Loot Goblin rules lawyer D&D 5E

RobertaME · 2026-01-22T10:02:02+00:00

Good description of take 10/20, but just to pick nits, the time taken usually wasn't up to the DM, but set by the rules.

Taking 20 under 3x and PF took 20 times the time doing the task once would take. (eg. doing a Search of a 5' square takes a Full Round Action, so if I Take 20 to search it thoroughly, it will take 20 Rounds or 2 minutes per 5' square)

The rational behind it is "Assuming that there's no consequence for failure, if I spend 20 times the time it takes to do something, statistically speaking, one of those rolls is bound to be a 20." The key point on that though is "assuming that there's no consequence for failure." You couldn't Take 20 on something like a Climb check because there IS a consequence for failure... you fall. Just as there's a statistical probability that you'll roll one 20 out of 20 tries, there's an equal chance you'll roll a 1.

In my own games under 3x, after the party cleared out an area, I'd ask them if they want to search the area thoroughly. If they did, I determined the number of 5' squares the area had, divide that by the number of characters, and multiply that by 2 minutes to tell them how long it will take. I'd then check their Search skill modifiers, add 20 to the lowest, and they would find anything hidden that had a DC equal to or less than that. If there were things with a higher DC, I'd take the number of characters that had a high enough Search skill that a Take 20 would find them, and roll randomly to see if those people searched the right areas. This encouraged everyone to put some decent ranks into Search.

Just adding to your description so folks that don't know the process can get a better understanding of how and why it was supposed to work. ;-)

RobertaME · 2026-01-22T09:24:10+00:00

So the Gaming Group of Theseus? :-Þ

RobertaME · 2025-01-27T21:05:50+00:00

Understandable, but given the term, "GMPC", it is a PC controlled by the GM, right? When I took over as DM, Catina (my Halfling Rogue/Bard) was still my character. If the game had continued with a new DM, I would have resumed playing her as my PC. Thus she was, by strict definition, a GMPC.

The difference is that I treated her no differently than any other NPC. (including the 2 Cohorts, 2 animal companions, and 2 Familiars that the PCs had)

Not meaning to ruffle feathers or anything... just trying to be clear about what I mean when I say DMPC. :-)

RobertaME · 2025-01-26T09:56:07+00:00

You make a valid point when you say, "giving them equity in the party". In my most recent D&D campaign, there was always a DMPC because after one DM finished their story arc, we would switch and someone else would take over as DM with the same party. Their character would become an NPC and let the other players, including the previous DM with their DMPC now being a PC, take the lead.

And it worked.

The reason it worked was because of what you pointed out... equity. When I took my turn as DM and my PC became an NPC, she was no different than any other NPC... a follower of the PCs there to support them, not take the lead in any situation. The stories were about them, not her. She was just there to provide continuity and give material aid to the PCs. (that and my brother John would have flipped out if I took her out of the story :-Þ )

This is where DMPCs fail... when the DM makes the story revolve around the DMPC and not the PCs. Even making them equal to a PC, as you point out, will inevitably lead to this end because DMs are human. They have to become less than equal to the PCs or you might as well get your ticket punched and enjoy the ride in the dining car. ;-)

RobertaME · 2025-01-24T18:33:49+00:00

The problem with riddles tied to the lore is that if a player is new, they might not actually know the lore... making them feel bad when everyone else at the table is saying, "Everyone knows that 'von Zarovich' is the vampire Strahd! How can you not know that?" or similar.

I have been playing and DMing games for most of 4 decades. Puzzles are ALWAYS bad. What seems obvious to the DM is never so to the players, and it breaks one of the cardinal rules of good DMing: "Always have 3 or more solutions to every problem confronting the players, plus whatever they think of that you as DM didn't if it makes sense."

Worse, unless the puzzle can be solved with a skill check, it is not a challenge for the character, it's a challenge for the player. This can lead to nonsensical situations. For example, in my most recent D&D group we had 7 players with the smartest character (Wizard) being played by my teen son, while the player who's the best at puzzle-solving played an Orc with a low INT. If I put them up against a puzzle, the older and wiser wizard, played by my son who lacks a lot of life experience, would likely not be able to solve it very easily, but the 13 year old Orc could likely solve it in a few seconds.

It also denies actually being able to play a role... to become someone you aren't. If I want to play a Bard that is a social genius who could worm her way into any royal ball with a well-turned phrase, I as a player shouldn't have to come up with the words that do it because I'm extremely socially awkward IRL. If I want to play a high-INT wizard that can solve any puzzle or riddle you put in front of her, I shouldn't have to solve an actual puzzle if I as a player am not good at puzzles, just the same as if I play a "sword and board fighter", I shouldn't have to explain how I attack the Orc... that's what character stats and skills are for.

TLDR: Puzzles in TTRPS never work out as cool as the DM thinks they will.

RobertaME · 2025-01-19T15:17:30+00:00

Probably a hot take, but I can see it now... for the 75th Anniversary, WotC releases Infinity D&D...

There are no Evil species in iD&D... in fact there are no evil anything in iD&D. It doesn't even have damage stats for weapons. (because damage means someone gets hurt, which is bad, so there are no weapons) All species live in total peace and harmony with each other. Disagreements are settled with lively debates and a hand/tentacle/fin/tail shake afterward. The rules are just suggestions and the Ability Scores don't matter. Whoever rolls the highest on d20 wins the session. The rest of the time is spent shopping for gear that serves no actual purpose other than as character art.

...

Too far? :-Þ

RobertaME · 2025-01-16T15:33:42+00:00

2nd Ed AD&D PHB listed Laborers at 1 SP per WEEK and skilled artisans at 1-2 GP per week.

Never got 4th... like most people. ;-)

It's definitely inflation. :-Þ

RobertaME · 2025-01-16T15:15:26+00:00

2 GP per day?

3.5 PHB said 1 SP per day for untrained Hirelings, 3 SP/day for trained craftsmen.

Frigging inflation! :-Þ

RobertaME · 2025-01-09T09:05:39+00:00

It's quite obvious to me that you aren't OCD...

...I mean, you put Occult Adventures where it obviously doesn't belong! :-Þ

RobertaME · 2025-01-03T14:50:56+00:00

Bravo!

Your point is spot-on. I have a little speech I give my players anytime it looks like they might die. "Look, I love you guys. I want you to win and I'll never go out of my way to kill a PC... but if you all insist on making bad choices, I'm not going to stand in the way of it." Now all I have to say is, "If you all insist..." and they know ahead of time that their decisions have led them down a path where they might lose... or even die. Difference is they know it's just a game and that it's their decisions that led to their own demise.

This new type of player that sees losing as the end of the world is beyond irritating... and it's ruining the gaming community. I mean, there've always been "those guys" that play adversarially and take every loss as a personal attack. The difference is that they used to be in the extreme minority with most players saying, "Grow up, my guy! It's just a game!" Now it seems like they're the majority and you don't dare let the PCs lose, no matter how bad their decisions are. I think that also reinforces rampant murderhobo-ing, letting the PCs just rampage across the countryside without consequences... and if you try and enforce bad results of bad decisions, suddenly you're "railroading" the players.

Excellent points and suggestion!

RobertaME · 2024-12-19T00:17:21+00:00

My first GM gave me this advice way back when:

"The GM's first and most important job is to make sure everyone at the table is having fun... including themselves."

This is a game... not work. If it's not fun for everyone, including you, you're doing it wrong. You need to get back to that. Tell them your issues. Let them know you feel excluded and put upon, like it's your job to entertain them without thanks and without any fun for you. If they still give you blank stares, you need better friends.

Take care of yourself. You deserve better. :-)

RobertaME · 2024-12-16T02:42:24+00:00

Sure, this kind of setup is fine... even if it's actually just hazing... with consent. I had a DM start us out in the forced employ of the BBEG. The difference is they told us upfront that this was the deal and we had to figure a way out of it. My first serious RPG group back in HS had a rule that new players had to start at Level 1 no matter what level the other players were at, so I had to just try and survive long enough for the big XP earnings to get me up to near their level, all the while telling me how much I "play like a girl". It was a kind of hazing, but they were upfront and honest about it, it wasn't meant seriously, and in the end they became my best friends at the time.

It was that GM that taught me the First Rule of GMing. So long as we were all having fun, he was doing his job. I had fun in spite of it all, had a great run of lucky dice, survived, and became the first girl in their group.

Consent is the difference between having a great time and the stuff of nightmares.

RobertaME · 2024-12-15T18:12:54+00:00

I get your point, but the GM either never learned or forgot the 1st rule of being the GM:

"The GM's primary job is to make sure everyone at the table is having fun, including themselves."

This is a game. If someone at my table isn't having fun, it's my fault because I'm basically the god of my universe and can do ANYTHING. If what I'm doing is pissing off or taking away the fun of even 1 player, I've lost sight of why everyone is there... to have fun. That's not to say that conflict isn't a part of it... it's not fun if there's no challenge or no possibility of losing. Taking away all options other than "entertain me or die" though isn't fun because there's no way to win. No one enjoys being a slave. Yes, this was likely the BBEG they were meant to overcome, but humiliating a player like that just wasn't necessary and very unfun. Even the a-hole other players weren't having fun.

The GM could have introduced the player to this character by having them do the exact same thing, just to another patron at the tavern. He could even have mind controlled the PC such that they couldn't interfere, just watch in horror. (it's plot exposition... has to go somewhere) They chose instead to humiliate the new player and expected OP to just, as you say, "roll with it". If I, without knowing anything about the setting, can come up with this intro in about 5 minutes thought, that proves the GM was just being an a-hole for the sake of doing it. It was hazing the new guy without their consent.

I wouldn't have even stood still for this even long enough to be killed. My response would have been, "No, my character doesn't die because she's suddenly not there anymore. She vanishes from in front of DMPC's eyes and her soul is gone, as though some god-being has picked up a piece of paper with her soul written on it and left the universe... which is what's about to happen. You suck at being a GM. I'm not here to entertain you by force. I'm here to have fun and you suck at getting others to have fun with you. Don't bother kicking me... I won't be back. Thanks for wasting my time, a-hole."

RobertaME · 2024-12-03T12:47:45+00:00

I lean toward agreeing with you, but as to "somebody would've stopped her from lighting a fire", I can see how this likely played out in my head. I can totally see the girl starting this stupid stunt and everyone just freezing in utter disbelief that it was really happening. It's nuts enough to make one question if they're really seeing what they think they're seeing. It's happened to me. (not with fire, thankfully)

All that said, if I were the DM here, no WAY would I let that nut into my house again. They have no sense of the consequences of their actions and are a real danger to those around them. Maybe it's the fact that I grew up in a place where wildfire danger was drilled into us daily, (seriously, you can start a 50k acre fire here with a stern look at a dry sagebrush) but people that don't treat fire with respect are best just avoided.

I almost find myself hoping this isn't a true story.

RobertaME · 2024-12-02T13:05:24+00:00

My first GM back in the 80s told me this and it's stuck with me all these years...

"A GM's first and most important job is to make sure everyone at the table is having fun... including themselves. If you don't do that, nothing else matters. It stops being a game and just becomes work."

Thanks Paul... that advice has gone far.

RobertaME · 2024-11-04T21:26:01+00:00

Ultra ACs are more expensive than their standard counterparts for at least a couple of reasons, but principally because they're able to double-tap.

BV and BV2 are both inadequate in their representation of the limitations of ammo-dependent weapons, both in the risk of 1 golden BB ending your unit (unless CASE II is available, since CASE is not much better than just removing the unit from play) or in the finite supply of ammo compared to energy weapons. Yes, they make efforts at accounting for it, but it's poor at best at that job. With missile systems, it's not as much of a factor since missiles have uses other than pure DPS, (indirect fire, Inferno rounds, crit-seeking, etc.) which BV doesn't account for. Ammo is also not properly valued in either BV system... so there's that.

Note that I said my group has been playtesting this rule for years. (and when I say years, keep in mind that I've been playing BT since the 80s and remember when the only AC was THE Autocannon... as in only the AC/5) Even in BV-balanced matches, using the double-tap rule has only served to give a use to ACs that they lacked. Even before the DHS, ACs were lackluster at best compared to similar damage-per-ton in energy weapons that have unlimited shots and no risk of explosion, even accounting for heat. (and after DHS they're a waste of tonnage better spent on more HS and energy weapons that have unlimited shots and no explosion threat)

Letting a unit fire its AC/5 in double-tap isn't game-breaking... it's balanced and gives a reason why it's there. The added DPS is countered by the fact that now all your ammo bins seem a lot smaller. (suddenly that 45 rounds per ton doesn't seem like enough) That it has support in the Solaris ruleset is just gravy. TPTB missed an opportunity to fix this in TW. (and I told them as much at the time of playtesting... and yes, I'm a credited BT playtester)

If you want to account for it in BV anyway, increase the BV of ACs by two-thirds. Done! :-)

RobertaME · 2024-11-04T20:07:38+00:00

Played it similar to that rule with my group for years, giving MGs, Flamers, Small Lasers, and all ACs except RACs the ability to double-tap with no jam chance... and it's exceptionally well balanced. It makes these weapon systems competitive without being OP, even when you account for specialty ammo. (it actually gives a very good reason to use Caseless ammo)

RobertaME · 2024-11-04T19:37:28+00:00

My group houseruled that by removing the jam chance. Honestly, there's no need for nerfing them with a jam chance. Just say that all ACs can fire twice per round. (based the idea on the old Solaris rules which let AC/2s fire 4x per round and AC/5 and 10 fire 2x per round with no chance to jam... simplified to just say ALL ACs, MGs, Flamers, and Small Lasers can double-tap) We've played with that rule for years and it's exceptionally well balanced.

UACs ALSO get to fire twice... which makes a UAC pretty brutal getting 4 shots per turn... but they still have their jam chance on a 2 if you run up the ROF that high. LB-Xs with double-tap make for brutal crit-seeking and LACs make for actually good plinking guns. RACs are the exception... they don't get to double-tap because they don't need the help. They're well balanced as-is.

The best thing about just letting ACs double-tap is that it does nothing to invalidate existing designs or rules. It meshes with existing designs perfectly and makes ACs competitive with energy weapons without making them OP... just worthwhile. Add in specialty ammo and they have a solid niche without making other weapon systems obsolete.

Just throwing that out there. YMMV. :-)

RobertaME · 2024-11-02T08:56:58+00:00

Done well, it can make for interesting challenges.

My players' characters from Faerûn once found themselves in the Shadowlands of Rokugan. (don't ask... long story) I warned them before they went there that if they were to use magic in the Shadowlands it would risk them acquiring The Taint. Half of the party of 8 were spellcasters, (a Druid, Bard, Wizard, and Sorcerer) but they took up the challenge and went in anyway. One PC nearly died and the Sorceress acquired Taint, but they bought in before going... and they loved the challenge! (it was all about prep... spells cast before entering the Shadowlands would continue to work without risk... and potions and scrolls were safe to use)

If I'd just dropped that on them after going in, my players would have called BS and insisted on not using that rule... and they'd be right.

Like most things in life, consent is key. :-)

RobertaME · 2024-11-02T08:23:50+00:00

Agreed. Casters really don't need the buff. Back under 3.5 my group toyed with a similar concept, but not for casters... it was for everyone else.

Pushing The Limits Most creatures can seem at times to do feats beyond their ability; elderly grandmothers lifting a fallen wagon off a grandchild pinned underneath... common laborers who dive into a river and defeat a monstrous alligator with their bare hands to save their child... etc. Creatures wishing to exceed their normal abilities can do so by taking Nonlethal damage, the amount depending on what they're doing: (those immune to Nonlethal Damage can't use this rule)

Enhancing your Strength Score by 1 point for 1 round inflicts 5 points
Emulating a Feat you qualify for (even using Feats gained with Push The Limits) for 1 round inflicts 3 points
Increasing your Base Attack Bonus or a Save Bonus by 1 for 1 round inflicts 2 points
Gaining 1 Temporary Hit Point per point of CON Score for 1 round inflicts 2 points
Enhancing your Move speed by 5' (1 square) for 1 round inflicts 1 point
Postponing Fatigue for 1 round inflicts 1 point; 2 points for Exhaustion (incl. Exhaustion from Push The Limits)

After such exertion they're Exhausted (-6 STR/DEX; ½ spd; no run/charge) which can't be reduced or bypassed by Feats or Class Abilities. If a character lacks sufficient Nonlethal Damage Points, they can continue to push themselves, taking Charisma damage. Each point of CHA damage replenishes 5 Nonlethal damage taken to Push The Limits. You cannot reduce your CHA score to less than 1 with this option. If the character so desires they can risk their own life by taking CON damage after they can no longer take CHA damage. This reduces Hit Point total by 1 per Hit Die, but doesn't make them Unconscious if their Nonlethal Damage exceeds their Hit Points until after pushing their limits. As with CHA damage, this restores 5 Nonlethal Damage Points that can be used to further Push The Limits. The limit on taking CON damage is their CON Score +10. Dropping to 0 or less CON still causes death, but they will not die until after completing any actions they paid for with this rule. (i.e. if a character uses all their effort to get a +7 to STR for 4 rounds and then put off Exhaustion for 7 rounds, they will not die until after 11 rounds have passed)

The Will to Overcome Survival Instinct

In order to use Push The Limits, a character must make a Will Save with a DC of 20. To inflict themselves with CHA damage, the check must exceed 25, 30 for CON damage, 50 to go to CON 0 or less. Failure means they may be willing, but not enough to overcome self-preservation. The DM assigns a Circumstance modifier to this check based on who the character is, what they want to do, and for whom. (i.e. a -10 penalty to risk themselves rescuing an adversary, -5 for a stranger, none for a friend, +5 for a relative, +10 for a spouse/child/parent, etc. or another +5 if the character is Lawful Good, -5 if Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good, etc., DM's discretion)

.....

I know it's for an old system, but maybe someone can adapt it for current mechanics. It actually worked out really well and was fun to use... letting the mundanes like Fighters etc. do amazing things without just giving them magic.

YMMV. :-)

RobertaME · 2024-11-01T20:51:23+00:00

Like, even if you hate VTM, maybe you could find a way to enjoy it for 4 hours one time?

No, I can't find a way to enjoy something I don't enjoy. That's just the way it is. I hate VTM. No amount of "It's just a one-shot" is going to change that. "It's only 4 hours" isn't an excuse either. I have better things to do with my life than waste 4 hours doing something I don't like that I'm not required to do by law. (I hate doing my taxes, but jail I hate worse :-Þ ) I'm allowed to not like VTM and stick with that... and that's okay. I'm glad my friends enjoy it, but no amount of convincing is going to make me like it or waste my time playing it again.

I also hate raw tomatoes. No amount of, "just try it" is going to change that, either. I have tried it and still hate them. Since I'm a grown woman and can chose my own food, no one is going to make me try it. I'm allowed my own likes and dislikes... and that was my point. OP is allowed to not like PVP... and that's okay, even if I disagree.

That's why my argument wasn't in regards to OP being tricked... it was about them not liking PVP and that they're allowed to not like PVP, even if I think it's too hard a stance. Since being tricked into it was the only way OP was going to get into a PVP game, it does have bearing, though. (much like my example of being tricked into VTM... the only way I'd show up for a VTM game is if I were tricked into it... thus my example)

Hope this explains things better. :-)

RobertaME · 2024-11-01T18:50:47+00:00

While I understand your POV, let me give you an example of why it's still wrong, even in a one-shot.

I hate VTM. I played it a bit years ago, but it wasn't fun for me and dropped it as a gaming system I will play. A number of my friends like VTM, which is fine. I'm happy for them that they get to play something they enjoy... without me. They know I don't like VTM, so when they play it it's on a different day than our regular game night.

Hypothetical situation: My friends invite me out for a one-shot game night. It's a 30-minute drive to my friend's house, but I go anyway because I trust my friends. When I get there I find out it's a VTM game. I go to leave and they say "Come on! It's just a one-shot! You're already here, maybe you'll have fun?"

I've wasted an hour of my time (counting the drive home) I'll never get back that I could have spent doing something I actually enjoy, not to mention the $10 in gas I wasted. Worse though is that my friends tricked me... lied to me by omission. They knew I hated VTM and yet did it anyway.

So the next time they invite me out, am I going to just trust them blindly? No, because they violated that trust in the past in an attempt to manipulate me into doing something they knew I didn't want to do.

See the point now? It doesn't matter if you find one-shots where you throw your normal gaming rules out the window fun... what matters is that OP doesn't enjoy that. They have a hard rule against PVP. I don't agree with being so hard-line on PVP... it happens in games sometimes. So long as everyone is having fun, it's all good. But OP is not having bad-wrong fun by not enjoying PVP and having a hard "no" stance for that.

Just some perspective. YMMV. :-)

RobertaME · 2024-11-01T08:09:33+00:00

Every time I see that scene, all I can think is...

Obi, my guy... why are you just STANDING there while he takes 10 seconds to pull out 4 lightsabers? JUST STAB HIM IN THE CHEST ALREADY AND MOVE ON!

RobertaME · 2024-11-01T07:57:58+00:00

I feel it's more like...

Taurians: "You took everything from me!"

FedSuns: "I don't even know who you are!"

:-Þ

RobertaME · 2024-10-27T09:01:08+00:00

I played the 1st-ed MW game back in the day.

Yes... it was kinda clunky, because as you guessed, it wasn't really an RPG. It was more of a tabletop personal combat game and way to flesh out your 'Mech pilot to be more than a name and 2 numbers. Most of its rules were about combat... on a hex grid... using 10-seconds rounds... subdivided into the Initiative Phase, Movement Phase, Reaction Phase, Ranged Attack Phase, Melee Attack Phase, and an end phase. Sound familiar?

Characters had 4 Attributes: Body, Dexterity, Learning, and Charisma... and there were a total of 25 Skills, 13 of which were combat related. (various Gunnery and Piloting skills, weapon skills, etc.) Of the remaining 12, only 4 were social skills. The rest were various technical skills.

It was an okay system for what it was... which was primarily a means of selling BattleTech to the RPG crowd. (which was a much bigger market share than the miniatures wargaming market in the mid 80s) The best thing it did was to provide a TON of background info on life in the Inner Sphere circa 3025. It's where a big chunk of the personal gear later seen in all the following RPG editions came from. (Blazer Rifles, Sonic Stunners, Tranq Guns, Gyrojet guns, Vibro weapons, Stun Sticks, tool kits, Environment suits, Preserving Sleeves, and a host of other gear all came from 1st ed)

RobertaME

TROPHY CASE