borringman
Explorer
My experience with dungeon delving in D&D boils down to surprise at the extent to which 5E wants as little as possible to do with it.
Since folks brought up 1E/2E, to me the biggest functional difference in earlier editions isn't simplicity; it's the absence of rituals. For example, if you're a 1st level spellcaster you have one (1) spell slot, and it's an old joke of mine that the newbie picks magic missile whereas the veteran prepares something like comprehend languages. Why? Because the wizard actually has the same THAC0 as the fighter at 1st level, and a single magic missile isn't likely to take anything down, whereas no one being able to read a warning scrawled in blood could get the entire group wiped out. Whatever you think of the early dungeoneering rules or how "optional" they were, the big thing was, the dungeon was something you had to reckon with.
The sheer deadliness of early dungeons forced spellcasters to give up some combat spells, and this was loudly decried as "not fun". So rituals were invented as a way to cast utility spells without expending slots. Thing is, these "utility" spells were no jokes! Comprehend languages, detect magic, detect poison and disease, identify, Leomund's tiny hut, purify food and drink, water breathing. . . they (used to) consume slots for a reason; these are all extremely potent "make dungeon problem go away" spells. So yay, rituals freed up all the spell slots for yummy damage-dealers, but the cost was a complete loss of challenge outside combat. And what's a game without challenge?
Today, all the prior emotional and mechanical investment in the "dungeon" part of Dungeons & Dragons (heh) has been reduced to tedium. D&D mechanics outside combat are actually relatively "lite"; they're simple, forgiving, and vague. The reason they're considered "crunchy" is they're almost entirely meaningless. Why bother tracking rations and water when you could eat carrion with purify food and drink? Why pick and choose languages during character creation when comprehend languages is a ritual? Why purchase lanterns or torches when light is now a cantrip (and everyone has darkvision anyway)? Why even make a ranger when locate animals or plants, divination, and even commune are all rituals? Because you might like the combat abilities. You're not going to be tracking anything when the spellcaster can do it perfectly, and for free.
Light or crunchy, D&D's rules wrt dungeon delving are mostly a waste of time. This goes all the way back to what @Ringtail said: It's not the complexity (or lack thereof); it's the focus. In modern d20 systems, dungeon delving is really just boring setpiece to chain fights together. I'm not judging; that's how the games are structured. If you want a dungeon delving experience, they're the wrong games for it.
Since folks brought up 1E/2E, to me the biggest functional difference in earlier editions isn't simplicity; it's the absence of rituals. For example, if you're a 1st level spellcaster you have one (1) spell slot, and it's an old joke of mine that the newbie picks magic missile whereas the veteran prepares something like comprehend languages. Why? Because the wizard actually has the same THAC0 as the fighter at 1st level, and a single magic missile isn't likely to take anything down, whereas no one being able to read a warning scrawled in blood could get the entire group wiped out. Whatever you think of the early dungeoneering rules or how "optional" they were, the big thing was, the dungeon was something you had to reckon with.
The sheer deadliness of early dungeons forced spellcasters to give up some combat spells, and this was loudly decried as "not fun". So rituals were invented as a way to cast utility spells without expending slots. Thing is, these "utility" spells were no jokes! Comprehend languages, detect magic, detect poison and disease, identify, Leomund's tiny hut, purify food and drink, water breathing. . . they (used to) consume slots for a reason; these are all extremely potent "make dungeon problem go away" spells. So yay, rituals freed up all the spell slots for yummy damage-dealers, but the cost was a complete loss of challenge outside combat. And what's a game without challenge?
Today, all the prior emotional and mechanical investment in the "dungeon" part of Dungeons & Dragons (heh) has been reduced to tedium. D&D mechanics outside combat are actually relatively "lite"; they're simple, forgiving, and vague. The reason they're considered "crunchy" is they're almost entirely meaningless. Why bother tracking rations and water when you could eat carrion with purify food and drink? Why pick and choose languages during character creation when comprehend languages is a ritual? Why purchase lanterns or torches when light is now a cantrip (and everyone has darkvision anyway)? Why even make a ranger when locate animals or plants, divination, and even commune are all rituals? Because you might like the combat abilities. You're not going to be tracking anything when the spellcaster can do it perfectly, and for free.
Light or crunchy, D&D's rules wrt dungeon delving are mostly a waste of time. This goes all the way back to what @Ringtail said: It's not the complexity (or lack thereof); it's the focus. In modern d20 systems, dungeon delving is really just boring setpiece to chain fights together. I'm not judging; that's how the games are structured. If you want a dungeon delving experience, they're the wrong games for it.
Last edited:
