|
Also on the "decouple skills from stats" discussion. I was checking something else up in the DMG and noticed in page 239 they specifically say if there's a good justification you can use a different stat with the skill proficiency. They even give the example of someone swimming a long distance needing a Con check due to the distance but is proficient in Athletics, so they make a Athletics (Con) check instead of Athletics (Str). I don't think the intimidate check using dex is a good example though. If you're a massive, hulking character then maybe you can argue to merely have to stand there to look intimidating, but if you've got a deadly reputation you firstly need to actually have one through actions that get heard about and secondly you'd still need to say the right thing. So I'd just give advantages due to reputation and make it an easy check or something.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
There are certainly movies and other media where a skilled swordsman demonstrates his badass sword skills with some  flourishes and whatnot and it intimidates the mooks that have no chance against him in a fight. I think that'd be a proper use of DEX for Intimidate.Edit: I think Zorro could pull off some Intimidate (DEX) checks. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:There are certainly movies and other media where a skilled swordsman demonstrates his badass sword skills with some Yeah but personally I'd say: OK well first you need to do some bad rear end sword poo poo. So that will be a dex check but I'll let you add your proficiency bonus because you are doing it with your proficient weapon. The DC will be normal as they aren't hard to impress but you're looking to scare them. Say you pass this I'd then say: OK well this guy knows you're pretty awesome with a sword now, so I'll say it's an DC5 (easy) check to intimidate him and I'll give you an advantage. If you failed though I'd say: OK you try to do some impressive sword poo poo and you fumble it up, accidentally dropping your sword where it sticks into the floor with a shudder. The guys sniggers. You can still attempt to save face and intimidate him. He's only a guard so it's a DC10 test (normal) but you have a disadvantage because he saw you cock that up. I mean you mentioned Zoro but he was smooth as gently caress. Remember the scene in the movie where he cuts the woman's dress off her and she looks all angry but that's because she wants to jump his bones so badly? That's the charisma. The dex is being able to cut the dress off a woman without stabbing her, the charisma is her not hating you for doing it. You could just make them take an intimidate (dex) check if you wanted to though. You'd be rewarding interesting roleplaying and it makes it a load simpler. So I think it's fine to do either, you just need to remember who is in the group. If there is a guy with a high charisma stat with a proficiency in persuade and every time you go somewhere the guy just Zoro's the place up and gets what he wants it's no fun for the other guy. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Or, how about just throwing darts in a bar?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Or, how about just throwing darts in a bar? Same thing applies. The guy you want to intimidate is sitting there. So you say: I want to throw a Dart to land in between his hands to scare him. I'd make you take what is basically an attack role, with a 20 or something being "You close your eyes and throw the dart. It bounces off someone's pewter tankard on another table and then lands in between the fingers of the guy on the table with centimeters to spare" and it might be so impressive I say you don't need the intimidate check. Whereas a 1 probably results in the Dart missing and hitting someone else in the buttock, possibly starting a bar brawl. If you succeeded then sure DC5 with an advantage, if not then DC10 with a disadvantage. The reason I like this better is because it has more roleplaying opportunity, it gives the player a choice (normal roll or risk it trying to get a good roll), and it still relies on the guy having a modicum of charisma. Finally, if you're skilled with a sword it may be better to do it then to take a intimidate (dex) roll as you may not be proficient in intimidate anyway. On the other hand it's much easier to just say "Yeah take an intimidate roll but use dex instead".
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
I used to run a campaign of Microlite20, whose skill check system was [d20 + attribute modifier + skill bonus]. The attributes were STR/DEX/MIND, and the skills were Physical/Subterfuge/Knowledge/Communication and you could map most any action to various pairings. I'd say decoupling attributes from skills is a workable idea, although the specific implementation is going to differ from person to person and 5E's skills are specific enough that you might not ever run into some stat+skill combos. And yes, you're also going to run into players that are always going to want to frame the skill check in such a way that if they have 20 DEX then they're going to Intimidate dexterously or Investigate dexterously or Perform dexterously, but I personally would just let them do it - if it means they start making ridiculous stunts just to make the pairing fit, more power to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Multi-Classing: This is not true. If you multi-class as Cleric, you gain the domain feature as a normal class feature, which includes the ability to gain proficiency in Heavy Armor from Life and War domains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
If you can justify it, apply the Rule of Cool and let the person use the skill they want. Why penalize the Silent Zorro just because he chose to drop Charisma?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:If you can justify it, apply the Rule of Cool and let the person use the skill they want. Why penalize the Silent Zorro just because he chose to drop Charisma? Well because you may have someone in the group who took high charisma and boosted their persuasion/deception/intimidate skills at the expense of their combat ability only for you to say to the combat guy "Yeah it's cool you don't need high charisma or anything to intimidate that guy" . This is why I'd make it a check of two halves, and just make the Charisma check easier if they are skilled enough to do that Zoro poo poo or whatever. Whereas if your party is combat skill and casting ability heavy then it doesn't matter so much. So I'd probably say yeah do a Intimidate (Dex) check as at least the party is trying to solve a problem without stabbing it or blowing it up for once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Well because you may have someone in the group who took high charisma and boosted their persuasion/deception/intimidate skills at the expense of their combat ability only for you to say to the combat guy "Yeah it's cool you don't need high charisma or anything to intimidate that guy" . I suppose. I agree that it would suck if you have characters stepping on each others' toes, but at the same time I feel like it's not much of a problem. The high-Cha character is going to have many more situations where he can use his intimidation, and he doesn't need a justification for how it works for the most part. This is another reason for DTAS, or at least decoupling combat choices from out-of-combat choices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
What are some creative applications for low level spells you all have seen in your play time? I know a story about a goon playing a druid using heat metal to kill a Roper by feeding it a corpse with armor on it then heating the armor up from inside. I thought that was hilarious and really creative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:This is not true. If you multi-class as Cleric, you gain the domain feature as a normal class feature, which includes the ability to gain proficiency in Heavy Armor from Life and War domains. Ah, loophole. Didn't notice. Advice still stands for the standard Wizard Knight, though. By RAW you need 13 WIS to multi-class cleric, and said Heavily Armored Artillery Wizard is looking at serious MAD from STR(need for Armor if nothing else)/INT/CON alone without tacking WIS on there. Alternately get a cool DM who just lets you have Heavy Armor proficiency for a level of fighter. If your character takes up a sword and armor as a wizard, it seems pointless to say NO YOU CAN'T GET THIS THROUGH NORMAL FIGHTER TRAINING. (Cause I look at the armor proficiency feats as traps really. The martial weapon one too.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Trast posted:What are some creative applications for low level spells you all have seen in your play time? I know a story about a goon playing a druid using heat metal to kill a Roper by feeding it a corpse with armor on it then heating the armor up from inside. I thought that was hilarious and really creative. Minor Illusion bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
After DMing a ton of 4e games and having to deal with all the maps/minis hassle, I've been running my 5E game without and minis or maps whatsoever. It seems to be going alright, but I was wondering if people other than myself have had any success in doing it? I started up with a new group this time and while nobody seemed to have an issue with it, one guy brought a ton of minis with him and sorta assumed I'd be using maps. I like running sandbox-style games it is a real pain to have to quickly come up with maps and layouts during a session.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:After DMing a ton of 4e games and having to deal with all the maps/minis hassle, I've been running my 5E game without and minis or maps whatsoever. It seems to be going alright, but I was wondering if people other than myself have had any success in doing it? I started up with a new group this time and while nobody seemed to have an issue with it, one guy brought a ton of minis with him and sorta assumed I'd be using maps. I like running sandbox-style games it is a real pain to have to quickly come up with maps and layouts during a session. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I could list a crapload of reasons that Next will work better with a grid, but if your group is fine with gridless and nobody's being a dickhead or complaining and everyone's on the same page, there's no reason to not keep doing what you're doing. If you or someone in your group is having a specific problem with gridless combat I might be able to help if you tell me what it is. None of my post-playtest Next games have used a grid and they've run smoothly (partly because it's been with people with years and years of experience playing gridless 2nd ed, but still). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:After DMing a ton of 4e games and having to deal with all the maps/minis hassle, I've been running my 5E game without and minis or maps whatsoever. It seems to be going alright, but I was wondering if people other than myself have had any success in doing it? I started up with a new group this time and while nobody seemed to have an issue with it, one guy brought a ton of minis with him and sorta assumed I'd be using maps. I like running sandbox-style games it is a real pain to have to quickly come up with maps and layouts during a session. It's possible to run 5E without a grid and minis, but it means coming to an understanding with your players that you aren't, and the ruleset doesn't quite support it*, and you're going to have to work together to resolve and arbitrate combats in a more narrative, more impromptu, less strictly tactical manner. For what it's worth, I've managed to run 5E games with a map, but without strictly obeying grid and 5-foot-increment rules, and got by on not having a layout prepared by telling the players "it's a pantry, draw what you think you should be in it" * to be clear, I mean in the sense that while it's possible to get by on a description of the battlefield, if you're doing that then you still have to come up with a map and a layout anyway, just that it's all in your head, and if you're going that far then might as well play with a map and minis regardless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:Ah, loophole. Didn't notice. Advice still stands for the standard Wizard Knight, though. By RAW you need 13 WIS to multi-class cleric, and said Heavily Armored Artillery Wizard is looking at serious MAD from STR(need for Armor if nothing else)/INT/CON alone without tacking WIS on there. You don't need any STR; the strength requirement is just so you can move at 30 feet instead of 20 feet. Barely matters. Use your familiar to deliver your touch spells if that is an issue, or just don't worry about it because 2 less squares of movement doesn't matter. You don't multiclass Cleric. You start with your first level in Cleric, because WIS/CHA are better saves than CHA/INT, and the Cleric proficiencies are slightly better. Your first HD is maxed at 8 instead of 6 so its 2 free HP. Going a level of fighter lets you take +1 AC from the fighting style, but I think the spell slot progression, basic healing spells, and other goodies from the Cleric are superior. If you want to be a Wizard who is also a fighter go Fighter 10 / Wizard 10, or play a Bard. quote:After DMing a ton of 4e games and having to deal with all the maps/minis hassle, I've been running my 5E game without and minis or maps whatsoever. It seems to be going alright, but I was wondering if people other than myself have had any success in doing it? I started up with a new group this time and while nobody seemed to have an issue with it, one guy brought a ton of minis with him and sorta assumed I'd be using maps. I like running sandbox-style games it is a real pain to have to quickly come up with maps and layouts during a session. Get a bunch of cheap poster maps. I have a collection from running D&D 4E and from 3.X dragon magazines, so I am a bit spoiled. I also bought and have a dungeon tile collection. Need to go cheaper? Buy gridded map paper: http://www.gamingpaper.com/index.php You can probably pick this stuff up at your FLGS. Get one of your players with SKills of an Artist to draw out various Factory Standard fantasy areas. Village. Cave. Temple. Wizard Tower. etc. Repeatedly reuse this stuff they way you would a poster map. Basically you are right, having to quickly come up with maps and layouts is hard. Instead, you should do it ahead of time and since you run sandbox quote en quote, you will need to prep more to cover more stuff. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
I was thinking of DalaranJ's idea of giving monsters abilities that a group of monsters could use. It's a pretty neat idea and could be used to alter the flow of combat so it doesn't become a slog. Here's a couple I came up with: Blood in the Water (Sahuagin) The first time a sahuagin deals a critical hit in combat, the scent of blood drives all the sahuagin in the combat to a blood frenzy. All sahuagin currently involved in the battle get +2 to attack and damage for the rest of the combat. Retreat! (Goblin) The first time a goblin is dropped to zero in battle all the goblins involved can immediately use the retreat action (that's an action, right?) as a reaction. (You could also have it trigger on something else, like the goblins having been reduced to half their numbers, to represent their old-school D&D tendency to run away after half of them were down due to their poor morale.) Basically, give each mob of enemies a flavorful ability that triggers under certain conditions to alter the flow of combat a bit. Anything to make combat a bit more exciting than two groups exchanging blows until the other side dies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:After DMing a ton of 4e games and having to deal with all the maps/minis hassle, I've been running my 5E game without and minis or maps whatsoever. It seems to be going alright, but I was wondering if people other than myself have had any success in doing it? I started up with a new group this time and while nobody seemed to have an issue with it, one guy brought a ton of minis with him and sorta assumed I'd be using maps. I like running sandbox-style games it is a real pain to have to quickly come up with maps and layouts during a session. I've pretty much always played without miniatures in all my D&D games and from other systems too. The one exception being Rogue Trader where I tried spaceship combat without miniatures and it was way too difficult to do. There are advantages to not using a grid. I'd say the best ones is that it's less stuff to mess with. The other is that it's easier for the DM to fudge things (if you're into that sort of thing). On the other hand a lot of the DnD stuff does rely on distance, positioning etc a lot more because of its tradition of using a grid. This can mean the DM doing stuff like mine did last night: "OK so there are these lizard creatures in front of you. Kitchner what do you do? " " How far away are they? " " About 40ft" "OK well I throw two darts at one of the smaller ones, and then move so the fighter is in between me and the approaching lizards. As I move I draw my short swords." The lizards don't get there in one move to the fighter (so their movement is less than 40ft I guess) but on the monster's next turn the DM is randomly rolling to see who the monsters decide to attack and one of them is me. This is explained as "Oh some of them flanked around the side". It effectively makes positioning this poo poo harder to do. If there had been a grid I could have seen how far they moved and positioned myself so they don't reach me on their next turn (assuming the movement was the same). So yeah I think it does and can work, but it requires being really clear on stuff like positioning, ranges etc, and you have to sort of assume the players are going to make the optimal decisions and not punish them for forgetting details. So if someone is like "Yeah I move back 10ft so I'm out of range of his charge" but you know they need to move 20ft to do that, you should point that out really. That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Question for anyone with the DMG: What kinds of magical items or item effects are there that are aimed more towards casters? In my Tuesday game the DM gave all of us weapons that will level up with us, but he's kind of at a loss as to what to do for the Warlock and my Druid. Neither of us really use weapon attacks (or rather, I probably won't starting at 5th level when my cantrips get an extra die of damage). I ended up getting a shotel (reskinned scimitar) and the Warlock got a book (he's a tome warlock). Though if we needed to do something else we could probably retcon it. I don't suppose there are any items that add +hit/damage to cantrips? That'd be pretty neat, though I suppose not strictly necessary since as a spellcaster I can kind of choose when I get to hog the spotlight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
 That is great. So the DM has to play that as the enemies seeing a huge energy barrier and not knowing what the gently caress is going on? (I assume the player and DM discussed the viability beforehand.)ImpactVector posted:Question for anyone with the DMG: What kinds of magical items or item effects are there that are aimed more towards casters? That is a good question and would also like to hear about how to solve it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
I've just had a quick look and there's tons of magic items (maybe not weapons) catered to casters. So my advice would be to have a leaf through a copy if you can get hold of one. It's listed A-Z though so it's not easy to just leaf through. I think a sentient magical item would be pretty cool for a Druid or a Warlock. Like a staff that has its own sentience and personality. You can have the staff level up along with the character on the basis that the spirit within the staff does the same. I'm sure that the creating magical items rules has a bit in there for adding to spell damage, but I haven't had chance to read it all properly yet. Like for example Rod of the Pact Keeper is awesome for a warlock and it comes in several levels so it can level up. But it's hard to judge if it would be overpowered without knowing what the other weapons do. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Thanks. I did some online searches and this site was pretty useful for finding things that looked interesting. Wand of the War Mage seems to be at least +hit with spells, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make it worthwhile since it's just my cantrips that are spell attacks. My actual spells are all saves. And yeah, Rod of the Pact Keeper looks perfect for the warlock. Otherwise it looks like a lot of the typically spellcaster-y weapons are mostly "x charges, cast y spell, recharge z charges per day". Maybe I'm missing the cooler ones though since I don't actually have the book in front of me. I'll see if I can take a look at one this weekend. Apparently all the weapons are sentient. So that'll be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Warlocks who use the Pact of the Blade and make melee attacks with their pact weapons still use the normal STR or DEX (for Finesse weapons) score to make attacks, right? So the only time they make attacks with CHA is when they use Eldritch Blast or other spells/cantrips/incantations/whateverthefuckelse mechanics Warlocks have that are spell-like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Warlocks who use the Pact of the Blade and make melee attacks with their pact weapons still use the normal STR or DEX (for Finesse weapons) score to make attacks, right? So the only time they make attacks with CHA is when they use Eldritch Blast or other spells/cantrips/incantations/whateverthefuckelse mechanics Warlocks have that are spell-like? Yup yup. It's pmuch just a weapon you can always have on hand that counts as magical for purposes of monster resistance/immunity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I'm having my first 5e session in the near future, and my boyfriend wants to port over a character he really enjoyed from Pathfinder. The character is a Tiefling Ranger who dual-wields and has an otherworldly animal companion (just a devilish reskin of a normal animal). The thing is, Tieflings in 5e lose out on their dexterity bonus, and their intelligence boost isn't as useful as it used to be, where it provided additional skill points. I know he's going to care more about the character's personality than about maximizing his character's power, but I want to make sure he doesn't set himself up for a bad time by having a really underpowered character. Does anyone have any tips for setting up a Tiefling ranger? I feel like Hunter would probably be the safer archetype, but I know he is going to want to have his pet. Is there anything we should keep in mind when he's designing his dual-wielding Tiefling Beastmaster?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Cephas posted:I'm having my first 5e session in the near future, and my boyfriend wants to port over a character he really enjoyed from Pathfinder. The character is a Tiefling Ranger who dual-wields and has an otherworldly animal companion (just a devilish reskin of a normal animal). The thing is, Tieflings in 5e lose out on their dexterity bonus, and their intelligence boost isn't as useful as it used to be, where it provided additional skill points. I know he's going to care more about the character's personality than about maximizing his character's power, but I want to make sure he doesn't set himself up for a bad time by having a really underpowered character. A pretty common houserule I've seen is to free up racial ability bumps so players can just pick whatever. Stats cap at 20 anyway so your bf wouldn't be super screwed if your table is strict RAW though. Hunter is definitely better than Beastmaster feature-wise but it's not a big deal really, basically he'd miss out on an extra d8 of damage per turn and the whirlwind attack thing. You don't really get much from Beastmaster in terms of actual ability/power but if he just wants a pet it's not the end of the world. Important to note that since attacking with your off hand takes your bonus action he'll pretty much never use the level 7 feature. Honestly there's not a lot to optimize since classes are pretty rigid so if your bf is set on "Tiefling," "Ranger," and "Beastmaster" that's about it since the major build customization features are race, class, & archetype at this point in 5e. Take TWF at level 2 and get the Dual Wielding feat when possible. Is multiclassing a thing he's keen on? Because that's a whole other thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
He could also play a Hunter Ranger and just have the animal companion as a non-combat pet flavor type of thing. Or a weak combat pet like an attack dog from the DMG or whatever. Rangers are lousy enough mechanically that it probably wouldn't break the game even if he played a Hunter with a decent pet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:He could also play a Hunter Ranger and just have the animal companion as a non-combat pet flavor type of thing. Or a weak combat pet like an attack dog from the DMG or whatever. Rangers are lousy enough mechanically that it probably wouldn't break the game even if he played a Hunter with a decent pet. This too. I didn't really address it but Ranger is pretty bad compared to most other classes so giving them extra stuff isn't that big a deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Wizards get plenty of good magic items, there are tons of varieties of magical full plate and shields.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:
Or get a vinyl one that you can use a whiteboard pen on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Thanks. I did some online searches and this site was pretty useful for finding things that looked interesting. I think Cantrips count as spells if it says "+3 to hit with spells" but I'm not sure though. The difficulty with the caster based magic items is balancing them against magic swords and poo poo because casters can already be way stronger than say a fighter, for example. Like if your group is playing with 5 minute short rests or you're just allowed to rest a lot in general between encounters then maybe your casters are already killing the poo poo out of anything and everything so maybe the main reason you need something magic is for a lot point. The caster items to me seem to be a mix of "yeah it's OK I guess" and "loving SHAZAM mother fucker!" in terms of power with not much inbetween. So it may be worth just having custom magic items that mimic the weapons (e.g. If all their weapons give +2 to hit and to damage with melee attack then have a staff that does the same with your spells).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I think Cantrips count as spells if it says "+3 to hit with spells" but I'm not sure though. Any DM worth their salt should make a player yell SHAZAM if that is how the weapon is described.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I think Cantrips count as spells if it says "+3 to hit with spells" but I'm not sure though. But like you said, I don't really need a whole lot of extra juice to steal the spotlight. A good Entangle spell does that. And without any +hit stuff, the cantrip attack math does start to fall behind. So far we've actually not been resting much at all between fights, so I actually have been leaning pretty heavily on cantrips. I don't think I even got to use my land druid arcane recovery thing last session (which was extra brutal for the warlock). That may change going forward though, since we seem to be transitioning to a more sandbox-y game style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Trast posted:Any DM worth their salt should make a player yell SHAZAM if that is how the weapon is described. I think all players who are casting a spell with a verbal component should shout this anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Yeah, I knew that, but as a druid I don't have many attack spells. So +hit doesn't do a whole lot when most spells call for saves. And the ignoring cover thing only works for one of my two cantrips. Just have a druid staff with an ancient forget spirit living in it and roleplay the poo poo out of talking to it all the time. "I remember when this was all trees" "uhh but ancient forest spirit, this forest is all trees? " " Yes but they were a better sort of tree"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Mr. Bitterness posted:Or get a vinyl one that you can use a whiteboard pen on. He doesn't want to have to draw maps on the fly. This is for making them ahead of time and then re-using them for different scenarios and situations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Mr. Bitterness posted:Or get a vinyl one that you can use a whiteboard pen on. This is the best. So drat useful. http://www.amazon.com/Noteboard-Ltd-Pocket-Size-Erase-Board-NB35X15/dp/B00EAOJA4Y/
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
One of my group brings a vinyl sheet with a grid on it and it is very useful for dungeon crawling and battles in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
The Pathfinder Beginner Box comes with a pretty nice reusable map. Got the 5e Starter Set on the way, looking forward to trying it out with a fresh set of players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
