbed Conan in the heart it is very likely that he'd die.
See the difference? There can be any number of possible reasons why he wouldn't die in any specific situation. "Possible" doesn't mean "likely", but opening your mind to more outcomes than the one you see as most likely will increase your acceptance to more rules-inducted outcomes.

Second, your statement implies that you think in the ruleset you are ranting against Conan getting stabbed in the heart wouldn't result in his death. But be critical: is that actually correct? Maybe you just have not found the correct way of representing "Conan getting stabbed in the heart" within the rules.

Most rule system employ several layers of abstractions. Thus Conan getting hit by a spear can mean a whole lot of things and only one meaning would be "Conan is getting stabbed in the heart by a spear".

Again using D&D 3.5 one way modeling "Conan gettig stabbed in the heart" is a coup-de-grace for which Conans death is a very likely outcome.

Clerics should only get spells appropriate to their deity's sphere of influence.

Depends on your worldbuilding. If your world requires that the servants of the gods have only access to powers closely related to the gods portfolio houserule the cleric class or use a different class.

People who are 1hp away from possibly bleeding out shouldn't be able to leap chasms.

HP totals usually don't have a set meaning.

If you're a warlock and you aren't actively advancing the cause of your patron there should be some freaking consequences.

That is a thing between player and GM, right? If not what do you expect from the rules?

Magic should be powerful and hard and pretty damn rare and not a matter of going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat.

That is dependent on the setting and aesthetics.

For D&D 3.5 magic is definitely powerful and is exactly as rare as the GM makes it.

Now, regarding the second part of your statement of magic "going pew, pew, pew every freaking round of combat". You seem to be annoyed by that, but have you considered the alternative? Do you want wizard players not doing anything round after round? Don't you think that a player creating an explicit "wizard" character actually wants to cast spells round after round?

Don't forget that you're sitting together with other people and everyone wants to have fun.

Death spirals are real.

Sure. A lot of things are real. Being "real" is not a good reason by itself to include it in a game.
It's a design choice and a matter of preference.

Games featuring a death spiral are not inherently "better" or even "more realistic". They are just different.

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Armor works, which is why people wore it.

The implication being that armor doesn't work in the rule system you're ranting about.

Armor, like most thing related to combat, is a complex thing. Different systems have different approaches on how to model armor. Some are more sophisticated than others. That armor is actually "useless" is something that I have not seen in game so far.
What makes you feel that armor doesn't work?

For D&D 3.5 armor definitely works and is used by both PCs and NPCs because it works.

Armor needs more maintenance than a Harley-Davidson built the Monday after the plant-wide drinking contest.
Logistics are both incredibly boring and the cornerstone of any sort of exploration or long journey.

And you have provided the answer to why equipment maintenance is usually handwaved or ignored completely in most games: it is incredibly boring.

Gold is rare, people trade in silver.

Setting dependent. You can have it be like this in your setting.

Frodo spent two freaking months recovering from his wounds (and never did fully recover).

Bad example as people have already pointed out.
But lets not get hung up on the example. So you want wounds taking long(er) to heal. Have you considered what this would mean in a game?

Again, think of what is fun for all players.

Some specialties are not meant to be used in combat and making them combat classes is ridiculous (cough artificer cough).

If an ability is not "meant" to be used in combat it will be defined in a way that makes it use in combat impractical. For instance requirering a lot of time, special unwieldy equipment etc.

If an ability is defined in a way that its use in combat is very much practical then maybe your assessment that it is not meant to be used in combat is just wrong?

Bilbo traveled 1,000 miles over the course of 6 months, fought trolls, goblins, gollum, giant spiders, elves, matched wits with a dragon, fought goblins (again), and had a nice suit of excellent armor, a magic ring, and a magic sword for his troubles.

And that means what, exactly?