One of my PCs loves using augury, and they use it in a way that seems a bit cheeky. Basically, before the group does anything or even decides on courses of actions, they say they cast augury to determine if the specific course of action discussed (or one of them) has weal or woe. And that's it.
I don't mind the peak behind the curtain so much as it just seems like they want to use augury in a way that's determinative. "Should we do this quest to save the person?" kind of stuff. "Will it be a good use of our time to remove the curse?" kind of stuff. I've said that this isn't the kind of thing you can use to get specific feedback from a god like in Commune, and the PC gets that there's limitations on paper anyway. But in practice it feels very much like they want me to treat it like that.
TL;DR - how do others treat augury, and are there any low-level modifications I might employ to make it a little less "tell me exactly what can happen in the next 30 min IF we do X and IF we do Y and IF we do Z".
You answer them only with the word weal or woe, or weal and woe, or nothing. 90% of the time, the answer will be weal and woe or nothing. So if they ask, “Should we do the quest to save this person?” You think, we’ll, saving the person is good, but they will probably be in a fight and take damage, which is bad, so weal and woe. Or, the person is an evil traitor better left captured, but they will find treasure along the way, so, again, weal and woe.
Something being unambiguously, completely good or bad is very rare.
The spell says: If you cast the spell two or more times before completing your next long rest, there is a cumulative 25 percent chance for each casting after the first that you get a random reading. The DM makes this roll in secret.
It also takes a full minute to cast normally, and eleven minutes to cast as a ritual. There simply isn't time to cast it for every decision.
I use it sometimes. It's only okay. It helps diffuse party disagreements.
Yeah, augury as a spell is flavored sort of like reading tea leaves. If players use augury you are supposed to just say weal or woe representing a good or bad omen. If you are feeling fancy you can describe an omen like the bones from the spells material requirements land in the shape of a skull or a flock of birds flees the location you are going to but it's really not supposed to be very clear information. Players should also have to be pretty specific or else they are going to likely get nothing or weal and woe. Like if they see a monster and cast augury you can be like weal if its an easy monster, woe if it's deadly, nothing if there's no real reward and weal and woe if it's deadly but the reward is worth it. If they ask about a whole dungeon its almost always going to be weal and woe because there will be treasure and danger.
Edit: Good use of augury is like professor Trelawney in prisoner of askaban, she has no clue whats going on she just sees the grim and freaks. Bonus if its kind of untrusted like she is because repeated uses of augury do start to become unreliable.
I don't mind the peak behind the curtain so much as it just seems like they want to use augury in a way that's determinative. "Should we do this quest to save the person?" kind of stuff. "Will it be a good use of our time to remove the curse?" kind of stuff. I've said that this isn't the kind of thing you can use to get specific feedback from a god like in Commune, and the PC gets that there's limitations on paper anyway. But in practice it feels very much like they want me to treat it like that.
TL;DR - how do others treat augury, and are there any low-level modifications I might employ to make it a little less "tell me exactly what can happen in the next 30 min IF we do X and IF we do Y and IF we do Z".
Augury is supposed to be a specific course of action.
"Should we do this quest..." is the wrong form for a question. A specific question would be "If we accept this quest, will the result be weal or woe?". The answer to which will usually be Nothing, because there probably won't be any immediate consequences.
"Will it be a good use of our time to remove the curse" is, again, the wrong form. A correct form would be "If we remove the curse, will the result be weal or woe?". The answer to which is almost always going to be 'Weal', but whether it's a good use of time is outside the scope of the spell.
In general, "The spell doesn't take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome, such as the casting of additional spells or the loss or gain of a companion." means that it's very bad at predicting uncertain results.
The vaguer and broader the question, the less useful the answer is going to be. Remember, augury only applies to actions you're taking within the next 30 minutes. If they're asking things like "Should we do this quest?" which will obviously take longer than that, you should give them no answer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Augury also only looks 30 minutes into the future, so casting it to see if they should accept a quest will only tell them about what might have for the 30 minutes after they accept the quest, nothing more into the future at all.
Most short-term quests are going to be "weal and woe" if it involves any sort of danger and some sort of reward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my PCs loves using augury, and they use it in a way that seems a bit cheeky. Basically, before the group does anything or even decides on courses of actions, they say they cast augury to determine if the specific course of action discussed (or one of them) has weal or woe. And that's it.
I don't mind the peak behind the curtain so much as it just seems like they want to use augury in a way that's determinative. "Should we do this quest to save the person?" kind of stuff. "Will it be a good use of our time to remove the curse?" kind of stuff. I've said that this isn't the kind of thing you can use to get specific feedback from a god like in Commune, and the PC gets that there's limitations on paper anyway. But in practice it feels very much like they want me to treat it like that.
TL;DR - how do others treat augury, and are there any low-level modifications I might employ to make it a little less "tell me exactly what can happen in the next 30 min IF we do X and IF we do Y and IF we do Z".
You answer them only with the word weal or woe, or weal and woe, or nothing. 90% of the time, the answer will be weal and woe or nothing. So if they ask, “Should we do the quest to save this person?” You think, we’ll, saving the person is good, but they will probably be in a fight and take damage, which is bad, so weal and woe. Or, the person is an evil traitor better left captured, but they will find treasure along the way, so, again, weal and woe.
Something being unambiguously, completely good or bad is very rare.
The spell says: If you cast the spell two or more times before completing your next long rest, there is a cumulative 25 percent chance for each casting after the first that you get a random reading. The DM makes this roll in secret.
It also takes a full minute to cast normally, and eleven minutes to cast as a ritual. There simply isn't time to cast it for every decision.
I use it sometimes. It's only okay. It helps diffuse party disagreements.
Yeah, augury as a spell is flavored sort of like reading tea leaves. If players use augury you are supposed to just say weal or woe representing a good or bad omen. If you are feeling fancy you can describe an omen like the bones from the spells material requirements land in the shape of a skull or a flock of birds flees the location you are going to but it's really not supposed to be very clear information. Players should also have to be pretty specific or else they are going to likely get nothing or weal and woe. Like if they see a monster and cast augury you can be like weal if its an easy monster, woe if it's deadly, nothing if there's no real reward and weal and woe if it's deadly but the reward is worth it. If they ask about a whole dungeon its almost always going to be weal and woe because there will be treasure and danger.
Edit: Good use of augury is like professor Trelawney in prisoner of askaban, she has no clue whats going on she just sees the grim and freaks. Bonus if its kind of untrusted like she is because repeated uses of augury do start to become unreliable.
Augury is supposed to be a specific course of action.
The vaguer and broader the question, the less useful the answer is going to be. Remember, augury only applies to actions you're taking within the next 30 minutes. If they're asking things like "Should we do this quest?" which will obviously take longer than that, you should give them no answer
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Augury also only looks 30 minutes into the future, so casting it to see if they should accept a quest will only tell them about what might have for the 30 minutes after they accept the quest, nothing more into the future at all.
Most short-term quests are going to be "weal and woe" if it involves any sort of danger and some sort of reward.