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.
We can agree to disagree on this. When my fighter in 1E had his table improve by 2 it was pretty stellar for me.
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.
a) They were in AD&D and have been since. Older versions no, but those versions were simple to the extreme and you really never got much of anything--as inteneded.
b) Weapon proficiencies were not optional.
c) So what, we're talking about what you get when you level. Class be damned.
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.
They got more specialization at 4th with (or 3rd depending on how you did weapon proficiencies...) and every 3 levels thereafter. With specialization their attacks improved more quickly as well. With 2E and all the splat books you got even more stuff.
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.
In 2E, yes. In 1E you didn't get it until 4th level. Honestly, I don't recall if any race gave a bonus to this, but if so technically you might get it at 1st then...
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.
It disproves there were "dead levels", which is a level in which
nothing improves. I don't care if you gain new features or not. EVERY time you leveled in AD&D you had something to look forward to. Numerical or not.
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".
Fair enough.
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.
There was no multiclassing other than (IIRC?) the Cleric/Ranger and Druid/Ranger half-elves for these classes. Paladins, Cavaliers, and Barbarians could never multiclass. You could dual-class them if you had the scores, but that was it.
5E super front loads features as well, mostly in levels 1-3. Which is why I oppose dips.
These features are now class defining. A barbarian without rage is a fighter.
They are defining now for d20 maybe. A Barbarian without rage was powerful in AD&D... and very much a barbarian. "Rage" is really something more for a Berserker class, not a Barbarian. So, if it is defining, they defined it incorrectly.
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.
Right, AD&D and Basic aren't overwhelming. That is a GOOD thing. I can't speak for you, but frankly my characters felt like they grew and changed a lot, even if most of their improvements were numerical in nature compared to "new features".
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.
I laugh when people claim the ranger was considered the worst D&D class in history... maybe since 2000, but I blame WotC for that mistake (if any).
The lesson was learned. You give something every level or the class ends the minute you don't.
It was a sad lesson then. Give me, give me, give me, give me. right? Great lesson.
This is something that has bugged myself and most of those I have played with regularly for a long time now. The shift from actually playing the character in the adventure being the "fun part" to the "give me more when I level" fun part.
