Eilistraee.com

Over the Christmas break I was working on my pet D&D project for a while when one day I decided to read the Original D&D encyclopedia complete and after looking back at it and relooking at 1st and 2nd edition again I noticed that OD&D and first edition was very.... precise in how classes where designed. What I mean is that they only had a special ability if it helped define the classes role as a whole. Which is the reason that fighters had a large selection weapons that they can learn to use, but lacked special abilities liked turn undead (that is unless you use the OD&D's wondering fighter... paths at 9th level to become either a paladin, knight, or avenger[the avenger (any chaotic) for those who haven't seen the encyclopedia is pretty much OD&D equivalent of a anti-paladin (chaotic evil)or 3rd editions blackgaurd (any evil)]). While spellcasting classes like the wizard and cleric (or elf in OD&D) had virtually no special ability (except the clerics Turn undead or the elf's 1/4 damage against breath weapons at higher XP amounts), there was no... whats the word... power escalation. What I mean by power escalation is the acquisition of more special abilities that end up increases the overall power of a class (like was fairly obvious with many classes in 3rd edition and all of 4th and 5th).

While, 2nd edition did give some class (mostly the ranger) more abilities, it was still a lot less... ummm... power crazed then later edition when it comes to special abilities. Granted this only really applies if you didn't use the specialization wizards (introduced in the Complete Wizard's handbook) or the many kits given to use in any of the Complete handbooks. Essentially with each edition after OD&D and 1st, sequelization escalation took place. A little at first then kind of bloated into ridiculousness in 4th and fallowed suit in 5th.

So with that said he is my point. While I do kind of like classes having special abilities, but the more concise design of classes from 1st and OD&D is really appealing to me which has caused me to literately halt in my development of my Dimension project. I am just not sure which kind of style I prefer... I'm split... and I don't know what to do about it.
So here is my question, what kind of mechanical design do you guys prefer, the special ability bloated style like in 3rd, 4th, and 5th; or the more concise and easier balanced style used in OD&D, 1st and 2nd (I really did love the kit system... the requirement did make some of the more cool mundane kits harder to obtain i.e. the Bounty Hunter kit)?

Personally, I don't like D&D much, because it is a rigid system. If you have a character concept in mind you often can't create it from the get go, and have to plan some weird combination of classes to take as you advance, in order to play what you want (and by the time you manage this, you're like halfway through the campaign).

However, if I had to choose beween the extra-simplicity of 1e and the variety of options provided by 3e/4e, I'd definitely pick the latter, simply because it allows for a much wider variety of character concepts. Also, classes should have their own shtick that makes them stand out, but a single skill (especially boring ones, like ''you can use more weapons'') IMO isn't enough to deliver the fantasy of any class.

Unfortunately I've never really paid attention to mechanics, but going from your description it sounds vaguely to me like the early editions' styles are essentially more suited for either a more "realistic" type setting, or one where specialization is important. IDK whether that's true or not, but it's just what it appears like on a cursory glance. So I would think picking (or making up) what sort of mechanics you want to use would basically come down to what you expect your world to "feel" like for players.