Why the hate for complexity?

[Voadam]

Magic missile always hits, requiring no attack roll, and allowing for no save, but if there is anything virtually every D&D player from any edition knows about the rules of D&D, it's that that is how magic missile works and has always worked.

That's actually a 1978 change to the way magic missile had worked.

Holmes Basic in '77 required an attack roll.

Magic Missile — Level 1; Range: 150 feet
A conjured missile equal to a magic arrow, and it does 1 die roll plus 1 point (2-7) to any creature it strikes. Roll the missile fire like a long bow arrow (Missile Fire Table). Higher level magic-users fire more than one missile.

In OD&D Greyhawk it did not specifically say.

Magic Missile: This is a conjured missile equivalent to a magic arrow, and it does full damage (2–7 points) to any creature it strikes. For every five levels the magic-user has attained he may add an additional two missiles when employing this spell, so a 6th-level magic-user may cast three magic missiles at his target, an 11th-level magic-user casts five, and so on. Range 15”.

AD&D 1e PH in 1978 is the first place it explicitly auto hits

Magic Missile (Evocation) Level: 1 Components: V, S Range: 6" + I"/level Duration: Special Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: One or more Casting Time: 1 segment Saving Throw: None Casting Time: 1 segment creatures in a 10 square foot area Explanation/Description: Use of the magic missile spell creates one or more magical missiles which dart forth from the magic-user's fingertip and unerringly strike their target. Each missile does 2 to 5 hit points (d4+ 1) of damage. If the magic-user has multiple missile capability, he or she can have them strike a single target creature or several creatures, as desired. For each level of experience of the magic-user, the range of his or her magic missile extends 1" beyond the 6" base range. For every 2 levels of experience, the magic-user gains an additional missile, i.e. 2 at 3rd level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at 7th level, etc.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

Ah, good to know! Rules changes made eight years before I was born are a definite weak spot for me!

 

[Greg K]

That's actually a 1978 change to the way magic missile had worked.
AD&D 1e PH in 1978 is the first place it explicitly auto hits

Back in 3e, there was an online article on the official D&D website (I think it was by Monte Cook) that provided an optional magic missile variant that returned magic missile to its original rules of requiring an attack roll and then doing 1d6 damage (or was it 1d6+1) upon a hit. I do seem to recall this 3e variant's attack roll being a ranged touch attack, but I really liked it.

 

[Samloyal23]

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to fall under DM discretion. The DM is expected to say that something much smaller than a house cat is too small to be animated with the stats of a Tiny object. Fifth Edition is intentionally written to support such rulings.

Codifying stats for things that should be irrelevant is one of the areas where 3E went overboard with its complexity.

I looked through the SRD online and my copy of the 5E PH, I could not even find an exact definition of "tiny" or any other size category. That is not streamlining, that is just sloppy.

 

[Voadam]

I looked through the SRD online and my copy of the 5E PH, I could not even find an exact definition of "tiny" or any other size category. That is not streamlining, that is just sloppy.

5e Monster Manual, page 6.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There is no description of the actual dimensions of creatures if various sizes categories in 5e, just the space they control in combat (which is similar to the space controlled by 3e monsters).

My examinations of the monsters and animals kead me to believe the dimensions are intended to be similar to 3e, but it's much more fuzzy and takes mass into effect rather than just longest dimension. An elephant for instance is Huge in 5e rather then just Large. They also inconsistently make some things Tiny that would probably be bigger than 2 feet (like a velociraptor that is described as the size of a large turkey).

Recommendation: use 3e scale but be loose and go by impression of size more than specific details.

 

[Celebrim]

Recommendation: use 3e scale but be loose and go by impression of size more than specific details.

3e has two very different scales: the more realistic scale used by 3.0e where monsters can take up rectangular space based on body shape, or the 3.5e scale where all monsters take up perfectly square areas in order to not have to introduce a bunch of complex language describing all the edge cases that can happen when you assume monsters aren't perfect squares.

Thus, horses in 3.0e take up a 5'x10' space, while they take up a 10'x10' space in 3.5e. Elephants in 3.0e take up a 10'x15' space, while they take up a 15'x15' space in 3.5e.

I prefer the realism and rule on the fly when the edge cases on changing facing turn up. If you want perfect tactical consistency without a lot of headaches, the 3.5e spacing might work better for you.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I was more referring to the actual dimensions of the creature in 5e, rather than the combat space they control, since there are rules for the latter but no information on the former.

 

[Samloyal23]

I was more referring to the actual dimensions of the creature in 5e, rather than the combat space they control, since there are rules for the latter but no information on the former.

This is where "streamlining" becomes "dumbing down"...

 

[Celebrim]

This is where "streamlining" becomes "dumbing down"...

I suspect that there is a certain amount of hiding the man behind the curtain as well. There are reasons to not want players to think about how it works.

The streamlining of monsters to abstract combat space tends to hide the actual size of the monster. The most egregious case is something like a "large" sized snake in 3.5 or 5e D&D. The trouble is that a 12' long snake might actually only weigh 15 pounds. So is the snake large because of its ability to take up space, or medium size because of its reach, or tiny because of its weight?

By not describing the actual physical dimensions of the monster, you avoid the problem of players or GMs of having a prompt to ask these questions about your system. 5e is very much designed to encourage people to be satisfied with a simplified rule set. Thinking about it is discouraged compared to having fun. It's a valid aesthetic choice, and not getting people to think hard about it is a valid design choice, and I wouldn't be surprised if not including real physical measurements was an intentional decision.