D&D 5E Miniatures, or Theater of the Mind

[The Human Target]

I might try this. Added bonus is that you can match the numbers up to NPCs in your notes instead of trying to remember which orc mini has 3 hp and which has 15!

I bought a box of Pathfinder Pawns a while back, thinking that they would be fun for tabletop. Ironically, we almost only ever use them as PC minis. For monsters, I have an old set of unpainted HeroQuest skeletons and orcs. A beautiful mini is awesome, but, overall, the benefits of truly generic minis greatly outweigh them. I'd rather use a set of generic figures and then show a printed picture if I have one.

Unsolicited advice- label or number your orcs in your notes and on the minis. I use a wee bit of sticky tack and some reusable numbered chits. And I tend to go Orc A, Orc B, Orc C instead of numbers because of the amount of numbers already spoken at the table during combat.

 

[iserith]

What I don't like about minis is the square counting and due to the nature of AOE spells on a grid get wonky. I'd like to switch to an ungridded battle map.

I do this in Roll20. I create a map "to the grid" and then when we play, I remove the grid from view. So we're mostly just "eyeballing distances" and, when in doubt, there's a ruler tool that's really easy to use.

I also turn on the dynamic lighting so that it only shows the line of sight of the character and accounts for light sources.

 

[EldonGoodbarrel]

I have always used minis. Way back when we were all about combat, and
Now that we're doing a lot more role playing.
I've always loved minis. Only downside is, the expense.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

My experience is that a decent GM can describe combat without resorting to them, but an inexperienced GM often uses them as a crutch. Like they don't have to actually describe a scene or mood or atmosphere because it's all about the mini's.

This is an unfortunate comment, both as a generalization and that it has been your experience. I'm sincerely sorry to hear it!

I voted "miniatures." These days, I DM solely via PbP and definitely find that an Excel grid map facilitates and speeds up combat rounds; if I can include a map update after every player's turn, I do so. Even if still DMed a tabletop game, however, I'd be running it using a battlemat and miniatures during combat rounds. I strongly prefer games that are atmospheric and roleplay-centric, but have never been of the opinion that one must chose between "roleplay" or "combat" as the focus of the game; that's an artificial dividing line that need not exist. To me, roleplaying opportunities are what D&D is all about, and they are present all the time both by DM implication and player inference, if one takes the initiative to interact with whatever encounter is presented. The presence of a combat map doesn't change that, at least not in my games.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I am an advocate of using the right tool for the job - which means that I do both theater of the mind and use miniatures and maps and other forms of visual or tactile aid, but the use depends on the exact situation.

I don't, for example, form a map and select minis and set up an encounter that is invariably going to be very brief and not involve much need of accurate positional representation because I can run the entire encounter in theater of the mind style in less time than that set up would take.

I do, for example, get out a map and minis when keeping track of all the moving parts in my head would result in confusion for the players or myself, and when accurate positional details like how many kobolds are actually within some area or another, or precisely who can be affected by that breath weapon at the same time.

Basically, the metric on deciding when to use or not use maps & minis comes down to only using them when their set up time doesn't increase the amount of time needed to go from start to finish of the encounter (typically because the set up time is less time than constant questions or repeated clarifications would take).

 

[Lanefan]

We've used minis since the dawn of history and will go on doing so until it ends.

And though we use a grid* (10' squares) we don't get anywhere near as clinical about it as 4e - or even 3e - would have. Spherical effects are round, and if there's debate as to whether you're in an area of effect or not that's what dice are for. If it's really tense we'll sometimes cut a piece of paper to the right size and use that; and last session when a "darkness" was cast on the middle of the combat I found I have a clear-glass side plate that's within a half-inch of exactly the right size, so we flipped it over and used that to show where the darkness was.

* - the grid is on a chalkboard which we also use for mapping etc., meaning that for most encounters the set-up's already half done.

Metal minis for party members, plastic ones for enemies.

Theater of the mind would lead to too many arguments in our crew, including from me as half the time I'd probably misinterpret what was said.

Lan-"over the years I've amassed far too many minis, might as well use 'em"-efan

 

[Uchawi]

I believe most tables are hybrids, even if they use miniatures. To make the survey meaningful you would have to ask which tables do not use miniatures. The next category may be who does not use miniatures, but still use some type of aid like art, pictures, or paper. And then of course there will be tables that use miniatures.

 

[Azzy]

It's situational. With my group, we use miniature or not as appropriate to the encounter. More complex encounters are far more likely to see the use of miniatures (or Lego mini-figs stand-ins), while "simpler" encounters (or those where it's deemed more a hassle to draw the map out on a battlemat), are likely to skip miniatures. It's a fairly even split for the most part, and the rules don't seem to pressure one in either direction (thankfully).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Li Shenron]

Currently I use custom-assembled Lego minifigs as miniatures, but strictly gridless.