Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Drifter Bob" data-source="post: 1625437" data-attributes="member: 17723">I don't think you derailed it at all, I the argument was growing into a familiar direction of old school versus new school, which I wanted to prevent.  I actually think you raised some excellent points.  For the record, I also agree with you (though for slightly different reasons) that the current melee round is very flawed.  Breaking it down into segments makes much more sense than these actions and partial actions, IMO.  I think the current system is cryptic and few DM's, let alone players, really get it in every ramificiation.I think this an excellent point.  With the original PhB they seemed to be trying to either pack all the rules into one volume so you could play the whole game out of one book, or maybe they burned themselves out with the collosal first effort and they just got a hell of a lot less ambitious with the DMG.  I don't have copies of the 3.5 books yet (I have been using the 3.5 SRD) but the 3.0 DMG was very light, (especially compared to the old ADnD DMG) I think a general approach of thinking what rules should be PhB rules and which ones should be in the DMG or other core books would be a good idea.DB</blockquote>