D&D 5E (2024) How can I do a Charisma-Investigation (or a Strength/Dexterity-Investigation if I can't use Charisma) to find a secret door?

[Maxperson]

But if the DM does it that way, so you have no choice, it is the only correct way.

As I said, I would leave a game where fading away happened. It's not a game for me. Just like you wouldn't play in my game, because PCs get played when the player misses a game.

It's okay to do things differently, and to really not like how someone else does something.

AND on top of this it is "mentioned" in the rules.

No it isn't. It is mentioned in no rule at all, and being in a rulebook does not make something mentioned in the rules. It has to actually be mentioned in a rule in the rulebook to be mentioned in the rules.

Just admit it! This is the CORRECT way to do this in the game we are talking about in this thread and stop complaining about your opinions or options that don't matter.

I've never said otherwise. And in fact have multiple times said it was fine for you guys. Not once have I said you guys are doing it wrong for your game. Only that it was wrong for me, and then laid out why. It's nonsensical, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

If he is not there and is not going to let anyone play his character then it is going to kill him.

Dude. I'm talking about in my game, clearly. So yes, I would be the one playing him if he was dumb enough to stay in a dungeon all by his lonesome.

It does in the only game that is relevant to this thread.

You don't own the thread or the meanderings it takes. Your game long ago left being the only game that is relevant.

 

[ECMO3]

No it isn't. It is mentioned in no rule at all,

It is "mentioned" in the rules, not "a rule" ... "the rules". The DMG is one of the rulebooks and Fade away is "mentioned" in there.

and being in a rulebook does not make something mentioned in the rules.

Yes it does because the rulebooks are the rules.

Just like Drizzt is mentioned in the 2014 rules (in the PHB specifically).

I've never said otherwise.

Ok it is correct then and no other possible way of doing it matters because that is the only one the DM allows.

 

[kermit4karate]

It is "mentioned" in the rules, not "a rule" ... "the rules". The DMG is one of the rulebooks and Fade away is "mentioned" in there.



Yes it does because the rulebooks are the rules.

The disconnect here, IMO: The rules explicitly allow the DM to change/add/remove any rule.

 

[ECMO3]

The disconnect here, IMO: The DM can change/add/remove any rule.

Sure but that is FUNDAMENTALLY different than saying a rule does not exist.

I am not disconnected with this at all. Those disconnected are those stating that it is not mentioned in the rules.

Moreover, the other disconnect here is this IS the way the DM we are talking about does it, so how another DM might do it differently is irrelevant. Whether or not it is a rule, it is the only way to do it in that campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

It is "mentioned" in the rules, not "a rule" ... "the rules". The DMG is one of the rulebooks and Fade away is "mentioned" in there.

And as I replied at least three times now, it's not mentioned in the rules. Even a single time. The rules are only the rules. There are lots of things in rulebooks that are not rules, and are therefore not "in the rules."

Yes it does because the rulebooks are the rules.

Wrong. Flat out, objectively wrong. There are pictures in the rulebooks. Those are not the rules. There are suggestions and examples on how to build worlds. Those are not the rules. In fact, the vast majority of the DMG does not consist of rules, and therefore are not "in the rules."

Just like Drizzt is mentioned in the 2014 rules (in the PHB specifically).

No he isn't. He's mentioned in the PHB, not in the 5e rules. There is no Drizzt rule. You keep incorrectly conflating being in a rulebook for being in the rules. It doesn't work that way. Only something that is in an actual rule is "in the rules."

 

[Maxperson]

The disconnect here, IMO: The rules explicitly allow the DM to change/add/remove any rule.

I think the primary disconnect is that @ECMO3 keep incorrectly conflating being in a rulebook for being in the rules. Then he places value on "being in the rules" as somehow being more valid than something outside of the rulebook, even though it's not, because it's not a rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure but that is FUNDAMENTALLY different than saying a rule does not exist.

The rule does not exist. There is no rule that says anything like you are claiming. There are only options given that are no more valid than the way I do it.

 

[kermit4karate]

Sure but that is FUNDAMENTALLY different than saying a rule does not exist.

I am not disconnected with this at all. Those disconnected are those stating that it is not mentioned in the rules.

Moreover, the other disconnect here is this IS the way the DM we are talking about does it, so how another DM might do it differently is irrelevant. Whether or not it is a rule, it is the only way to do it in that campaign.

You lost me. If there's a rule that says that the DM can change/add/remove any other rule, what's the argument over? It's in the rules to ignore any other rule. That's actually officially within any DM's purview.

So even if other, weaker specific rules exist on how to handle players who miss a session, what does it actually matter to gameplay? The DM's overall authority supersedes them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And then going on to say it is "nonsensical", "illogical" "rediculous" ...

If you can't admit you are wrong how about you just say the following for the record:

"Fade away is a great way to do it, a lot of tables do it that way and it is even one of the recommended options in the DMG"

But I don't think fade away is a great way to do it, no matter how tables do it that way and the fact that the current official DMG recommends it, because it doesn't make sense from my perspective. If I said that it would be a lie.