Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Verision" data-source="post: 5227415" data-attributes="member: 72236">Let me explain my big gripe here. When I started playing 3.x, it was with a group of people who had already established a long list of house rules. I played as a PC with these people for a couple years and then started DMing (also using their house rules). I never actually played a single session of 3.x edition D&D that followed the actual rules. When 4th edition came out, I convinced my group to switch to 4th and to play BY THE BOOK. We were going to play a campaign starting at 1st level and going as far as possible before we stopped (got bored; felt the game was broken; got to 30th level; whatever) and we weren't going to use a single house rule. However, when we first started playing, the PCs had trouble winning skill challenges; the DCs were simply too high. It wasn't a matter of bad rolls, or stupid skill selection, the PCs simply couldn't make the DCs consistently enough to win challenges. This pissed my group off enough that they wanted to switch back to 3.x. This pissed me off because I was the only one who bought 4th edition books, which would be a waste of money if we switched back. I managed to convince my PCs to give 4th edition a little longer.Then, the official errata came out, and what do you know, they errata'd the DCs. "Horray!!", I thought, "Now I don't have to avoid skill challenges or risk pissing off my PCs enough that they decide to switch back to 3.x". My elation came too early, though, since the new DCs were just as broken as the old ones. Now, instead of "<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, I didn't roll an 18, I must have missed the DC" it became "Wait, what? I succeeded on a roll of 8? Really? What kind of (skill) challenge is that?".My group is still playing 4th edition, but we gave up on playing "by the book". We now have a whole list of house rules and rule variations. We are right back to where we were with 3.x; playing a game that only works properly if you take the game into your own hands and only use the books as a guide.That's why I can't forgive the idiocy that is the DC errata. Also, saying "sorry, I don't mean to be rude" while being really rude ("if you're bright", implying that I must not be if I had issues with the DCs) doesn't make you any less of an arse.</blockquote>

Verification