The grid often ruins my immersion

[Dalebert]

I actually use props via DM Scotty and go mostly gridless in my style of play. I have a gridded piece of plastic to hold over figures for AoE spells, and such but mostly am pretty good at eyeballing it unless it's close.

A fellow PC had the excellent idea of casting Fog Cloud 3 feet above the floor. We were dealing with flying enemies at the time. He and I were both playing a halfling druid team (moon and land respectively). The DM at the time was cool with that, even kind of impressed with our ingenuity and seemed like she would allow it to reward us, though we decided to do it a little higher for the sake of other PCs who were medium-sized. It really turned the battle and took away their significant advantage from flying.

That's a cool way to take advantage of small size though. A taller creature wouldn't even know that the fog ends a few feet down and they could drop prone or something. Meanwhile, halflings could ankle-stab without impediment. I could picture a grid-obsessed DM declaring it non-valid and that seems very bizarre to me, i.e. "It must be on the ground or one square above".

IMHO, the grid should just be there for convenience to help you measure things. It shouldn't be a constraining factor. I've also been in situations where Burning Hands should easily be able to hit several opponents based on the shape but I wasn't allowed because of the specific square they were standing on and the grid actually makes it NOT a cone but rather a blocky weird thing.

WARNING: Loaded question coming up.

So do you use the grid to aid and keep the game running smoothly or to make the game feel like a crudely pixellated video game?

[Foxhound438]

IMHO, the grid should just be there for convenience to help you measure things. It shouldn't be a constraining factor. I've also been in situations where Burning Hands should easily be able to hit several opponents based on the shape but I wasn't allowed because of the specific square they were standing on and the grid actually makes it NOT a cone but rather a blocky weird thing.


I pretty much agree with this, it's a convenience for keeping track of how far thing a is from thing b, and whether or not the dwarf could reach this or the wood elf reach that.

[Regitnui]

I find the grid works well to ensure everyone is on the same page. I tend to blur the lines of what's physically on the board, but it works fairly well usually.

[Dalebert]

Another case that bothers me is when it forces a square AoE to be in a certain position. I've tried pointing out to a DM before that if the square for a Hypnotic Patter were positioned diagonally, it could easily get all three opponents but "A diagonal is not allowed! Do you see a diagonally-placed square on the map?" It's quite silly.

[rooneg]

When I'm DMing online I go fully theater of the mind, no grid at all.

In person, I view the map + minis (and don't get me wrong, i love my minis, i think having the right minis adds something to the game) as more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. If I could find an equivalent to the pathfinder foldable playmat with no grid on it I'd totally use it. The map is there so I can help everyone remember approximately where the pcs and monsters are, not because we're playing a board game where precisely what square you're in is the most relevant piece of information.

[SethoMarkus]

To be fair most of that seems like a table/GM issue rather than an issue with using grids. I absolutely can see a grid causing a come or circular effect to go wonky, but I'm not sure I see how a grid is related to the fog cloud example. I can see a GM declaring the spell must be centered on the ground whether a grid was in use or not...

I definitely like 5e's departure from focusing on grids and miniatures, though. The encouragement to use measured distance rather than abstract grids is promising.

[Squeeq]

The grid can be good for giving players a better mental image for where monsters are and the areas around them - for fights that are tactically complex this is really handy. 5e is also a very mobile game. Characters have lots of movement options at their disposal, and a grid helps them think tactically.

That being said, it is also very easy to get arguments going with the areas of spells, lines of sight, flanking, etc. And it can definitely make combat slower than theatre of the mind. I use a grid a whole lot, but there are definitely fights coming up (new DM, lost mine of phandelver) where I won't be needing to do that.

[pwykersotz]

My table never uses a grid. Typically positioning is just done in our minds. If a large number of enemies show up, we use dice on the table to indicate position, but we eyeball effects.

[Laserlight]

Another case that bothers me is when it forces a square AoE to be in a certain position. I've tried pointing out to a DM before that if the square for a Hypnotic Patter were positioned diagonally, it could easily get all three opponents but "A diagonal is not allowed! Do you see a diagonally-placed square on the map?" It's quite silly.

Our group prefers grid. Our group also prefers fairly complicated and interactive terrain rather than "I run up to the monster and stand in that spot for the rest of the fight", and it's easier for everyone to see where things are if there's a grid.

We put AoEs on the intersection between squares. and haven't had any problems. Sometimes you get all the mooks in your fireball, sometimes you don't, no big deal.

[Naanomi]

I use a playmat and figures but don't use a grid... I have strings cut out to specific distances to measure attack distances/line attacks/movement paths, and transparent plastic circles/cones/etc to measure AoEs and the like. For me this meets all the benefits of a grid (tactical combat, visualization aids) without the hangups

[Coffee_Dragon]

Another case that bothers me is when it forces a square AoE to be in a certain position. I've tried pointing out to a DM before that if the square for a Hypnotic Patter were positioned diagonally, it could easily get all three opponents but "A diagonal is not allowed! Do you see a diagonally-placed square on the map?" It's quite silly.

But square AoEs are (I assume for the most part) square precisely because of the grid. If a grid is used, then it seems counterproductive to allow shifting and rotating the targeting grid with respect to the positioning grid. I get "I don't like the granularity of 5' grids" but not "when using a 5' grid I don't like that I don't get to fractalize it to my advantage" when everything is an approximation based on that abstraction anyway.

Overall it seems to me grids represent a shift in power from DM to players: targeting and movement capabilities and decisions are largely knowable and auditable. That should be right up the GitP alley. Nothing says you're guaranteed three opponents with theatre of the mind.

[Theodoric]

The DMG has possible rules for AoE effects within the theory of mind, on page 249. Pretty maths-reliant but it's not as interruptive as suddenly switching to a grid or as subjective as eyeballing it.

[Talakeal]

Personally not using a grid ruins my immersion, I am constantly having to "correct" my mental picture when someone informs me that I am, for example, mistaken about the precise number of enemies or their locations.

It also solves a lot of arguments about precise measuring or angles, I don't know how many times I have prayed for a grid when playing a war-game and debating with my opponent whether the enemy is 6.00001 inches away or 5.99999 inches away or what to do when someone accidentally jostles a model or straightens up a formation by a fraction of an inch during the opponent's turn. Or my opponent getting mad because I accidentally moved .1 inches further than I was allowed to or remaining silent and stone faced when I accidentally moved .1 inches less than my movement and thus failed to get out of range of his attack.

Also, it makes it much easier to be impartial. For example, my ex-DM loved to correct people, and no matter what you wanted to do you were always just out of range. It was very frustrating, and I don't think he was even doing it intentionally, he just has an "everyone is wrong but me" bias built into his worldview. And even the best DMs (and players) tend to have some minor subconscious bias in this regard.


But yeah, anyone who is a slave to the grid is being a tool. It is absolutely stupid to say everything has to be centered on a space at all times and can never straddle a line. When doing spell effects I personally have the caster pick a point, measure from that point, and then round any partial squares into full squares. That way you get true spheres AND give the caster the benefit of the doubt.

[CaptainSarathai]

To be fair most of that seems like a table/GM issue rather than an issue with using grids. I absolutely can see a grid causing a come or circular effect to go wonky, but I'm not sure I see how a grid is related to the fog cloud example. I can see a GM declaring the spell must be centered on the ground whether a grid was in use or not...
Yeah, I really don't understand how OP's situation would even work.
You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of fog centered on a point within range. The sphere spreads around corners, and its area is heavily obscured. It lasts for the duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it.
So really, it should have been a sphere. Not just a floating haze, so if he cast it 20' in the air, it still touches the ground directly below center. It's not a floating cube or something...

So the DM house ruled the spell allow something cool and non-standard. You can do that with a grid, too. In fact, doing that with a grid fixes everyone's complains about grids...


The grid can be good for giving players a better mental image for where monsters are and the areas around them - for fights that are tactically complex this is really handy. 5e is also a very mobile game. Characters have lots of movement options at their disposal, and a grid helps them think tactically.

That being said, it is also very easy to get arguments going with the areas of spells, lines of sight, flanking, etc. And it can definitely make combat slower than theatre of the mind. I use a grid a whole lot, but there are definitely fights coming up (new DM, lost mine of phandelver) where I won't be needing to do that.
Using the grid isn't an "always on / always off" argument, either. For some fights, you know it's just gonna be a "move and smack" duel in the street or something. Theater that. If theyre leaping across rooftops during an urban chase - maybe theater that.
If they're launching an attack on a trap-riddled treasure room, defended by a small army of Undead with archers and spearmen and complex tactics... grid that. Please?

The grid speeds up our game, usually. Otherwise, every player gets to their turn and starts off,
"Are any goblins close to me? But I thought I was beside the Paladin, isn't she fighting a Goblin? Oh, that one's dead - how many are left? Are they grouped close together so I can use fireball? Oh, well, I guess I just stand here and use Magic Missile."
"Okay Rogue, you're turn"
"So, is there a goblin close to me? ..."


Personally not using a grid ruins my immersion, I am constantly having to "correct" my mental picture when someone informs me that I am, for example, mistaken about the precise number of enemies or their locations.

It also solves a lot of arguments about precise measuring or angles, I don't know how many times I have prayed for a grid when playing a war-game and debating with my opponent whether the enemy is 6.00001 inches away or 5.99999 inches away or what to do when someone accidentally jostles a model or straightens up a formation by a fraction of an inch during the opponent's turn. Or my opponent getting mad because I accidentally moved .1 inches further than I was allowed to or remaining silent and stone faced when I accidentally moved .1 inches less than my movement and thus failed to get out of range of his attack.

Also, it makes it much easier to be impartial. For example, my ex-DM loved to correct people, and no matter what you wanted to do you were always just out of range. It was very frustrating, and I don't think he was even doing it intentionally, he just has an "everyone is wrong but me" bias built into his worldview. And even the best DMs (and players) tend to have some minor subconscious bias in this regard.


But yeah, anyone who is a slave to the grid is being a tool. It is absolutely stupid to say everything has to be centered on a space at all times and can never straddle a line. When doing spell effects I personally have the caster pick a point, measure from that point, and then round any partial squares into full squares. That was you get true spheres AND give the caster the benefit of the doubt.

Yep!

[BigONotation]

Play on Roll20 and don't use the grid at all but I do use measurement and distance. Everything is its natural shape and squares don't mean anything when you think of it that way. Cast your spells upside down and sideways so long as you obey the rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The grid speeds up our game, usually. Otherwise, every player gets to their turn and starts off,
"Are any goblins close to me? But I thought I was beside the Paladin, isn't she fighting a Goblin? Oh, that one's dead - how many are left? Are they grouped close together so I can use fireball? Oh, well, I guess I just stand here and use Magic Missile."
"Okay Rogue, you're turn"
"So, is there a goblin close to me? ..."
Basically this. I always use a grid because things are confusing otherwise, but I never stick too carefully to distances or angles or anything.

[magic2345]

After playing for a while, I find that using grid is best, but only as a guideline. For movement and spells, I err on the side of the players. If a player could reach but needs 1 ft or something like that, I'd just say it hits or it's in range.

[Thrudd]

Minis and some way to represent terrain is important in D&D. Clearly being able to see the relative position and distance to things in action scenarios helps immersion greatly and is essential for getting the most out of the game system. Theater of the Mind is ok, but you're really missing out on a significant part of the game (not to mention allowing the potential for the type of confusion people have pointed out).

A grid is not strictly needed, you can use measuring tape or rulers just as easily, as long as you have minis that are of a consistent scale.

[Theodoxus]

Also, it makes it much easier to be impartial. For example, my ex-DM loved to correct people, and no matter what you wanted to do you were always just out of range. It was very frustrating, and I don't think he was even doing it intentionally, he just has an "everyone is wrong but me" bias built into his worldview. And even the best DMs (and players) tend to have some minor subconscious bias in this regard.

Off topic, but I think this is exactly why I love/hate passive perception. As a player, it's great for being more aware of the world around me. As a DM though, it ruins the surprise of traps or ambushes. And that is a bias that I am constantly fighting (and if I'm being honest, losing more often than not) in my games.

Part of the reason I like running games is the 'wow!' factor; when my evil NPCs get their plan off without a hitch. And that's a lot harder to do when I'm not being a total jerk and schroedinging the DCs :smallwink:

But seriously, I have been thinking more about that bias and how it sneaks up and ruins some of the player fun. It'll be something I work harder on in 2017.

[ClearlyTough69]

I really like playing on a map with figures: we all have a shared and unambiguous view of the exact situation in a combat at any given time. Seeing the figures on the grid can help us see possibilities and tactics that we just wouldn't imagine in theatre of the mind.

Notice that I haven't mentioned the grid yet. Most of the time it helps because it enables us to *quickly* determine position and movement without fiddling about measuring exact distances and angles. It's also easier to map a dungeon on to a grid and so come up with interesting tactical problems. The grid acts as a constraint and so limits choices: this is a good thing because we have enough choices to make as players and DMs without worrying about measuring things out exactly.

One thing that does bug me though is the rules (in the DMG) for adjudicating line of sight and cover. All that checking line of sight from corner to corner and so on: it's fiddly and not particularly realistic.

I prefer to measure cover by tracing lines from the centre of the perceiver's space, past the edge of the cover, to the target's square and estimate the proportion of the target's square that is thus covered. If the result is full cover, but there is still line of sight from at least one part of the perceiver's square *into* at least one part of the target's space (not just its edges or corners) then the cover is downgraded to 3/4 cover.

Finally, adjudicating hiding on a grid can be a bit of a pain. This is because you are assumed to occupy the centre of your space on the grid. But if you're hiding behind the corner of a wall, you'll be making your profile as small as possible by pressing yourself against that wall at the edge of your space, not loafing around two and a half feet from it. So, for the purposes of hiding, if at least half the cover in your square (as estimated using the method above) is in a single contiguous block, then you can treat the cover as full cover and you can attempt to hide. If you then move out of the covered part of your space, the normal rules then kick in and you might be seen by any creature you are hiding from.

[DiceDiceBaby]

The two DMs I started out with had different philosophies regarding this question:

My first-ever DM had a background in Visual Arts, and played exclusively with theater of the mind. It was excellent, because the level of detail he gave to the campaign allowed a flawless rendition without the need for miniatures. Everything was described clearly, and we needed nothing but our imaginations, but the worldbuilding of the setting wasn't very clear.

My second-ever DM had a background in Creative Writing, and had very well-defined lore for his sessions, leading to an epic saga, but wasn't as good at filling in the theater of the mind. To compensate, he always had nice miniatures and grids that helped us visualize what was happening.

Personally as a DM, I like to combine the two, since I like grids and miniatures for structure, but I also want the theater of the mind for flexibility. I have resolved this by narrating things in theater-of-the mind style storytelling BUT behind the DM screen I keep track of everyone's positions with maps and figures. No one sees the figures or maps but me; everyone else has to imagine it as I describe it.

This prevents confusion because one person has complete control over how the entire thing looks at any given time, without people going too meta about it by seeing things their PCs cannot imagine or see, and no one is encumbered by having to look at the figures or measure squares to break their flexible experiences. Then it's easy enough to implement diagonals and shapes and whatnot!

[Thrudd]

The two DMs I started out with had different philosophies regarding this question:

My first-ever DM had a background in Visual Arts, and played exclusively with theater of the mind. It was excellent, because the level of detail he gave to the campaign allowed a flawless rendition without the need for miniatures. Everything was described clearly, and we needed nothing but our imaginations, but the worldbuilding of the setting wasn't very clear.

My second-ever DM had a background in Creative Writing, and had very well-defined lore for his sessions, leading to an epic saga, but wasn't as good at filling in the theater of the mind. To compensate, he always had nice miniatures and grids that helped us visualize what was happening.

Personally as a DM, I like to combine the two, since I like grids and miniatures for structure, but I also want the theater of the mind for flexibility. I have resolved this by narrating things in theater-of-the mind style storytelling BUT behind the DM screen I keep track of everyone's positions with maps and figures. No one sees the figures or maps but me; everyone else has to imagine it as I describe it.

This prevents confusion because one person has complete control over how the entire thing looks at any given time, without people going too meta about it by seeing things their PCs cannot imagine or see, and no one is encumbered by having to look at the figures or measure squares to break their flexible experiences. Then it's easy enough to implement diagonals and shapes and whatnot!

Do your players feel "encumbered" by having to look at minis? To me, they make the game more fun and more engaging. I wouldn't want them hidden from me.
The DM always has control over how everything looks. Then you plop the minis down on the table with something to mark the terrain/dungeon features of their surroundings, and the players can see it, too, without needing to ask you any questions.

There shouldn't be any "meta sight", you don't put things the PC's can't see on the table, why would you do that?

[DiceDiceBaby]

Do your players feel "encumbered" by having to look at minis? To me, they make the game more fun and more engaging. I wouldn't want them hidden from me.
The DM always has control over how everything looks. Then you plop the minis down on the table with something to mark the terrain/dungeon features of their surroundings, and the players can see it, too, without needing to ask you any questions.

There shouldn't be any "meta sight", you don't put things the PC's can't see on the table, why would you do that?

No, but I understand why it breaks immersion. A grid game is like Chess. In real life, a scenario like Chess, where everyone looking at the board and knowing where everyone is, with perfect knowledge, is unlikely.

Tell me, how would you resolve a battle on a grid with four PCs and a few NPCs, but some of the PCs can see the NPCs while others do not? You know, those who are blinded or don't have darkvision and are not supposed to know that their opponents are ganging up right next to them?

If you grid a D&D game with four to seven players on different parts of the map, chances are that one or two of them would have their backs turned to things and NPCs they, the rest of the party, or even just one or two of them, would not otherwise be able to see. Aside from mucking up spell range and spell shapes, as well as fostering idiosyncratic movements, a grid destroys stealth and ruins gameplay for those who care about those things, because in real life, you can't see what is behind you, which is why you can sneak up on people with poor Passive Wisdom (Perception).

My mistake in the campaign with my DM with the grid was playing an Assassin Rogue, as sneaking around isn't fun when there is 100% knowledge made available to everyone at the table and, subconsciously to the omniscient DM, to NPCs. I never got to use my class features properly, not even RAW, so what a waste of Sneak Attack, Hide, and Assassinate. I felt terrible because I couldn't play my Class in a realistic manner. Even worse, the DM is lax on Darkvision; I could have made a Human character and I would still be aware of where everyone is on the grid in pitch blackness. Metagaming abounds; I'd prefer it if we went theater of the mind and the DM described in detail what each of us was seeing, which actually adds to the gameplay of the problems of limited vision and sight, which are nullified by a grid game.

I vowed to never let this happen in any of my campaigns, so as far as I am concerned, theater of the mind is the best way to play D&D, but I think a competent DM needs a grid behind the screen for their own purposes to prevent people from knowing or seeing things they really should not. The players don't need to see this grid if your storytelling and bookkeeping are effective.

[Tanarii]

You sure seem dedicated to the idea that the creatures are snapping to an exact position, with your examples of Burning Hands and Hypnotic Pattern. Maybe that's because you usually play gridless. Just as the grid is an abstraction, and the shape of the spell is an abstraction, the position of the piece within the square(s) or whatever shape(s) the grid is based on is an abstraction.

I always run and generally prefer to play 5e as ToTM, but played both 3e and 4e heavily on battlemats. I agree it changes the way play feels completely.

[SethoMarkus]

My mistake in the campaign with my DM with the grid was playing an Assassin Rogue, as sneaking around isn't fun when there is 100% knowledge made available to everyone at the table and, subconsciously to the omniscient DM, to NPCs. I never got to use my class features properly, not even RAW, so what a waste of Sneak Attack, Hide, and Assassinate. I felt terrible because I couldn't play my Class in a realistic manner. Even worse, the DM is lax on Darkvision; I could have made a Human character and I would still be aware of where everyone is on the grid in pitch blackness. Metagaming abounds; I'd prefer it if we went theater of the mind and the DM described in detail what each of us was seeing, which actually adds to the gameplay of the problems of limited vision and sight, which are nullified by a grid game.



This also sounds like a DM problem, not a problem directly linked to grid (or map) use.

Though I do agree that the simply by having visual representations on the table it affects meta-knowledge of the game. This is why it is important for players (and DMs) to separate in-game and out-of-game knowledge. To use the theater-of-mind example with darkvision, what is the difference between the DM showing the players what their characters see vesus speaking it out loud? Surely if the DM says "Frank the Orc sees two kobolds sneaking up in the dark. Kyle the Human sees nothing but darkness", then both Frank's player and Kyle's player are aware that there are two kobolds just the same as though they were represented with miniatures on a gridded map...

I'm not trying to say there are no disadvantages to using a grid, or that there are not advantages to a theater-of-mind approach. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. But a lack of leniency (or too much leniency in your example with darkvision) can cause problems with either.

My group in college originally used only theater-of-mind. It was wonderfully done and the DM was fantastic. However, we started as a group of 3 PCs in a labyrinth like building full of puzzles and traps. Once we left that compound and pur party size grew, we began to migrate to a map with grid for clairty in combat encounters, and eventually used the map and grid for nearly all scenes. We dis this because it was too confusing (for our group)to keep track of everyone's location, and because ranged attacks were useless in theater-of-mind (in our group) because all of the combatants were stacked on top of each other for all intents and purposes.

[Sabeta]

snip

You know what else is fun. "Jenessa, you've just been stabbed in the back for 24 Damage."
"Wait, there was somebody behind me?"
"Yes, but you weren't looking for him so you didn't find him"
"Hang on, I have a Passive Perception of 20, did he really beat that?"
"No, but you weren't looking for him."
"Couldn't I hear him?"
"You guys are fighting, you couldn't hear him over the clashing of blades."
"But I'm nowhere near those guys. I'm a Ranger!"
"Deal with it"

See, your issue with Grids had nothing to do with grids at all. It's entirely to do with a crappy DM. My players have no problem with Stealth Rules in the game. If something is hidden I tell them he's hidden and don't notice them. I've had exactly one player decide he was going to randomly turn around because a sneaking enemy was approaching from behind. I told him no, but did allow him to use an action to make an active perception roll. He didn't want to use an entire action on that, so he decided to simply attack one of the guys he actually could see. Problem resolved, it never came up again. He did get attacked by the Rogue, had he taken the action to look for him he would have wasted a turn, but not been Sneak Attacked. The rest learned from his example, you can choose to look for things that go bump in the dark, or you can ignore them and keep fighting. Your turn lasts 6 seconds, you get enough time to do one or the other, but not both. I'm not sure why you seem to think that players knowing things their character doesn't is some cardinal sin of gaming. If you have a problem with metagaming stop letting people metagame. It's as simple as that. Grid has no impact on that.

I use a grid, but it's a relaxed format. I use it to quickly and swiftly adjudicate turns, but if the Ranger propositions that he can line up a shot better if he stops halfway through a square to shoot between two adjacent allies, and then finishes his movement it's fine. I'll let him take the shot, award any enemies half cover (over the three quarters that shooting from behind an ally might have) Likewise, if my Wizard wants to Burning Hands at 23.7 Degrees, or even rotate his hands a little bit so the effect narrowly misses an ally that's also fine. The Grid makes it very easy to rationalize when that's possible, and when that's stupid. Cubed AoEs can be diamond shaped, fog clouds can be 3 feet up, hypnotic eyes can be whatever shape that normally makes. As long as the point of origin is legal and the shape doesn't change you can direct it however you want. I WOULD allow my players to take half-movments and such, but that slows down the entire game as it would start requiring me to measure things out rather than just check squares. None of my players have ever expressed a desire to end their turn on half a square in the first place, but if they did I probably would say no.

Bonus round, I typically draw my own maps, and while I scale them to fit neatly on a grid I don't constrain objects to it. I play on Roll 20 mostly so I just set this to the map layer and allow the default grid to lay over this.

http://i.imgur.com/g8MNuQb.png

TLDR: Neither system is better than the other. You're free to play the game how you want to play it, but don't act like issues concerning bad DMs or worse Players has anything to do with TotM versus Grid.

[Thrudd]

No, but I understand why it breaks immersion. A grid game is like Chess. In real life, a scenario like Chess, where everyone looking at the board and knowing where everyone is, with perfect knowledge, is unlikely.

Tell me, how would you resolve a battle on a grid with four PCs and a few NPCs, but some of the PCs can see the NPCs while others do not? You know, those who are blinded or don't have darkvision and are not supposed to know that their opponents are ganging up right next to them?

If you grid a D&D game with four to seven players on different parts of the map, chances are that one or two of them would have their backs turned to things and NPCs they, the rest of the party, or even just one or two of them, would not otherwise be able to see. Aside from mucking up spell range and spell shapes, as well as fostering idiosyncratic movements, a grid destroys stealth and ruins gameplay for those who care about those things, because in real life, you can't see what is behind you, which is why you can sneak up on people with poor Passive Wisdom (Perception).

My mistake in the campaign with my DM with the grid was playing an Assassin Rogue, as sneaking around isn't fun when there is 100% knowledge made available to everyone at the table and, subconsciously to the omniscient DM, to NPCs. I never got to use my class features properly, not even RAW, so what a waste of Sneak Attack, Hide, and Assassinate. I felt terrible because I couldn't play my Class in a realistic manner. Even worse, the DM is lax on Darkvision; I could have made a Human character and I would still be aware of where everyone is on the grid in pitch blackness. Metagaming abounds; I'd prefer it if we went theater of the mind and the DM described in detail what each of us was seeing, which actually adds to the gameplay of the problems of limited vision and sight, which are nullified by a grid game.

I vowed to never let this happen in any of my campaigns, so as far as I am concerned, theater of the mind is the best way to play D&D, but I think a competent DM needs a grid behind the screen for their own purposes to prevent people from knowing or seeing things they really should not. The players don't need to see this grid if your storytelling and bookkeeping are effective.

All the problems you describe with using minis are still problems with theater of the mind. You still need to describe what every character is seeing, and every player is going to hear that. If one character makes a perception check and another doesn't, you still need to tell them and everyone at the table is going to hear it. The situation you describe, with characters spread all over the place not seeing the same things also seems like a very fringe situation, not something that should influence how you run the game most of the time. The hiding/stealth problem would only seem to apply if players are engaging in PvP, again a fringe case and equally annoying using theater of the mind (passing around secret notes or somesuch).

I think some people are under the misapprehension that there is a map on the table of the entire dungeon and the players can see the whole complex before they explore it. That would be a silly way to do it, and you'd need an enormous table to host a mini-scale map of an entire dungeon floor. You just put what is immediately surrounding the PC's in the combat encounter. If they run off the map and flee from combat, or engage in a chase/pursuit instead of fighting, they don't need to be on the table anymore, you run it according to pursuit rules. During normal exploration, you don't use a grid. It is only for combat.

It doesn't give anything away to have a gang of miniatures on the table with something marking where there are tables and doors or trees and boulders or whatever. The DM already knows which PCs are hiding and who isn't. If the DM is playing the enemies as though they can see everything because the minis are on the table, ignoring rules about hiding and perception, that is a bad DM that is ignoring the rules of the game, it is not a problem caused by the minis. If an NPC is undetected by all the characters, the DM shouldn't put the mini on the table. When someone sees the NPC, then the mini comes out, and it really isn't a big deal if the other players now also get to know that the NPC is there. If the NPC goes back behind complete cover or out of line of sight of all the characters, take it off the table again if it really bugs you that the players can see it's exact position.

Also, I advocate not using a grid, but just having minis on the table with terrain and measuring with a tape. Just like the characters, the players don't need to know the precise distance to things, they can eyeball it and estimate until it comes time to actually move/shoot. Formations and positions will be more natural and visually will be more precise than the abstraction of everything being in five foot squares. But using a grid on a dry erase mat isn't all that different, really.

It isn't about being a good story teller or describing things precisely enough - it's about making the game easier and more engaging for the players and making full use of the game system. Combat is a big part of D&D, and the rules of the game are designed for tactical play with somewhat precise positioning and distance. You can be the most descriptive and precise DM ever, using only theater of the mind for combat is still cumbersome and gets harder and more abstract the more characters are involved. With just a few participants in the battle it is fine, but as the numbers rise it gets impossible to keep track of where everything is, definitely for the players if not for the DM.