Speaking about 2e games -- I hadn't played any of the P&P back then (my P&P experience was mainly from the German Das Schwarze Auge); but it didn't at all bother me that fighers were basically brutish click-attack characters much, whilst it was mainly the casters who later on got real options. I wasn't playing a single character after all (unless going solo), but controlling and managing an entire party. This didn't merely apply to the IE games, but SSI games before that too. Seeing it from the party perspective too you can easily see how the complexity would multiply across all characters if they were all equally equipped.
In something like Deadfire even melee characters are almost pseudo-wizards, to quote a Codex review ("that throw not-spells left and right".) Mind you, I enjoyed Deadfire quite a lot, personally. But there seems to be a pursuit to make every character about equal and flashy in their skills -- which imo they needn't necessarily be. A fighter can have naturally more options than to click-attack, logical ways to improve that would be different fighting stances, combat styles and such. However, at some point, it may go a tad far or make characters actually feel samey, as the abilities feel just like a magic spell -- plus from my take it isn't necessary to make each class as complex as the other (to play but also to manage). Deadfire made a great distinction between passive and active abilities, so you could focus on one or the other.
BG1's melees are too simplistic. But even there I have to admit, sometimes there's something appealing in the simplicity when I fire up the game, make a solo melee brute, ramp up his CON and STR, equip him with the right gear and just let him ramp through the game without much further management. Or when I open up Icewind Dale and create an entire party of Dwarven fighters who would play out similar(and that's coming from someone who usually loves options).
