We never like the original, decade ago, because the mechanic (at least as we understood it as tweens) left only damage optimization to character creation. Their was nothing else to do. If you wanted to do any damage, you had to optimize. Wasn't fun for us.
There is, present in the examples in 5th, but not explicit as a rule, the idea that PCs should be describing their tactics, and the GM having them make Saving Rolls to get bonuses to their damage.
So, for example, if your fencer type wants to disarm his foe, the GM might set a level 3 SR on DX, and if made, the foe is disarmed and gets to roll 1D+(personal adds) for unarmed combat... but fail, and your share of the damage goes up by half the difference. (Taken from one of the solos.) Or you've got great armor, but the wizard doesn't, so you want to take an extra share of the damage to reduce the others' damages... depending upon description, could be ST, DX, IQ, LK... Make the save, take the share; fail the save, take it anyway, but damage the armor by half the margin...
Rulings, not Rules! it's how T&T was played.
Also note: For many, D&D is all about the damage optimization, too. Or Pathfinder, for that matter. I'm not limiting it to 3E and later, either; I had a player under AD&D 2e, with the hardcover feats only, optimize for two weapon fighting for max damage... several NWPs allowed a roll to reduce (=improve) AC.
Classic T&T (5th ed, to be specific) has many ways to optimize... do you raise ST for a better weapon? Or DX for better SRs to hit with ranged weapons, or CN to be able to take more hits. Or LK, to save vs the Save-or-SuckIt traps from Grimtooth... Wizards needed to raise IQ & DX, or not be able to cast higher level spells. 5.5 and later add a wizardry stat, so 5th (1979's edition, BTW) and earlier used ST for spells; 5.5 (2005) and newer wizards no longer need ST, they need WZ.
Doesn't sound like the new edition changes much?
I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but they've said old fans will recognize it.
