D&D 5E Minis and no grid?

[Rhenny]

I do this now as it keeps my players thinking about what they want to do rather than what they can do. They tended to treat the grids like a chessboard so it took forever for them to make any move.

Amen. I hate when my players start playing Chess instead of D&D. Seriously, we just have more fun when we play more of a narrative style with less space counting and template use to determine area of effect, etc. The DM can just tell the PCs which foes or allies can be targeted with area effects. The square counting really bogs down the game sometimes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyone Use minis for 5e without a grid? I have started doing this for 5e to just get some rough relative positioning. Sometimes I use a large dry erase board to draw in room/terrain but haven't used a grid in quote some time.

It's become my favourite

It feels more natural than the grid, but still allows for tactical play, and helps players visualize and remember things.

 

[fjw70]

I guess I am not alone then.

 

[darjr]

I did this with savage worlds but I used rulers. The amazing thing is it freed me up to use all this amazing warhammer terrain that the store had.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure, I use this, but it's usually for open areas with more of a rough concept of how it looks than with say, a dungeon. I still find dungeons are best on a grid with specific distances rather than guessing distances.

 

[mflayermonk]

The wood stirrers at Starbucks can be used as a ruler for the minis to determine how far they can move. Their length is roughly equivalent to a 30 ft move.

I sometimes do this when I use felt for a battle mat.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I use minis on a grid but we don't use squares as range. We eyeball distance etc, and you're not tied to the squares. So halfway between just relative position and full grid use

 

[Warmaster Horus]

We do everything from theater-of-the-mind, to full grid combat to relative mini positioning. Really depends on the combat, scale, preparedness and necessity.

 

[Rylnethaz]

That is the only way I have been playing since the beginning. I like the tactical aspect of the minis but I have never used the grid because it would turn it into a tactical wargame. Plus, not having to count squares all the time allows for faster turns.

 

[Hitdice]

Tried playing without a map when playing Edge of the Empire and it constantly led to arguments between the GM and other players about what melee/short/medium/long ranges were. Tried it again when I ran our group's first 5e campaign, and the player's couldn't let go of the need for a battle map to plan their turn. That said, our groups are often diverse in age and background (16 to 60 since we take walk ins at the local game store) and we need a consistent way to depict combat.

DM: You can see a small group of kobolds ahead of you 50 feet and to the right.
PC Wizard: I cast Burning Hands....
DM: You just set fire to the paladin's warhorse and now the kobolds are laughing at you.
PC Paladin: I kill the wizard since he's clearly chaotic evil.​

What's remarkable about that? It sounds like every single session of D&D I've ever played! PCs will murder each other a dozen times over, given the chance.

I enjoy playing with minis, but don't like to get too tactical with them, if you know what I mean.