I've mostly come up against this as a player rather than a DM, but I've always felt like we weren't running Augury quite right.
Almost all choices in our campaigns typically involve some risk (woe) as well as reward (weal), so this spell gives pretty much the same response all the time. The only exceptions I can think of are when the party proposes a particularly disastrous course of action that may be interpreted as only woe.
How have you handled it in your campaigns? Do you ever not answer "weal and woe?" I'd love some examples of when this would be appropriate so I can get a better grasp on how it's supposed to work.
Life is risky, and adventurers assume a basic level of danger. Calibrate your Augury for the expectation, rather than the reality.
For example:
"Is hunting the local dragon a good idea?"
If the party is likely to discover a second dragon in the same lair (Woe)
If the party is likely to discover magical items (Weal)
If the CR and reward of the encounter is within expectations (Nothing)
If the CR of the encounter is greater than expected, but there is also particularly rare treasure (Weal and Woe)
If the party expects to go on a suicide mission, then "Weal" might simply be a good chance of saving the town, while "Weal and Woe" might mean that they will probably succeed, but there will be a lot of collateral damage. Whether or not the mission will result in a TPK isn't actually a concern.
As the DM, you probably know what is good for the story and what the players want to achieve. Augury is essentially your tool for pointing the players in the right direction without telling them what to do outright.
Weal = This course of action should enhance the story (From the player's perspective) Woe = This course of action may detract from the story Nothing = This course of action will progress the story as expected Weal and Woe = This course of action should enhance the story, but may negatively impact the trajectory.
I very often reply with either weal or woe alone. The thing to be aware of is that “woe” is absolutely not indicative of risk. The response you give is based on the actual results of the course of action, not on potentialities.
Sometimes that means you have to give your best guess, which also means you may be wrong. That’s fine. If you think the party will have no trouble with a combat encounter, don’t respond with woe. The party still may screw it all up, but you don’t have perfect knowledge, and the spell is supposed to be useful.
You’ve correctly identified that almost every course of action involves a chance at both danger and reward, which should be your clue that the response shouldn’t actually be about chance.
You have to treat your estimation as fact. If you think they’ll win easily without anyone dying, say weal, even though there’s a chance they won’t. If you think they’ll lose, say woe, even if there’s a chance they won’t. If you think they’ll win but lose one or two characters, say say weal and woe, even if there’s a chance that they’ll win easily or lose completely.
[EDIT] Another thing is that the spell is actually best used when the success or failure of the course of action isn’t really in question. For example, if the party are considering executing a prisoner but are wary of potential consequences and so cast augury, if you as the DM know that kill the prisoner will start a war, that’s when you give woe, and that’s more the intended purpose of the spell, I think, than estimating how prepared the party are for a combat challenge (though it certainly can be used for that, as I suggested pre-edit).
I've mostly come up against this as a player rather than a DM, but I've always felt like we weren't running Augury quite right.
Almost all choices in our campaigns typically involve some risk (woe) as well as reward (weal), so this spell gives pretty much the same response all the time. The only exceptions I can think of are when the party proposes a particularly disastrous course of action that may be interpreted as only woe.
How have you handled it in your campaigns? Do you ever not answer "weal and woe?" I'd love some examples of when this would be appropriate so I can get a better grasp on how it's supposed to work.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Life is risky, and adventurers assume a basic level of danger. Calibrate your Augury for the expectation, rather than the reality.
For example:
"Is hunting the local dragon a good idea?"
If the party is likely to discover a second dragon in the same lair (Woe)
If the party is likely to discover magical items (Weal)
If the CR and reward of the encounter is within expectations (Nothing)
If the CR of the encounter is greater than expected, but there is also particularly rare treasure (Weal and Woe)
If the party expects to go on a suicide mission, then "Weal" might simply be a good chance of saving the town, while "Weal and Woe" might mean that they will probably succeed, but there will be a lot of collateral damage. Whether or not the mission will result in a TPK isn't actually a concern.
As the DM, you probably know what is good for the story and what the players want to achieve. Augury is essentially your tool for pointing the players in the right direction without telling them what to do outright.
Weal = This course of action should enhance the story (From the player's perspective)
Woe = This course of action may detract from the story
Nothing = This course of action will progress the story as expected
Weal and Woe = This course of action should enhance the story, but may negatively impact the trajectory.
I very often reply with either weal or woe alone. The thing to be aware of is that “woe” is absolutely not indicative of risk. The response you give is based on the actual results of the course of action, not on potentialities.
Sometimes that means you have to give your best guess, which also means you may be wrong. That’s fine. If you think the party will have no trouble with a combat encounter, don’t respond with woe. The party still may screw it all up, but you don’t have perfect knowledge, and the spell is supposed to be useful.
You’ve correctly identified that almost every course of action involves a chance at both danger and reward, which should be your clue that the response shouldn’t actually be about chance.
You have to treat your estimation as fact. If you think they’ll win easily without anyone dying, say weal, even though there’s a chance they won’t. If you think they’ll lose, say woe, even if there’s a chance they won’t. If you think they’ll win but lose one or two characters, say say weal and woe, even if there’s a chance that they’ll win easily or lose completely.
[EDIT] Another thing is that the spell is actually best used when the success or failure of the course of action isn’t really in question. For example, if the party are considering executing a prisoner but are wary of potential consequences and so cast augury, if you as the DM know that kill the prisoner will start a war, that’s when you give woe, and that’s more the intended purpose of the spell, I think, than estimating how prepared the party are for a combat challenge (though it certainly can be used for that, as I suggested pre-edit).