I do not think it would be a good idea to just add zones to 5e-as-is.
With respect, I think GMs who run 5e as theater of the mind are effectively working with zones just fine.
I do not think it would be a good idea to just add zones to 5e-as-is.
I do not think it would be a good idea to just add zones to 5e-as-is. You'd need to build the system assuming that's what's in use, and design spells accordingly. So, using burning hands as an example, you don't go "how would I convert a 15 ft cone into zones?". You'd go "OK, this spell creates a directed gout of flames. That sounds like an AOE, and kind of indiscriminate. So maybe all targets except the caster in either the same zone or an adjacent one?"
I could also see a general rule about how if you're trying to avoid friendly fire, you can make an AOE that normally hits a whole zone hit something like 1d6 targets instead. To me, that even seems more "realistic" than using the frozen-in-time grid to maximize damage to the enemies while also avoiding your pals – people do move around in fights, and explosions aren't known for their pinpoint precision.
I also don't think zones and range bands mix very well.
With respect, I think GMs who run 5e as theater of the mind are effectively working with zones just fine.
Kind of depends on someone's definition of "fine", does it not?
Definitely, this. I would love it if OneD&D's DMG has optional rules for using Close/Near/Far.
Gridless (or at least scaled-mapless) D&D - there's the cause of the headache right there.I feel like you are not understanding zones, if you think these example spells changed in any noticeable fashion over gridless DnD being played right at this very moment and GM making vibe guesses on how many things any AoE catches.
What definition of "fine" beyond, "the folks at the table consistently have a good time," actually matters?
When assessing how it works, your own?
I mean seriously, I'm not required to consider something a good idea just because someone makes it work for them locally.
As I've noted, you can pound nails with a wrench, but that doesn't mean its a good use of the tool.
(I also have to not "having a consistently good time" is kind of a big jump here).
Discussing it in a public forum is getting other people's opinions, not just your own.
No, you are not. But it gives food for thought.
Right. But maybe you can learn something if you look into it. Not that you are required to, but... then we come back to the public forum thing.
Poorly formed sentence there, and I don't want to presume what you mean.