Article Header Image
The Ever-Elusive Feel
Mike Mearls

O ver the course of developing D&D Next, we’ve talked a lot about the game’s feel. Like elegance, feel is an elusive target in game design. Feel is an almost intuitive quality. It pulls you deeper into the game, making it easier and more rewarding to become fully immersed within the rules.

A mechanic’s feel is correct when it helps to match your actions, thoughts, and decisions as a player with the actions, thoughts, and decisions made by your character. Roleplaying games have an unmatched potential to immerse participants in the act of playing. The idea of feel fosters this immersion by bringing a player’s mindset into harmony with his or her character’s mindset.

When the feel of a game mechanic is off, it leads to situations in the game that pull you out of character and force you to think purely in terms of mechanics. The word “force” is important there. Some players quite enjoy approaching D&D as a puzzle to solve, and it’s okay for those players to actively decide to disengage from the feel of a game mechanic. However, trouble arises when a player who wants to become immersed has difficulty doing so because of how the rules function.

For example, imagine a scenario in which a quirk in the rules meant that the average orc in plate armor was easier to hit than the average unarmored orc. Orcs aren’t known for their speed or agility. In this case, the orc’s AC fails the feel test. It doesn’t match what you’d expect. It feels wrong.

On the other hand, you could imagine that the same scenario would make sense when applied to a quickling. Armor slows down a quickling and negates its inhuman agility. Throwing such a creature into plate armor could well make it easier to hit.

In D&D Next, our approach to light, medium, and heavy armor captures the basic feel that armor should evoke in a fantasy roleplaying game. Agile characters wear lighter armor, even as clumsy or average characters would rather wear heavy armor to cover for their lack of agility. Even though this approach might not be the most realistic, it meets the much more important criteria of evoking the feel of D&D.

Character Classes and Feel

RPG designers face an interesting set of opposed goals when it comes to feel and class design.

On the one hand, designing flexible classes allows each class to accommodate a wide variety of play styles. For example, your rogue can be a shadowy killer, a cunning treasure hunter, or a charming diplomat. Flexible classes do a great job of serving players who bring a specific character concept to the game, and then look for a class to match it. You can think of those players as goal-oriented shoppers. They go to the store knowing exactly what they want, they track those items down on the shelves, and they make their purchases. These types of players come to the table with the feel of their characters already determined. They know what they want, and they need the system to provide it.

On the other hand, such flexibility can prove troublesome for new players, and for those players looking to inspect different classes first, then pick what they want to play based on what they see. Those players are more like browsers wandering through a store. They look at what’s on the shelves and let the selection guide their purchasing decisions. For players who like to explore first, then decide what they want, the feel they seek is the blank slate that allows them to fully interact with the game.

Though many mechanics lend themselves to a straightforward sense of whether they support the feel of D&D or miss it in some manner, classes have to match a variety of expected feels. Some players think of a fighter and imagine a towering half-orc with a huge axe. Others see a nimble elf with a short sword and bow, or a cunning halfling with a pair of axes. Each class has a number of basic shared traits that it should support—for example, the idea that fighters are good with weapons and armor. However, other preferred traits will vary between players.

On top of that, it’s clear from the playtest feedback that players love to customize characters. Although getting the basic feel of a class is important, there will never be one single sense of feel to rule them all. Some players want the flexibility to add their own unique flavor to a class. Others want the option to pick from a limited number of class archetypes. In designing D&D Next, we thus faced an interesting challenge.

Historically, 3rd Edition D&D catered to the goal-oriented shoppers. Classes were open ended, with feats, spells, prestige classes, and multiclassing all acting as doors opening onto near-infinite options. Unfortunately, this open-ended approach proved an impenetrable barrier to many new players. Players of 3e were required to bring their own feel to the table.

In reaction, 4th Edition took the opposite approach. By adopting roles and builds, the game made it clear what each character class was supposed to do. The decisions you made as a player were more limited in scope. Players who loved to browse had a much easier time of it, since they could look at a class and its builds to see what was available. In exchange for that, however, 4e left many goal-oriented players out in the cold. If you wanted your fighter to be a cunning archer and survivalist, you had to wait until we published the appropriate build and power, or you were forced to play a ranger.

In 4e, the game assumed that players came to the table with a blank slate. The game dictated your character’s feel from the range of explicit options it provided. Players could always pull various pieces together to form the exact characters they wanted. However, doing so took more work and sometimes required that an ability’s description be ignored in favor of its mechanics.

With D&D Next, we took an approach almost straight down the middle between these previous editions. We moved away from roles to give players more freedom, but we adopted subclasses as a way to provide more focus and guidance to character creation. In many ways, the roles from 4e helped give focus to the design of specific subclasses. For example, when we look at the fighter, it feels equally natural to view that class as a protector of the rest of the party, or as a warrior whose only focus is dealing out punishment at a prodigious rate.

Browser-type players have more finely tuned options in D&D Next, even as goal-oriented character builders can mix and match subclasses to create their own unique characters. Feats are bigger, making their effects on characters more obvious and pushing us to design fewer of them. Browsers can spot the feats that improve their chosen specialty. Builders have access to feats that can give their characters a strong push away from a class’s typical identity.

For Dungeon Masters, we’re placing the idea of creating your own subclass into an optional part of the game. We want DMs to embrace subclass creation as a part of setting creation. We also want to make sure that builders or players who love to optimize take a moment to sit down and talk to their DMs before a campaign starts. If a player wants something specific from the campaign, it’s important that the group talks about it, understands it, and gives the DM space to plan adventures and sessions around it.

This is just one of the many areas where the D&D Next playtest was critical to striking the optimal balance between the needs of different groups of players. By relying on survey results to hone each iteration of the game’s design, we slowly but surely arrived at a basic approach to class design that works well for all types of players.

Mike Mearls
Mike Mearls is the senior manager for the D&D research and design team. He led the design for 5th Edition D&D. His other credits include the Castle Ravenloft board game, Monster Manual 3 for 4th Edition, and Player’s Handbook 2 for 3rd Edition.
Sort Items By: Newest First Oldest First Top Rated
We get that DnD is the biggest gateway of new players into RPGs. But also remember it's the granddaddy, and us 20+ year vets have more mature tastes. 4e took away much customization outside of combat, and even there curtailed it, and it caused a large schism in the player base.

You can't shoot for the middle road - you end up with a lose-lose. You won't pull back those that left when 4e came out, or those that stayed with uber-customizable 3.x, but it will also be too complex for beginners.

So stop trying to be everything for everybody any pick one road or the other, and lock in those players.
Posted By: Blue23 (12/14/2013 11:10:58 PM)


Young people (compared to Blue23 and me) who started with Third Edition became devoted to it just like we are (I assume) to AD&D and those just a little younger want to play Red Box. I'm not trying to cure stubbornness, but no edition so far has had new players pick a background in addition to race and class. It's a long time since Mike Mearls has discussed modularity in terms of what should be optional, and I hope that's being looked at in this regard.

The approach so far in the playtest is to recommend a background to save the player having to choose. This approach saddled beginners with suboptimal characters in Third Edition and led to cookie-cutter characters in Fourth (I'm referring to feats and builds, respectively). It's time for a new, more flexible strategy, and I think what this edition does with feats so far is an encouraging start.

If the backgrounds were broken down by a relevant ability the default rule could be to just pick one ability, whic... (see all)
Posted By: RadperT (12/15/2013 9:01:34 PM)


"For Dungeon Masters, we’re placing the idea of creating your own subclass into an optional part of the game." AWESOME!
Posted By: Sands666 (12/12/2013 6:44:07 PM)


I love the idea of modularity. PLEASE give us a digital tool to build and print our own campaign rulebooks!
Posted By: RC-0775 (12/12/2013 1:37:43 PM)


You're forgetting the most important group-the new players. For now, D & D is the industry leader in tabletop roleplaying. It doesn't fill its plate by virtue of players migrating from other games, it will succeed at the Hasbro level by attracting and keeping people, mostly young, with no prior TTRPG experience. I've given gamers with little to no experience in this hobby the playtest rules and it took them an average of an hour-and a-half to decide on their options and fill out their character sheets. Even providing a recommended background still leaves the player with all that information to write down and read, along with all the subraces and subclasses.

Flavor and customization shouldn't keep beginning players from starting in about the time it takes them to roll their ability scores. People new to this type of gaming are not well represented in the survey results, and if you think that catering to players who have already formed their opinions of it will help s... (see all)
Posted By: RadperT (12/11/2013 11:31:00 AM)


Why would I want a fighter who can dual wield or be decent with a bow? Because a group might not be big enough to fill all the slots generally needed for a standard group. Options let you will in the holes. During our first play test of the new rules a friend and I set our characters similar to each others, fighter w/ archer set, and Ranger. In the end it worked out well, we both could range, which changed the dynamic of how we took on challenges, and allowed us to get in the thick of it when needed. Options are good.
4th ed was fun but it made the game uninteresting when you couldn't get a decent group together, having to constantly mod encounters was both tiresome and exasperating. We left 4th ed for another game all together because it left a bad taste in our mouths.
Posted By: Plotslayer (12/10/2013 4:51:12 PM)


And, as other have said, the 4e ranger not only fits the bill, but even how you describe it fits the template of how 4e works.
No spells, pets, etc, just plain up fighting? Clearly that's a martial power source. No other edition lets you cut out approx. four-fifths of the classes so easily.
You want to deal a lot of damage over being a tank? Clearly you are a striker. That eliminates approx. three quarters of the martial classes. Let's see what's left. Rogue or Ranger? Sounds like ranger fits exactly what you want.
The whole point of roles and power sources wasn't to shoehorn your character, it was to allow you to choose the class that best fit what you actually wanted, rather than trying to make particular class be a poor fit for all play styles just because you think that a martial character has to be a "fighter"
Posted By: Noirsoft (12/10/2013 3:46:27 PM)


That's fine as long as you are happy with a playstyle of the form "This is your role. You do this." and the role is one of the listed ones. But if your character concept is more complicated (or simply less common), it may not be on the menu, and then what do you do?

I loved some of the earlier, more flexible DDN builds that allowed me to come up with an elven wilderness rogue who grew up around ruins, often served as a guide to them, and was going to follow a "treasure hunter" path, which had some really great specific goodies for the character concept. I'm hopeful that the rules for custom subclasses that Mike talks about here are going to bring back this kind of character design flexibility.
Posted By: tesseractive (12/11/2013 1:25:27 PM)


From a thread down below:

Bad Mike wrote: "Hmm... that's a pretty interesting read. BUT - most companies don't make a habit of regularly releasing data from their own surveys to the general public."

I agree that they generally don't make a habit of it. But many do let their customers know the results of surveys they took. Other examples would be the polls they've taken in this very column; we take the poll one week, then see the results the next.

Bad Mike wrote: "It makes no sense to pay for market data and then make it available for free to your competitor."

They've created a product (DnD Next) and making that product freely available to their competitors. In fact, they'll giving their competitors a glimpse under the hood.

Personally, what I'm really interested in from the surveys is just information about what edition people started playing with and what edition is their favorite. I'm not sure that's partic... (see all)
Posted By: Seanchai (12/10/2013 2:11:03 PM)


I want to play a wizard, but I don't want to use magic, I want to wear heavy armor and hit things with maces.
Posted By: Luke-Lightning (12/10/2013 9:26:50 AM)


Mike, this is an excellent article! (as always).
It really demonstrates the hard work the dndnext team has done to:
a) deconstruct the game to its basic to create the ultimate intuitive and immersive game (which it always has aimed to be since the beginning of DnD, but always failed a bit due to some clunky mechanics) and
b) offer possibilities for player options, for those who want it.
I remember Mike's (and dndnext team's) battlecry: "let's not get in the way!";
meaning the game system should not interfere with the players "living" in the story..
Ans they are right on track.
I for one, applaud all the hard work.
thank you, thank you, thank you.
did I say "thank you"?
Thank you.

P.S. Mike and crew: don't rush things, if it takes 2 more years, who cares, as long it feels perfect, it will be the ultimate edition!
Posted By: sjap (12/10/2013 5:58:00 AM)


I thought this was a really good article that explained one aspect of the divide between editions. The divide isn't about which system was "better" but about different players wanting different things (as far as breaking ermison, I found both of those systems were bad offenders of this). When I look at DnDN I really see elements from all editions and I see how subclasses is such a good idea. I can chose to play a fighter and it's pretty clear what it does, but it also has enough give in the mechanics so that I can make my fighter a light armored nimble elf fighter, a fighter trained with a bow, etc. I don't have to be just a marking fighter.

I think a big part of this is the fact that different classes support different pillars of play to different extents. So, the fighter is almost all geard towards combat, dishing out he most damage and being a let I soak the most hits. The ranger can hold his own in combat, but really shines when it comes to exploration. This... (see all)
Posted By: moes1980 (12/10/2013 3:00:23 AM)


"If you wanted your fighter to be a cunning archer and survivalist, you had to wait until we published the appropriate build and power, or you were forced to play a ranger."

If you wanted your /character/ to be a cunning archer and survivalist you'd play a ranger, and you'd have exactly what you want.

Posted By: Tony_Vargas (12/9/2013 10:29:22 PM)


"I want to play a cleric, but I don't want to play group support; I want to smash things." Remember that?
Posted By: Dreamstryder (12/10/2013 12:26:58 AM)


True, but they'd still whine about it. I recall back in '08 having a similar conversation with someone who wanted to play a dual-wielding fighter. I was like, "no prob, just make a ranger," and the response was along the lines of "no! I don't wanna play a ranger! Waaah waaah!"
Posted By: pauldanielj2 (12/10/2013 3:51:24 PM)


I really have a hard time taking this article seriously, given how constrained and limited the packets have been for the last six months. Instead of fulfilling the needs of both the 'concept-focused' and 'class-browser' types, it only seems to cater to the crowd that needs their classes built for them. Almost every significant option that facilitated concept creation has been removed in the name of 'Simplification'. The worst parts of both 3.x and 4E have been adhered to in the latest packets, from multi-classing to party roles (updated terms aside, roles all the same) all the way through Alignment as core.

It's like a roller-coaster with you guys. You promise options and modules, to cater to all different playstyles, and then ram forced rulesets down our throats.
Posted By: LupusRegalis (12/9/2013 8:34:41 PM)


I hate the answer concerning Armor even more, it just shows an unwillingness to do the work to make the system work and be more immersive at the same time. Obviously enough people have shown concern that M.Mearls has addressed it not only on his Twitter, but now here in the daily DnD as well. With that in consideration, how is it not better to actually facilitate your player-base?

But then, it's been like that the entire play-test. Instead of doing the work to correct the problems within the system for the new edition, the devs have instead seemed to rely more and more on already established systems.
Posted By: LupusRegalis (12/9/2013 8:49:50 PM)


you sir, are far too pessimistic. I'm glad I don't game with you.
Posted By: Evilbastage (12/10/2013 10:35:46 AM)


One of the problems with roles being defined for classes as they were in 4e, was that it was too restrictive. More than a few wanted their fighters to be "strikers" and the mechanics tended to force different classes to be one type of armour only, and just tended to block out concepts. There seriously is a problem with "Want to play an archer fighter? Play a ranger instead" in that I feel fighters should have a wide range of options as there's many who want to play an archer without having any of the nature and survival baggage attached to their character. Granted I feel that rangers should get a bunch of options too, but in ways different from fighters.
Posted By: KoboldAvenger (12/9/2013 8:23:03 PM)


Wow. So, deciding to be a 3e fighter allows you more choices of actions than a 4e one? That's about the most bizarre thing I've read today. Possibly the biggest issue I have with 3e is the overly constraining nature. My PHB only 4e fighter could start a battle by drawing his own blood to empower a ranged attack spell, cowing any enemy he targets, then teleport behind them and hit them with his axe. Not sure how that fits in with the statements above that say that 4e constrained stuff ...

I mean, in general most people would agree that 4e lost a lot of the feel of DnD, but I'm pretty sure few of them would say "because it made fighters more constrained in what they could do ..."
Posted By: GrahamWills (12/9/2013 7:40:06 PM)


This is encouraging to read. I feel like the current Rogue is someone's archetype of a rogue without room to customize it. The Thief is one type of thief. The Assassin is one type of Assassin. There's a lot of variations from even other packets that I wish were there for more Charisma/Intelligence based characters rather than ubiquitous dexterity.
Posted By: Bly2729 (12/9/2013 6:28:17 PM)


I think this all depends on a delicate balance. No, not the mechanic one, or the “Wizard is OP, X class is UP”. I’m talking about a balance between customizations and archetypes.
Basically, some customization inside a class is nice. But only until a point. Classes have to mean something in a class based system and a big something. There is a point on customization where the class does not mean anything anymore. For example: If you don’t like roles or preconceived archetypes, why the Fighter cannot get any magical ability in the class, or why the Wizard cannot get any healing spells in the class or even get so good weapon fighting in the class as the Fighter?
Because of roles and archetypes. Unless some outsider means is used (outside of the class), the Fighter, per rule, does not cast spells, the Wizard, per rule, is not efficient in weapon combat and does not cast healing spells. It is not the role of the Fighter (usually) to cast spells, it is not the role of the Wizard (u... (see all)
Posted By: cassi_brazuca (12/9/2013 6:13:09 PM)


I agree. I see the role of sub-classes as addressing, say, multiple archetypes of the larger mage archetype. If you want to break with archetypes, you use feats; combine archetypes: multiclassing.

My hope is the archetypes can cover archetypes from non-European sources, like the Daoist demon-queller who uses commonly, a sword and abjuration magic to exorcise and vanquish monsters. This is why a light touch is essential; picking the most telling features of an archetype, and giving the player choice in the less universal ones, so that the archetype is a jumping-off point, not a prison.
Posted By: Dreamstryder (12/10/2013 12:21:33 AM)


I like this example.

Another example might be a character based on some of the fey-themed stories I've read, where the character can cast things like glamours and enchantments, but doesn't have any direct attack spells and uses a weapon if it comes down to combat.
Posted By: tesseractive (12/11/2013 1:54:57 PM)


That sounds like a subclass of Paladin, to me.
Posted By: Marandahir (12/10/2013 3:06:11 PM)


Depends. The Fighter-Mage hybrids are supposed to be subclasses of the Fighter. ("Classes and Subclasses,"
Posted By: RadperT (12/10/2013 6:36:31 PM)


"If you wanted your fighter to be a cunning archer and survivalist, you had to wait until we published the appropriate build and power, or you were forced to play a ranger."

What part of "cunning archer and survivalist" requires the character have the Fighter class? It's not as if there are labels over characters heads saying what class they are, MMO style.

And it's not as if that's a practical 3e character with the Fighter class. The archer bit can probably be done, but survivalist imlies some range of skills. Which are not exactly the strongest point of the Fighter class. 2e you could probably do a lot better through access to NWPs, and it would work out in BECM too.
Posted By: Bluenose (12/9/2013 4:36:11 PM)


Yeah, the article reads somewhat like "in 4e, you were forced to play the class that actually does what you want well (though it might have a different name than you thought), rather than trying to shoehorn every class into supporting every play style in a suboptimal fashion." As if that was a bad thing and not one of its core strengths.

If you want to play a ranger, the game should encourage the player to play a ranger. Not a fighter who tries to be a (poor) ranger just because the player likes the word "fighter" better.
Posted By: Noirsoft (12/9/2013 7:31:45 PM)


Right, so someone should have to have all the extra baggage that comes with playing a 'Ranger', just because they'd prefer to play an 'English Longbowman'-esque fighter. No pets, no spells, no bull about nature or environments, just straight up ex-military, mercenary specializing in ranged combat. Just to play the game 'right'?

Forget that, I play the game to play the character, not someone else's idea of what my character should be or be able to do.
Posted By: LupusRegalis (12/9/2013 8:39:23 PM)


@LupusRegalis I can't tell if you're trying to speak in favor or against 4e, but there is absolutely no spells, animals, or other "baggage" associated with a Ranger as there is in 3rd Edition. In fact, 4th Edition is probably the most "baggage" free for the Ranger, specifically. They aren't even tied to the "primal" power source, so they can be any bow-wielding/dual-wielding martial archetype you want.
Posted By: Stix_Remix (12/9/2013 9:01:39 PM)


"No pets, no spells, no bull about nature or environments, just straight up ex-military, mercenary specializing in ranged combat."

The 4e Ranger did that just fine. The closest thing to 'baggage' you'd've had was the names of some of the powers.

The 'pet' option for the 4e ranger wasn't even in the PH, spells (primal utilities) didn't enter into it until the Essnetials sub-classes. The only bull about nature/environments was that you got your choice of Nature or Dungeoneering. Apart from that, you could take all the same skills as a you could have as a fighter. You'd just have a 'bonus' skill.

Posted By: Tony_Vargas (12/9/2013 10:15:25 PM)


Animal Friendship could work a little more for the DnDNext Ranger, but I'm certainly glad it's moving back toward the stealthy woodsman concept. The martial Striker "role" wasn't a good fit for that any more than Legolas needs to be a Ranger.
Posted By: RadperT (12/10/2013 1:29:18 PM)


I happen to believe that 4th provided a lot for the goal-oriented shopper, with the dual axes of role and power source providing a lot of organization where the 3rd edition approach required prolonged browsing through all classes to find the right fit.

I mean, if you want a nimble dual-wielding character who doesn't rely on magic, why does that have to be a called a "fighter", the same name as a huge, armored tank? Why is realizing that the two types really are two different classes and calling one "ranger" such a burden to overcome? Aragorn in Lord of the Rings is called a ranger and no one complains that he lacks the ability to cast divine spells.
Posted By: Noirsoft (12/9/2013 3:09:41 PM)


I rather like the feel of next, I'm glad they have given the feel as much attention as they have... but on an entirely unrelated note, SORCERER OH SORCERER! Where art thou?
Posted By: Xynthoros (12/9/2013 3:03:26 PM)


Feel (and elegance) are definitely in the eye of the beholder. Its clear enough from the forums that there are people for whom the current armor setup breaks the "feel" of the game. I guess the question is, why is this "feel" better than a different "feel"?
Posted By: WCU_Scout (12/9/2013 1:18:13 PM)


My guess would be the feedback?
Posted By: NinjaPlease (12/9/2013 1:24:22 PM)


Are the designers following the feedback? To the best of my knowledge, they haven't released the results of any of the surveys. Thus we can only guess what feedback the surveys, in-house testers, Friends and Family testers, etc. said. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (12/9/2013 4:17:37 PM)


Seriously? Come on, how many companies release the results of their surveys? A better question would be why in the name of God wouldn't the designers follow the feedback? They're looking to create the most commercially successful game possible - that's the whole point of the survey. Why shoot yourself in the foot by ignoring data?
Posted By: BadMike (12/9/2013 10:44:13 PM)


WotC released the results of one of their previous surveys: They're hardly the only company to do so.

Why wouldn't they follow the feedback? First, I don't know that they're not. They could be. We don't know because they haven't released the results of the surveys we took.

Second, as for an actual, innocuous, and potential reason why they might not: because they didn't believe the results were accurate. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (12/9/2013 11:12:26 PM)


Hmm... that's a pretty interesting read. BUT - most companies don't make a habit of regularly releasing data from their own surveys to the general public. It makes no sense to pay for market data and then make it available for free to your competitor. Even this particular survey says: "Wizards of the Coast regularly surveys various aspects of the adventure gaming channel; distributors, retailers and consumers to better understand their preferences, concerns, and needs. . . The contents of this file are excerpts from those sources; the source materials themselves are confidential internal documents and are not available to the public."

Like I said, though - interesting read if you're looking for a snapshot of the industry from 2000. Do you have any idea of the circumstances behind its release?
Posted By: BadMike (12/10/2013 12:57:28 AM)


I suppose. Feedback can be subtle though. I would mark satisfied on a survey about armor, because I am fine with it. But I also don't care and would be fine with *any* system as long is it wasn't overly complicated. Someone else may mark dissatisfied because they have a well thought out and explicit issue. Our opinions carry the same weight in the survey. Should they?
Posted By: WCU_Scout (12/9/2013 1:45:43 PM)


The ratings allowed you to push a button in the middle, which is what I did in your situation. Although they provided more options for feedback as time went on, the surveys didn't distinguish enough between evaluation points concerning the How to Play, Equipment and Bestiary documents. Even with Feats and Classes, though, there wasn't an opportunity to specify whether you wanted to broaden particular items or simply wanted them eliminated.
Posted By: RadperT (12/10/2013 12:30:26 PM)


I appreciate this approach. Still, I feel as if the spells and spell casting needs work either on the mechanical end, or on the presentation end, in order to be more easily picked up by newer players and to adhere to what you've talked about in these recent articles.
Posted By: CelticPaladin (12/9/2013 1:02:55 PM)


I'm first. :) Also, I give the subclass/path approach a thumbs up. I like having multiple options and choices over x class does y ability to fill z role.
Posted By: Ashrym (12/9/2013 12:57:59 PM)



Create Comment
Follow Us
Find a place to get together with friends or gear up for adventure at a store near you
Please enter a city or zip code