So what? Gaining HP and attack and/or save improvements are pretty important. That certainly doesn't make a level "dead".
So I'm defining dead level as one where to get a new ability from your class. Improving your combat stats are good, but nobody looked forward to lowering their Thac0 by one the same way as getting a new ability.
Man, I don't know what AD&D you played, but...
Wrong. They gain weapon (including specialization) and non-weapon proficiencies as well. Fighters (depending on edition and how you do it) improve attacking every level, which for a fighter is sort of an important deal, right?
Proficiencies weren't part of my discussion because they are a.) not in all older D&D versions b.) optional in the ones they were and c.) not tied to your class anyway.
Fighters got weapon specialization in 2e (and UA) and at level 1. The next time they get something that isn't hp, saves, or Thac0 is 7th level when they get an extra attack every other round. Then at 9th, followers. That's all a fighter got that wasn't improving their math.
Again wrong. They also get weapon/NW proficiencies, along with reading languages (some do consider tihs along with the other thieving skills) and the ability to cast spells from scrolls. Of course that "only increasing" thief skill stuff couldn't be important to a thief, now could it?
Read Languages was a skill you could put points in at 1st level. They gained all eight thief skills at level 1 and don't gain a new ability until 10th, where they also gain followers and a limited ability to use magic scrolls.
Well, proficiencies not withstanding...
And yet their turning undead improves, and frankly magic-users getting spells is kind of their thing, but they can also make potions and scrolls, and eventually (along with clerics and druids) other magical items.
You keep saying "X improves" as if that somehow disproves my claim. An ability that improves in numeric value isn't the same as gaining a new ability. Which was my point. Casters at least gain new spell levels, at a quadratic expansion compared to the linear rate of other classes increasing numbers.
I don't consider magic item creation a feature as that was highly controlled by the DM. As in "if the DM will let you".
Most of the ranger and paladin (and barbarian, cavalier, etc.) features are insanely front-loaded. Bards get stuff all the time, as do druids at many levels (especially if you go past 15th).
Correct. They gained everything at first level and aside from a few features like minor spellcasting for paladins and rangers, not much else. Which is why it's been hard to for these classes to work in free multiclassing because their defining features come early and then you can jump to more interesting classes
These features are now class defining. A barbarian without rage is a fighter.
Which overloads many players with more stuff than they can remember, if they remember stuff correctly, or let alone use often.
Which finally gets to my point: AD&D and Basic isn't as overwhelming because your character barely changes. A fighter is basically the same for the first 10 levels, barring numbers getting better an an extra attack. Thieves never gain any new abilities, just get better at the ones they always had. At least casters got new spell levels every other level to give them new options, but that's ALL they get. And that works because you can't cherry pick class levels. Once you add open multiclassing, dead levels no longer work.
While I can appreciate a "bit more" than perhaps everything AD&D offered, 5E is overkill already and 2024 just makes it worse IMO.
The horse left the barn in 3e. The 3.0 ranger was built like a AD&D class: front loaded and only numeric improvements for the majority of its life. It's widely considered the worst D&D class in history. The Monte cook variant and later 3.5 version filled it with sweet treats to keep you in the class and it kinda worked. The lesson was learned. You give something every level or the class ends the minute you don't.
