I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pronouns: he/him/his.
My posting scheduled is irregular: sometimes I can post twice a week, sometimes twice a day. I may also respond to quick questions, but ignore harder responses in favor of time.
My location is where my character for my home game is (we're doing the wild beyond the witchlight).
"The Doomvault... Probably full of unicorns and rainbows." -An imaginary quote
Would it be possible for someone to raise an undead servant, then have the servant draw a card? Would the servant be able to nullify effects like the Sphere or Loss of XP? Additionally, if an undead is used and they draw a card summoning the Avatar of Death or the Devil and the undead loses, do the enemies turn on the caster or do they simply vanish?
I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
If the cat was a familiar and it drew a card, my default would be that the wizard Schrödinger should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
Would it be possible for someone to raise an undead servant, then have the servant draw a card? Would the servant be able to nullify effects like the Sphere or Loss of XP? Additionally, if an undead is used and they draw a card summoning the Avatar of Death or the Devil and the undead loses, do the enemies turn on the caster or do they simply vanish?
I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
If the cat was a familiar and it drew a card, my default would be that the wizard Schrödinger should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment where a cat, which has a 50/50 chance of being alive or dead(due to a hypothetical vial of poison that has a 50% chance of breaking each hour), is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until the cat is observed, due to quantum superposition. Therefor, until the card is drawn and as such observed, it is considered both good and bad, because the deck is magically randomized. In fact, I'd say that if a character picked up a card, looked at it, then flipped it over and placed it back on the deck, it would come up as a new card, without any movement/rearranging of the in-game cards (the DM would of course shuffle the IRL deck).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pronouns: he/him/his.
My posting scheduled is irregular: sometimes I can post twice a week, sometimes twice a day. I may also respond to quick questions, but ignore harder responses in favor of time.
My location is where my character for my home game is (we're doing the wild beyond the witchlight).
"The Doomvault... Probably full of unicorns and rainbows." -An imaginary quote
Would it be possible for someone to raise an undead servant, then have the servant draw a card? Would the servant be able to nullify effects like the Sphere or Loss of XP? Additionally, if an undead is used and they draw a card summoning the Avatar of Death or the Devil and the undead loses, do the enemies turn on the caster or do they simply vanish?
I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
If the cat was a familiar and it drew a card, my default would be that the wizard Schrödinger should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment where a cat, which has a 50/50 chance of being alive or dead(due to a hypothetical vial of poison that has a 50% chance of breaking each hour), is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until the cat is observed, due to quantum superposition. Therefor, until the card is drawn and as such observed, it is considered both good and bad, because the deck is magically randomized. In fact, I'd say that if a character picked up a card, looked at it, then flipped it over and placed it back on the deck, it would come up as a new card, without any movement/rearranging of the in-game cards (the DM would of course shuffle the IRL deck).
Schrodinger didn't have access to literal Divination magic. To the action proposed with Augury, is along the lines of, "If I draw the top card immediately after getting the answer from this spell"... the character should absolutely get an answer, because regardless of how the deck is randomized, the spell glimpses the future to determine of it is a favorable outcome or not, and acting in line with the foreseen future should lead to that same outcome. The spell is identifying the card that will be flipped if the action is taken.
Would it be possible for someone to raise an undead servant, then have the servant draw a card? Would the servant be able to nullify effects like the Sphere or Loss of XP? Additionally, if an undead is used and they draw a card summoning the Avatar of Death or the Devil and the undead loses, do the enemies turn on the caster or do they simply vanish?
I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
If the cat was a familiar and it drew a card, my default would be that the wizard Schrödinger should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
Lol, maybe I should have referenced Schrödinger's undead servant. Even so, my default would have remained the same that the "wizard Schrödinger" should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
I don't think there should be a way to play tricks with the Deck of Many Things.
Would it be possible for someone to raise an undead servant, then have the servant draw a card? Would the servant be able to nullify effects like the Sphere or Loss of XP? Additionally, if an undead is used and they draw a card summoning the Avatar of Death or the Devil and the undead loses, do the enemies turn on the caster or do they simply vanish?
I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
If the cat was a familiar and it drew a card, my default would be that the wizard Schrödinger should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment where a cat, which has a 50/50 chance of being alive or dead(due to a hypothetical vial of poison that has a 50% chance of breaking each hour), is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until the cat is observed, due to quantum superposition. Therefor, until the card is drawn and as such observed, it is considered both good and bad, because the deck is magically randomized. In fact, I'd say that if a character picked up a card, looked at it, then flipped it over and placed it back on the deck, it would come up as a new card, without any movement/rearranging of the in-game cards (the DM would of course shuffle the IRL deck).
Schrodinger didn't have access to literal Divination magic. To the action proposed with Augury, is along the lines of, "If I draw the top card immediately after getting the answer from this spell"... the character should absolutely get an answer, because regardless of how the deck is randomized, the spell glimpses the future to determine of it is a favorable outcome or not, and acting in line with the foreseen future should lead to that same outcome. The spell is identifying the card that will be flipped if the action is taken.
The argument would likely tie in with Heisenberg, in that there could be a cosmic principle that checking the result for such a deck changes the outcome of the deck. If you peek into the box, you learn whether that cat is alive or dead, but it is not guaranteed to be the same cat next peek.
If the peak into the box is of an exact moment six seconds into the future, and then you open the box that same six seconds into the future, it's the same peak, not two different peaks... you just saw that same peak twice.
That assumes there is only one moment in time at any given time.... that is not a given in a fantasy environment.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
That assumes there is only one moment in time at any given time.... that is not a given in a fantasy environment.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
I'm not sure, when WotC formulated the Augury spell, that they intended it for use with a deck that was certainly conceived with random chance in mind.
That assumes there is only one moment in time at any given time.... that is not a given in a fantasy environment.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
I'm not sure, when WotC formulated the Augury spell, that they intended it for use with a deck that was certainly conceived with random chance in mind.
Augury is in the Player's Handbook and the Deck of Many Things is in the DMG... they've both been around in 5e since the beginning of the edition.
Augury is explicitly to get a definitive answer regarding if a specific course of action will be good or back for the caster. It's a little like the Lucky Feat, except it's only good for once per day, uses a spell slot, and can be applied to situations not involving dice rolls. If you want to know if something is worth doing or not, you cast the spell, and proceed accordingly, because per the spell's description, if you only cast it once per day, you have 100% accuracy.
The Deck of Many Things is objectively a specific course of action that can be good or bad for the card-puller. It's exactly (rules as written) the type of scenario that Augury is for.
That assumes there is only one moment in time at any given time.... that is not a given in a fantasy environment.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
I'm not sure, when WotC formulated the Augury spell, that they intended it for use with a deck that was certainly conceived with random chance in mind.
Augury is in the Player's Handbook and the Deck of Many Things is in the DMG... they've both been around in 5e since the beginning of the edition.
Augury is explicitly to get a definitive answer regarding if a specific course of action will be good or back for the caster. It's a little like the Lucky Feat, except it's only good for once per day, uses a spell slot, and can be applied to situations not involving dice rolls. If you want to know if something is worth doing or not, you cast the spell, and proceed accordingly, because per the spell's description, if you only cast it once per day, you have 100% accuracy.
The Deck of Many Things is objectively a specific course of action that can be good or bad for the card-puller. It's exactly (rules as written) the type of scenario that Augury is for.
Yep, and this may be another of those cases where RAI and RAW part company.
I personally doubt that I'd allow Augury to be used with the Deck of Many Things and, even if I did, there might be complications. Rubs hands.
That assumes there is only one moment in time at any given time.... that is not a given in a fantasy environment.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
It is a fantasy environment. This means chaos and determination are (likely, your campaign cosmology may vary) actual metaphysical forces and all bets are off. Just as Heisenberg postulates that observation requires interaction and interaction typically changes the quantum state, it may well be so with divination and items such as the deck.
It is like the old adage: "Just when you think you have figured out the opposite gender, they change the rules on you."
If you want to apply the logic used by Heisenberg, then yes, observation via casting Augury changes the quantum state. That's the point of the spell. To remove uncertainty from the equation and give the results of a specific course of action taken in the next 30 minutes. It would be pretty disappointing for a cleric or paladin to prepare this spell that already has pretty narrow application just to be told that their spell, that does not have any chance of a failure on its first cast, somehow fails anyway. That's not very creative or fun, and if you truly want the Deck to be a source of chaos, the description of the Augury spell lets you do that as a DM without nullifying the spell.
By casting gem-inlaid sticks, rolling dragon bones, laying out ornate cards, or employing some other divining tool, you receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. The DM chooses from the following possible omens:
Weal, for good results
Woe, for bad results
Weal and woe, for both good and bad results
Nothing, for results that aren’t especially good or bad
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. 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. (PHB pp.215-216).
A useful part of the description says the answer does not take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome. That alone gives the DM more than enough creative liberty to make the spell's omen less reliable than the players may hope. If the party sits and ruminates on the answer and tries to use the full 30 minutes to decide, there are plenty of things that can change or threaten to change their circumstances in that time and force either an impulsive decision or a missed opportunity. Also, they won't sit and take 2 hours making a pros and cons list(like many parties stuck in analysis-paralysis will) if they get 30 minutes maximum to act, past that point(or sooner if the DM decides that circumstances change) and their information is useless.
Something I think is far more interesting is that the spell does not tell you which otherworldly entity answers you, "good results" can mean different things to different beings. Telling your cleric "you prepare the ritual and pray to your deity, but an unfamiliar presence answers" is a good way to convey the idea that the Deck can produce all manner of events that aren't easily defined as good or bad when described from another being's perspective. Do you trust the strange omen? It could be a lawful good entity that sees your party(or a member of it) deserving of punishment from the Flames card. It could be a being from the Nine Hells begrudgingly telling the truth about the Moon card. It could be any being that could conceivably give them an estimate of whether the outcome is good or bad. Casting a spell that requires a being powerful enough to predict the Deck could find them some unwanted or unexpected attention; that powerful, otherworldly being may not enjoy the knowledge that the Deck is now in their possession and seek to rectify that. Getting an answer you don't expect or one you don't completely trust is far more interesting than no answer at all. Augury as-written has plenty of possible outcomes, as does the Deck. Combining the two could lead to an absolutely wild sequence of events depending on what knowledge is granted and how that knowledge is used.
I do not think there is a way to "beat" the Deck, and players trying to do so are probably metagaming anyway and that's not cool. There are plenty of interesting ways to make players respect the fact that drawing a card from the Deck is meant to be a gamble with legendary, reality-bending consequences while also making it clear that a 2nd level spell probably isn't going to be able to give them crystal-clear information or an easy answer. If they use the spell once in a very clever way, that is probably worthy of a more reliable answer, if they are spamming the spell daily hoping it eventually works then that's not really deserving of the beneficial answer they are begging for. After all, that's not why you let them find the Deck in the first place, right?
That assumes there is only one moment in time at any given time.... that is not a given in a fantasy environment.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
It is a fantasy environment. This means chaos and determination are (likely, your campaign cosmology may vary) actual metaphysical forces and all bets are off. Just as Heisenberg postulates that observation requires interaction and interaction typically changes the quantum state, it may well be so with divination and items such as the deck.
It is like the old adage: "Just when you think you have figured out the opposite gender, they change the rules on you."
If you want to apply the logic used by Heisenberg, then yes, observation via casting Augury changes the quantum state. That's the point of the spell. To remove uncertainty from the equation and give the results of a specific course of action taken in the next 30 minutes. It would be pretty disappointing for a cleric or paladin to prepare this spell that already has pretty narrow application just to be told that their spell, that does not have any chance of a failure on its first cast, somehow fails anyway. That's not very creative or fun, and if you truly want the Deck to be a source of chaos, the description of the Augury spell lets you do that as a DM without nullifying the spell.
By casting gem-inlaid sticks, rolling dragon bones, laying out ornate cards, or employing some other divining tool, you receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. The DM chooses from the following possible omens:
Weal, for good results
Woe, for bad results
Weal and woe, for both good and bad results
Nothing, for results that aren’t especially good or bad
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. 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. (PHB pp.215-216).
A useful part of the description says the answer does not take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome. That alone gives the DM more than enough creative liberty to make the spell's omen less reliable than the players may hope. If the party sits and ruminates on the answer and tries to use the full 30 minutes to decide, there are plenty of things that can change or threaten to change their circumstances in that time and force either an impulsive decision or a missed opportunity. Also, they won't sit and take 2 hours making a pros and cons list(like many parties stuck in analysis-paralysis will) if they get 30 minutes maximum to act, past that point(or sooner if the DM decides that circumstances change) and their information is useless.
Something I think is far more interesting is that the spell does not tell you which otherworldly entity answers you, "good results" can mean different things to different beings. Telling your cleric "you prepare the ritual and pray to your deity, but an unfamiliar presence answers" is a good way to convey the idea that the Deck can produce all manner of events that aren't easily defined as good or bad when described from another being's perspective. Do you trust the strange omen? It could be a lawful good entity that sees your party(or a member of it) deserving of punishment from the Flames card. It could be a being from the Nine Hells begrudgingly telling the truth about the Moon card. It could be any being that could conceivably give them an estimate of whether the outcome is good or bad. Casting a spell that requires a being powerful enough to predict the Deck could find them some unwanted or unexpected attention; that powerful, otherworldly being may not enjoy the knowledge that the Deck is now in their possession and seek to rectify that. Getting an answer you don't expect or one you don't completely trust is far more interesting than no answer at all. Augury as-written has plenty of possible outcomes, as does the Deck. Combining the two could lead to an absolutely wild sequence of events depending on what knowledge is granted and how that knowledge is used.
I do not think there is a way to "beat" the Deck, and players trying to do so are probably metagaming anyway and that's not cool. There are plenty of interesting ways to make players respect the fact that drawing a card from the Deck is meant to be a gamble with legendary, reality-bending consequences while also making it clear that a 2nd level spell probably isn't going to be able to give them crystal-clear information or an easy answer. If they use the spell once in a very clever way, that is probably worthy of a more reliable answer, if they are spamming the spell daily hoping it eventually works then that's not really deserving of the beneficial answer they are begging for. After all, that's not why you let them find the Deck in the first place, right?
I understand that that is the point of the spell. But when you consider the power level of a Deck of Many Things, which is arguably more powerful than a Wish spell (both in potential positives it can grant and potential negatives, both of which exceed typical guidelines for Wish) and anyone trying to augury the results in any campaign of mine would probably simply get hysterical laughter as an answer.
But then I have long since realized, as both player and DM, that it is not an item to offer to players at all, except perhaps in a campaign that the DM plans on shutting down anyway. It can way too easily break a campaign.
Absolutely.
It's a potential face-off between a divine demand for absolutes (though delivered through a second level spell) and a deck of arguably principled uncertainty (shuffled into the magic of a legendary item).
Even with the best of access, could a god or similar know the outcome of a pull? I can't see how but, if so, why not just give the dec to the god? Which gods, if any, could know? Could they do it when working through the weak provision afforded by a second-level spell? How would the god feel about having their abilities applied, at a close to baseline level, against a legendary item?
One way or another I think there's plenty of potential for sparks to fly. Even if the god is disposed to help, there could be a potential for the incompatibility from an item that wasn't intended to be a Deck of Selective Prediction. If divine power was somehow successfully applied (perhaps by dice rolls) I'd imagine there could be a potential of the damage or destruction of the deck (which again may be determined by dice rolls). If divine power was less than successfully applied (as indicated by those dice rolls) I'd predict trouble in heaven. Claimed divine powers are being used to check a deck of cards.
And can the card even be checked without revealing the card? I think that early on in the casting time of the spell the caster could be informed if the checking of the card would also cause a releasing of its magic.
And can the card even be checked without revealing the card? I think that early on in the casting time of the spell the caster could be informed if the checking of the card would also cause a releasing of its magic.
Actually that is another good point and also a good way to handle it. An augury could count as actually drawing the cards
lol. weal and woe become "that worked" and "you shouldn't have asked that"/"you wouldn't have wanted to 'know'".
And can the card even be checked without revealing the card? I think that early on in the casting time of the spell the caster could be informed if the checking of the card would also cause a releasing of its magic.
Actually that is another good point and also a good way to handle it. An augury could count as actually drawing the cards
lol. weal and woe become "that worked" and "you shouldn't have asked that"/"you wouldn't have wanted to 'know'".
I was thinking more "Tell him what he's won, Don Pardo!' and 'Uh, oh, you got zonked...'
nice!
but, in principle, I still like the idea of trying to use augury.
I like the idea that a cleric, with the support of their celestial wing ~man, might attempt a bit of priestly ~sleight of hand (basically spell attack) to use Augury to sneak a look at a card if they turned in in the next turn. A failed roll would cause the card to be activated immediately. The 'to hit' target could increase with repeated use. A crit miss could impose the effects of a number of negative cards at DM's discretion.
DMs need to recognize that D&D is a cooperative game, not just between the players, but also between the players and the DM. Everyone's role is to help tell an entertaining/captivating story for the whole group. An adversarial DM is counter-productive to those ends, and is comparable to a player's character consistently acting against the party because, "it's what my character would do". It's toxic behavior.
The DM has the power to set the ground rules before the game starts, and the DM is the only one who can determine if a Deck of Many Things is even available at all in a campaign. In the case of the Deck of Many Things, if there's a house-rule that Divination doesn't work on it, that needs to be stated at the very latest when the Deck is first introduced as a possibility. Changing rules mid-game to cut the legs out of the players' plans is unfair, and doesn't make the game more enjoyable.
Augury specifically states that it has a 100% accuracy rate for the first casting by a character each day. The clear intention of the spell is that it tells whether the specified action will be good, bad, both, or neither for the caster. The specific entity answering the question doesn't matter, because if the answer was based on a perspective contrary to how the player-character would interpret the result, the spell would be less than useless, contrary to the 100% accuracy promised in the description. If you specify the action of pulling a card immediately after getting the answer from Augury, there aren't any unpredictable variables that would change the outcome.
It's not Schrodinger's cat because the outcome ceases to be unobserved once it has been divined. If you take the exact action as described, you should get the same outcome that you foresaw.
The spell Augury also only gives you information. There's nothing in the game that would cause it to trigger the effect of the card, and it would again be punishing the player by taking away a tool they acquired when they tried to use it in an intelligent way.
If the DM wants to have all spells that reference contacting extra-planar entities carry additional risks in their personal homebrew, that likewise needs to be specified before the game starts. Introducing something like that well into the game when a player is trying to divine the safety of pulling a card from the Deck of Many Things is adversarial and unfair. It's punishing players for thinking their way through problems by imposing unforeseeable consequences (unforeseeable because the rules are changing). That's a quick path to turning otherwise good players into problem players in other campaigns (I've seen it happen).
DMs need to recognize that D&D is a cooperative game, not just between the players, but also between the players and the DM. Everyone's role is to help tell an entertaining/captivating story for the whole group. An adversarial DM is counter-productive to those ends, and is comparable to a player's character consistently acting against the party because, "it's what my character would do". It's toxic behavior.
The DM has the power to set the ground rules before the game starts, and the DM is the only one who can determine if a Deck of Many Things is even available at all in a campaign. In the case of the Deck of Many Things, if there's a house-rule that Divination doesn't work on it, that needs to be stated at the very latest when the Deck is first introduced as a possibility. Changing rules mid-game to cut the legs out of the players' plans is unfair, and doesn't make the game more enjoyable.
Augury specifically states that it has a 100% accuracy rate for the first casting by a character each day. The clear intention of the spell is that it tells whether the specified action will be good, bad, both, or neither for the caster. The specific entity answering the question doesn't matter, because if the answer was based on a perspective contrary to how the player-character would interpret the result, the spell would be less than useless, contrary to the 100% accuracy promised in the description. If you specify the action of pulling a card immediately after getting the answer from Augury, there aren't any unpredictable variables that would change the outcome.
It's not Schrodinger's cat because the outcome ceases to be unobserved once it has been divined. If you take the exact action as described, you should get the same outcome that you foresaw.
The spell Augury also only gives you information. There's nothing in the game that would cause it to trigger the effect of the card, and it would again be punishing the player by taking away a tool they acquired when they tried to use it in an intelligent way.
If the DM wants to have all spells that reference contacting extra-planar entities carry additional risks in their personal homebrew, that likewise needs to be specified before the game starts. Introducing something like that well into the game when a player is trying to divine the safety of pulling a card from the Deck of Many Things is adversarial and unfair. It's punishing players for thinking their way through problems by imposing unforeseeable consequences (unforeseeable because the rules are changing). That's a quick path to turning otherwise good players into problem players in other campaigns (I've seen it happen).
Players need to recognise that D&D is a cooperative game in which DMs will typically invest long hours to prepare a great stage for events in which players can shine. For instance, if a player has a desire for a risk-taking type of game then the DM might even go as far as to provide that god-awful and difficult to manage item the Deck of Many Things to the players.
Players have the power to then work out their own narratives in the situations that they develop in the world fashioned by the DM around them. If players then wanted to get a god to provide a service for them that, from my worldbuilding point of view, that god could not even do for themselves - they are abusing their DM. Their trying to get a certain result via a second-level spell from a legendary item that I don't think, even with full access to power, they would be able to certain to achieve. For players to rules-lawyer to force a world change to suit their hack makes the game utterly shit for the DM.
If the DM wants to satisfy their players desire for risk by supplying risky items then great. If players then want to remove all that legendary risk with a quick ritual cast of a second-level spell so as to give them a result better than a ring of infinite wishes then I think you may cordially expect many a DM to tell them to edited
DMs need to recognize that D&D is a cooperative game, not just between the players, but also between the players and the DM. Everyone's role is to help tell an entertaining/captivating story for the whole group. An adversarial DM is counter-productive to those ends, and is comparable to a player's character consistently acting against the party because, "it's what my character would do". It's toxic behavior.
The DM has the power to set the ground rules before the game starts, and the DM is the only one who can determine if a Deck of Many Things is even available at all in a campaign. In the case of the Deck of Many Things, if there's a house-rule that Divination doesn't work on it, that needs to be stated at the very latest when the Deck is first introduced as a possibility. Changing rules mid-game to cut the legs out of the players' plans is unfair, and doesn't make the game more enjoyable.
Augury specifically states that it has a 100% accuracy rate for the first casting by a character each day. The clear intention of the spell is that it tells whether the specified action will be good, bad, both, or neither for the caster. The specific entity answering the question doesn't matter, because if the answer was based on a perspective contrary to how the player-character would interpret the result, the spell would be less than useless, contrary to the 100% accuracy promised in the description. If you specify the action of pulling a card immediately after getting the answer from Augury, there aren't any unpredictable variables that would change the outcome.
It's not Schrodinger's cat because the outcome ceases to be unobserved once it has been divined. If you take the exact action as described, you should get the same outcome that you foresaw.
The spell Augury also only gives you information. There's nothing in the game that would cause it to trigger the effect of the card, and it would again be punishing the player by taking away a tool they acquired when they tried to use it in an intelligent way.
If the DM wants to have all spells that reference contacting extra-planar entities carry additional risks in their personal homebrew, that likewise needs to be specified before the game starts. Introducing something like that well into the game when a player is trying to divine the safety of pulling a card from the Deck of Many Things is adversarial and unfair. It's punishing players for thinking their way through problems by imposing unforeseeable consequences (unforeseeable because the rules are changing). That's a quick path to turning otherwise good players into problem players in other campaigns (I've seen it happen).
Players need to recognise that D&D is a cooperative game in which DMs will typically invest long hours to prepare a great stage for events in which players can shine. For instance, if a player has a desire for a risk-taking type of game then the DM might even go as far as to provide that god-awful and difficult to manage item the Deck of Many Things to the players.
Players have the power to then work out their own narratives in the situations that they develop in the world fashioned by the DM around them. If players then wanted to get a god to provide a service for them that, from my worldbuilding point of view, that god could not even do for themselves - they are abusing their DM. Their trying to get a certain result via a second-level spell from a legendary item that I don't think, even with full access to power, they would be able to certain to achieve. For players to rules-lawyer to force a world change to suit their hack makes the game utterly shit for the DM.
If the DM wants to satisfy their players desire for risk by supplying risky items then great. If players then want to remove all that legendary risk with a quick ritual cast of a second-level spell so as to give them a result better than a ring of infinite wishes then I think you may cordially expect many a DM to tell them to edited
The Deck of Many Things is a ridiculous item that the DM has full power to choose if it appears in the game at all or not. And as I've said before, the DM has the right to set rules in the game, but the relevant house-rules NEED to be set before a player makes a decision that's fully in line with the rules as written. If you hate Augury (or Divination spells in general) that much, you might as well ban it(them) from your table from the start and avoid this situation altogether. That at least would be exponentially better than letting a character take the spell, then not letting them use it when it would be at its most useful.
It's like if you have a campaign featuring werewolves, but you make the werewolf curse something special that can't be removed by Remove Curse or Remove Disease, you need to specify that before the characters are in a position to try to use one of those spells, because rules as written, whether you consider being a werewolf a disease or a curse, one of those two spells would work, and you're unfairly penalizing the player for their choices if you don't let the spell work, and you didn't tell them beforehand.
The Deck of Many Things has a lot of cards in it, and you don't have to take away the one thing the Augury spell does to keep the player from cheesing the spell to get all of the good cards quickly. You could have the deck shuffle itself every day, so the player will never know when they've gotten all of the beneficial cards. Alternatively, you could have the deck only be able to be drawn in order, so if the player chooses to not draw a card, no other cards can be drawn until that card is drawn. Both of those options let the spell do the one thing it can, but limit its power without giving a giant middle finger to the player.
In no way is Augury ever "better" than a ring of infinite wishes. Your complaints read like a DM who's built a railroad of a campaign, and can't stand for players to deviate from the track you set. If you need the players to color inside the lines, don't give them the Deck of Many Things.
DMs need to recognize that D&D is a cooperative game, not just between the players, but also between the players and the DM. Everyone's role is to help tell an entertaining/captivating story for the whole group. An adversarial DM is counter-productive to those ends, and is comparable to a player's character consistently acting against the party because, "it's what my character would do". It's toxic behavior.
The DM has the power to set the ground rules before the game starts, and the DM is the only one who can determine if a Deck of Many Things is even available at all in a campaign. In the case of the Deck of Many Things, if there's a house-rule that Divination doesn't work on it, that needs to be stated at the very latest when the Deck is first introduced as a possibility. Changing rules mid-game to cut the legs out of the players' plans is unfair, and doesn't make the game more enjoyable.
Augury specifically states that it has a 100% accuracy rate for the first casting by a character each day. The clear intention of the spell is that it tells whether the specified action will be good, bad, both, or neither for the caster. The specific entity answering the question doesn't matter, because if the answer was based on a perspective contrary to how the player-character would interpret the result, the spell would be less than useless, contrary to the 100% accuracy promised in the description. If you specify the action of pulling a card immediately after getting the answer from Augury, there aren't any unpredictable variables that would change the outcome.
It's not Schrodinger's cat because the outcome ceases to be unobserved once it has been divined. If you take the exact action as described, you should get the same outcome that you foresaw.
The spell Augury also only gives you information. There's nothing in the game that would cause it to trigger the effect of the card, and it would again be punishing the player by taking away a tool they acquired when they tried to use it in an intelligent way.
If the DM wants to have all spells that reference contacting extra-planar entities carry additional risks in their personal homebrew, that likewise needs to be specified before the game starts. Introducing something like that well into the game when a player is trying to divine the safety of pulling a card from the Deck of Many Things is adversarial and unfair. It's punishing players for thinking their way through problems by imposing unforeseeable consequences (unforeseeable because the rules are changing). That's a quick path to turning otherwise good players into problem players in other campaigns (I've seen it happen).
Players need to recognise that D&D is a cooperative game in which DMs will typically invest long hours to prepare a great stage for events in which players can shine. For instance, if a player has a desire for a risk-taking type of game then the DM might even go as far as to provide that god-awful and difficult to manage item the Deck of Many Things to the players.
Players have the power to then work out their own narratives in the situations that they develop in the world fashioned by the DM around them. If players then wanted to get a god to provide a service for them that, from my worldbuilding point of view, that god could not even do for themselves - they are abusing their DM. Their trying to get a certain result via a second-level spell from a legendary item that I don't think, even with full access to power, they would be able to certain to achieve. For players to rules-lawyer to force a world change to suit their hack makes the game utterly shit for the DM.
If the DM wants to satisfy their players desire for risk by supplying risky items then great. If players then want to remove all that legendary risk with a quick ritual cast of a second-level spell so as to give them a result better than a ring of infinite wishes [spoiler: possibly but at least to a significant number in double figures] then I think you may cordially expect many a DM to tell them to edited
The Deck of Many Things is a ridiculous item that the DM has full power to choose if it appears in the game at all or not. And as I've said before, the DM has the right to set rules in the game, but the relevant house-rules NEED to be set before a player makes a decision that's fully in line with the rules as written. If you hate Augury (or Divination spells in general) that much, you might as well ban it(them) from your table from the start and avoid this situation altogether. That at least would be exponentially better than letting a character take the spell, then not letting them use it when it would be at its most useful.
It's like if you have a campaign featuring werewolves, but you make the werewolf curse something special that can't be removed by Remove Curse or Remove Disease, you need to specify that before the characters are in a position to try to use one of those spells, because rules as written, whether you consider being a werewolf a disease or a curse, one of those two spells would work, and you're unfairly penalizing the player for their choices if you don't let the spell work, and you didn't tell them beforehand.
The Deck of Many Things has a lot of cards in it, and you don't have to take away the one thing the Augury spell does to keep the player from cheesing the spell to get all of the good cards quickly. You could have the deck shuffle itself every day, so the player will never know when they've gotten all of the beneficial cards. Alternatively, you could have the deck only be able to be drawn in order, so if the player chooses to not draw a card, no other cards can be drawn until that card is drawn. Both of those options let the spell do the one thing it can, but limit its power without giving a giant middle finger to the player.
In no way is Augury ever "better" than a ring of infinite wishes. Your complaints read like a DM who's built a railroad of a campaign, and can't stand for players to deviate from the track you set. If you need the players to color inside the lines, don't give them the Deck of Many Things.
Ye gods you blow things preposterously and unfairly out of proportion. You are big on telling DMs, quite one-sidedly and pointedly, what they need to do.
Multiple contributors have explained patiently why a combo use of the legendary Deck of Many Things with the second level Augury spell is broken, but you aren't having any of it - and then you push a narrative of a DM that can't stand a change of plans. You want to change a deck that is designed to deliver random cards to one that produces predictable results.
This is how play goes: players come up with plans of what they want to do and their hard-working DM adjudicates on how those plans may or may not work. Unlike the characters, the DM does not have divination magic to know in advance what the players' ideas might be. My suggestion would be that players either choose to mention their ideas as early as possible to get an as early as a possible response from the DM or they leave things to the drama of the moment while being prepared for whatever decision may come. Certainly, if a cleric goes into an items shop to specifically try to buy a deck of cards, it might be advised to try things like arcana checks to try to see, within the context of the world developed for them by their DM, any extent to which their plans may work.
Can a second-level, ritual cast divination spell remove capricious chance from a legendary card deck? That's a question for your DM and, in this context, I'd suggest that you might ask it of your DM. Personally, if I had been in a position to try to use Augury with the Deck, I'd hope the DM wouldn't allow a questionable option of purely positive results as it would wreck the game.
The positive deck cards are:
Comet. If you single-handedly defeat the next hostile monster or group of monsters you encounter, you gain experience points enough to gain one level. Otherwise, this card has no effect.
The Fates. Reality's fabric unravels and spins anew, allowing you to avoid or erase one event as if it never happened. You can use the card's magic as soon as you draw the card or at any other time before you die.
Gem. Twenty-five pieces of jewelry worth 2,000 gp each or fifty gems worth 1,000 gp each appear at your feet.
Jester. You gain 10,000 XP, or you can draw two additional cards beyond your declared draws.
Key. A rare or rarer magic weapon with which you are proficient appears in your hands. The GM chooses the weapon.
Knight. You gain the service of a 4th-level fighter who appears in a space you choose within 30 feet of you. The fighter is of the same race as you and serves you loyally until death, believing the fates have drawn him or her to you. You control this character.
Moon. You are granted the ability to cast the wish spell 1d3 times.
Skull. You summon an avatar of death--a ghostly humanoid skeleton clad in a tattered black robe and carrying a spectral scythe. It appears in a space of the GM's choice within 10 feet of you and attacks you, warning all others that you must win the battle alone. The avatar fights until you die or it drops to 0 hit points, whereupon it disappears. If anyone tries to help you, the helper summons its own avatar of death. A creature slain by an avatar of death can't be restored to life.
Star. Increase one of your ability scores by 2. The score can exceed 20 but can't exceed 24.
Sun. You gain 50,000 XP, and a wondrous item (which the GM determines randomly) appears in your hands.
Throne. You gain proficiency in the Persuasion skill, and you double your proficiency bonus on checks made with that skill. In addition, you gain rightful ownership of a small keep somewhere in the world. However, the keep is currently in the hands of monsters, which you must clear out before you can claim the keep as yours.
Vizier. At any time you choose within one year of drawing this card, you can ask a question in meditation and mentally receive a truthful answer to that question. Besides information, the answer helps you solve a puzzling problem or other dilemma. In other words, the knowledge comes with wisdom on how to apply it.
Personally, I think that consistent positive pulls by the party cleric would wreck the game for the cleric, the other players and DM. That's my take. A group could certainly discuss matters themselves and see if they come to a different conclusion.
By casting .., you receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. ...
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.
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. ...
That's three cards pulled in timespan which might be as brief as three minutes and which could certainly be achieved in a couple of hours. You might arguably need to get another card pulled (potentially be a charmed enemy or an on deathbed ally) between your own augury checks but, otherwise, you could just make pulls in different circumstances and/or at different times and secure an unlimited and game-breaking stream of positive results.
Most (75 percent) of these decks have only thirteen cards, but the rest have twenty-two.
...
Once a card is drawn, it fades from existence. Unless the card is the Fool or the Jester, the card reappears in the deck, making it possible to draw the same card twice.
The comet card presents an issue in regard have enemies pull cards between your augury checks. This is why I suggested that the enemy might potentially be charmed but it's debatable whether even this would prevent the magic from working. Once the comet card is gone then enemies could be forced to pull cards to less concern for the party.
I don't think a playable interpretation of the deck would work if the next card to be picked is fixed. If that were the case, augury could be cast to pick all the good cards while enemies could more cleanly be forced, tricked or charmed into picking the bad cards.
... can the card even be checked without revealing the card? I think that early on in the casting time of the spell the caster could be informed if the checking of the card would also cause a releasing of its magic.
Even if players are dumb enough not to attempt arcana etc. checks to see if a check of a legendary deck could work, at a minimum I'd personally still give notification on the mechanics before any magic activated. Other DMs might not be so lenient. The cleric would be making a check on the content of a magic activating card.
If however, a group was happy for the deck to be broken, then you could say that the next card to be pulled would be fixed. All the good results could go to your cleric while all negative results could go to enemies.
Your cleric would get, ability to "single-handedly defeat the next hostile monster or group of monsters you encounter + experience points enough to gain one level", ability "to avoid or erase one event as if it never happened... at any ... time before you die", "Twenty-five pieces of jewelry worth 2,000 gp each or fifty gems worth 1,000 gp each", "10,000 XP", "A rare or rarer magic weapon with which you are proficient appears in your hands", "the service of a 4th-level fighter", "the ability to cast the wish spell 1d3 times", ability to"summon an avatar of death*", +2 to "one of your ability scores by 2" even to "exceed 20", another "50,000 XP, and a wondrous item", "proficiency in the Persuasion skill, and you double your proficiency bonus on checks made with that skill" and "rightful ownership of a small keep somewhere in the world", ability "within one year of drawing this card, [to] ask a question in meditation and mentally receive a truthful answer to that question." If a party is happy to have a group that becomes incredibly unbalanced, fine. Otherwise, I pity the potentially "railroad" type DM that then has to try to balance this mess. Alternatively, it might be manageable for the cleric to split off and join another group.
If they know it is a bad card coming they could have someone else draw, though, even if they had to force the other person. And could use auguries regarding that too. It does not matter if they never know when they are out of good cards if they can always avoid the bad ones.
Given the power of the best cards, while Augury itself is not better than a ring of infinite wishes (if for no other reason than the ring could be used to cast an infinite number of auguries), augury plus deck is arguably better than a ring of infinite wishes. If nothing else, the wish spell is still the wish spell and one false wish and the person may no longer be able to use the ring.
The players should know in advance any limitations set to augury but we are discussing only the interaction with a specific magic item. It can still be generally useful.
A group of mercenaries traveling around forcing curses onto random people would have serious consequences from the law enforcement in the world, and if you're dealing with alignment in the game, that would take a hit for the deliberate harming of people for their own gain.
But we agree that any limitations need to be set BEFORE they come up for Divination spells.
DMs need to recognize that D&D is a cooperative game, not just between the players, but also between the players and the DM. Everyone's role is to help tell an entertaining/captivating story for the whole group. An adversarial DM is counter-productive to those ends, and is comparable to a player's character consistently acting against the party because, "it's what my character would do". It's toxic behavior.
The DM has the power to set the ground rules before the game starts, and the DM is the only one who can determine if a Deck of Many Things is even available at all in a campaign. In the case of the Deck of Many Things, if there's a house-rule that Divination doesn't work on it, that needs to be stated at the very latest when the Deck is first introduced as a possibility. Changing rules mid-game to cut the legs out of the players' plans is unfair, and doesn't make the game more enjoyable.
Augury specifically states that it has a 100% accuracy rate for the first casting by a character each day. The clear intention of the spell is that it tells whether the specified action will be good, bad, both, or neither for the caster. The specific entity answering the question doesn't matter, because if the answer was based on a perspective contrary to how the player-character would interpret the result, the spell would be less than useless, contrary to the 100% accuracy promised in the description. If you specify the action of pulling a card immediately after getting the answer from Augury, there aren't any unpredictable variables that would change the outcome.
It's not Schrodinger's cat because the outcome ceases to be unobserved once it has been divined. If you take the exact action as described, you should get the same outcome that you foresaw.
The spell Augury also only gives you information. There's nothing in the game that would cause it to trigger the effect of the card, and it would again be punishing the player by taking away a tool they acquired when they tried to use it in an intelligent way.
If the DM wants to have all spells that reference contacting extra-planar entities carry additional risks in their personal homebrew, that likewise needs to be specified before the game starts. Introducing something like that well into the game when a player is trying to divine the safety of pulling a card from the Deck of Many Things is adversarial and unfair. It's punishing players for thinking their way through problems by imposing unforeseeable consequences (unforeseeable because the rules are changing). That's a quick path to turning otherwise good players into problem players in other campaigns (I've seen it happen).
Players need to recognise that D&D is a cooperative game in which DMs will typically invest long hours to prepare a great stage for events in which players can shine. For instance, if a player has a desire for a risk-taking type of game then the DM might even go as far as to provide that god-awful and difficult to manage item the Deck of Many Things to the players.
Players have the power to then work out their own narratives in the situations that they develop in the world fashioned by the DM around them. If players then wanted to get a god to provide a service for them that, from my worldbuilding point of view, that god could not even do for themselves - they are abusing their DM. Their trying to get a certain result via a second-level spell from a legendary item that I don't think, even with full access to power, they would be able to certain to achieve. For players to rules-lawyer to force a world change to suit their hack makes the game utterly shit for the DM.
If the DM wants to satisfy their players desire for risk by supplying risky items then great. If players then want to remove all that legendary risk with a quick ritual cast of a second-level spell so as to give them a result better than a ring of infinite wishes [spoiler: possibly but at least to a significant number in double figures] then I think you may cordially expect many a DM to tell them to edited
The Deck of Many Things is a ridiculous item that the DM has full power to choose if it appears in the game at all or not. And as I've said before, the DM has the right to set rules in the game, but the relevant house-rules NEED to be set before a player makes a decision that's fully in line with the rules as written. If you hate Augury (or Divination spells in general) that much, you might as well ban it(them) from your table from the start and avoid this situation altogether. That at least would be exponentially better than letting a character take the spell, then not letting them use it when it would be at its most useful.
It's like if you have a campaign featuring werewolves, but you make the werewolf curse something special that can't be removed by Remove Curse or Remove Disease, you need to specify that before the characters are in a position to try to use one of those spells, because rules as written, whether you consider being a werewolf a disease or a curse, one of those two spells would work, and you're unfairly penalizing the player for their choices if you don't let the spell work, and you didn't tell them beforehand.
The Deck of Many Things has a lot of cards in it, and you don't have to take away the one thing the Augury spell does to keep the player from cheesing the spell to get all of the good cards quickly. You could have the deck shuffle itself every day, so the player will never know when they've gotten all of the beneficial cards. Alternatively, you could have the deck only be able to be drawn in order, so if the player chooses to not draw a card, no other cards can be drawn until that card is drawn. Both of those options let the spell do the one thing it can, but limit its power without giving a giant middle finger to the player.
In no way is Augury ever "better" than a ring of infinite wishes. Your complaints read like a DM who's built a railroad of a campaign, and can't stand for players to deviate from the track you set. If you need the players to color inside the lines, don't give them the Deck of Many Things.
Ye gods you blow things preposterously and unfairly out of proportion. You are big on telling DMs, quite one-sidedly and pointedly, what they need to do.
Multiple contributors have explained patiently why a combo use of the legendary Deck of Many Things with the second level Augury spell is broken, but you aren't having any of it - and then you push a narrative of a DM that can't stand a change of plans. You want to change a deck that is designed to deliver random cards to one that produces predictable results.
This is how play goes: players come up with plans of what they want to do and their hard-working DM adjudicates on how those plans may or may not work. Unlike the characters, the DM does not have divination magic to know in advance what the players' ideas might be. My suggestion would be that players either choose to mention their ideas as early as possible to get an as early as a possible response from the DM or they leave things to the drama of the moment while being prepared for whatever decision may come. Certainly, if a cleric goes into an items shop to specifically try to buy a deck of cards, it might be advised to try things like arcana checks to try to see, within the context of the world developed for them by their DM, any extent to which their plans may work.
Can a second-level, ritual cast divination spell remove capricious chance from a legendary card deck? That's a question for your DM and, in this context, I'd suggest that you might ask it of your DM. Personally, if I had been in a position to try to use Augury with the Deck, I'd hope the DM wouldn't allow a questionable option of purely positive results as it would wreck the game.
The positive deck cards are:
Comet. If you single-handedly defeat the next hostile monster or group of monsters you encounter, you gain experience points enough to gain one level. Otherwise, this card has no effect.
The Fates. Reality's fabric unravels and spins anew, allowing you to avoid or erase one event as if it never happened. You can use the card's magic as soon as you draw the card or at any other time before you die.
Gem. Twenty-five pieces of jewelry worth 2,000 gp each or fifty gems worth 1,000 gp each appear at your feet.
Jester. You gain 10,000 XP, or you can draw two additional cards beyond your declared draws.
Key. A rare or rarer magic weapon with which you are proficient appears in your hands. The GM chooses the weapon.
Knight. You gain the service of a 4th-level fighter who appears in a space you choose within 30 feet of you. The fighter is of the same race as you and serves you loyally until death, believing the fates have drawn him or her to you. You control this character.
Moon. You are granted the ability to cast the wish spell 1d3 times.
Skull. You summon an avatar of death--a ghostly humanoid skeleton clad in a tattered black robe and carrying a spectral scythe. It appears in a space of the GM's choice within 10 feet of you and attacks you, warning all others that you must win the battle alone. The avatar fights until you die or it drops to 0 hit points, whereupon it disappears. If anyone tries to help you, the helper summons its own avatar of death. A creature slain by an avatar of death can't be restored to life.
Star. Increase one of your ability scores by 2. The score can exceed 20 but can't exceed 24.
Sun. You gain 50,000 XP, and a wondrous item (which the GM determines randomly) appears in your hands.
Throne. You gain proficiency in the Persuasion skill, and you double your proficiency bonus on checks made with that skill. In addition, you gain rightful ownership of a small keep somewhere in the world. However, the keep is currently in the hands of monsters, which you must clear out before you can claim the keep as yours.
Vizier. At any time you choose within one year of drawing this card, you can ask a question in meditation and mentally receive a truthful answer to that question. Besides information, the answer helps you solve a puzzling problem or other dilemma. In other words, the knowledge comes with wisdom on how to apply it.
Personally, I think that consistent positive pulls by the party cleric would wreck the game for the cleric, the other players and DM. That's my take. A group could certainly discuss matters themselves and see if they come to a different conclusion.
By casting .., you receive an omen from an otherworldly entity about the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes. ...
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.
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. ...
That's three cards pulled in timespan which might be as brief as three minutes and which could certainly be achieved in a couple of hours. You might arguably need to get another card pulled (potentially be a charmed enemy or an on deathbed ally) between your own augury checks but, otherwise, you could just make pulls in different circumstances and/or at different times and secure an unlimited and game-breaking stream of positive results.
Most (75 percent) of these decks have only thirteen cards, but the rest have twenty-two.
...
Once a card is drawn, it fades from existence. Unless the card is the Fool or the Jester, the card reappears in the deck, making it possible to draw the same card twice.
The comet card presents an issue in regard have enemies pull cards between your augury checks. This is why I suggested that the enemy might potentially be charmed but it's debatable whether even this would prevent the magic from working. Once the comet card is gone then enemies could be forced to pull cards to less concern for the party.
I don't think a playable interpretation of the deck would work if the next card to be picked is fixed. If that were the case, augury could be cast to pick all the good cards while enemies could more cleanly be forced, tricked or charmed into picking the bad cards.
... can the card even be checked without revealing the card? I think that early on in the casting time of the spell the caster could be informed if the checking of the card would also cause a releasing of its magic.
Even if players are dumb enough not to attempt arcana etc. checks to see if a check of a legendary deck could work, at a minimum I'd personally still give notification on the mechanics before any magic activated. Other DMs might not be so lenient. The cleric would be making a check on the content of a magic activating card.
If however, a group was happy for the deck to be broken, then you could say that the next card to be pulled would be fixed. All the good results could go to your cleric while all negative results could go to enemies.
Your cleric would get, ability to "single-handedly defeat the next hostile monster or group of monsters you encounter + experience points enough to gain one level", ability "to avoid or erase one event as if it never happened... at any ... time before you die", "Twenty-five pieces of jewelry worth 2,000 gp each or fifty gems worth 1,000 gp each", "10,000 XP", "A rare or rarer magic weapon with which you are proficient appears in your hands", "the service of a 4th-level fighter", "the ability to cast the wish spell 1d3 times", ability to"summon an avatar of death*", +2 to "one of your ability scores by 2" even to "exceed 20", another "50,000 XP, and a wondrous item", "proficiency in the Persuasion skill, and you double your proficiency bonus on checks made with that skill" and "rightful ownership of a small keep somewhere in the world", ability "within one year of drawing this card, [to] ask a question in meditation and mentally receive a truthful answer to that question." If a party is happy to have a group that becomes incredibly unbalanced, fine. Otherwise, I pity the potentially "railroad" type DM that then has to try to balance this mess. Alternatively, it might be manageable for the cleric to split off and join another group.
You've repeatedly failed to grasp what I'm saying. I never once told DMs what house rules they should have at their table. I did explain how changing rules on the fly to thwart the players is toxic, and discourages creativity from the players. That's not a rule, it's an explanation of what happens. I've seen it first hand as a player, when a toxic DM turned half the party into murderhobos by constantly changing the rules to discourage all courses of action except mindlessly attacking everything.
And you're blaming Augury, when the Deck of Many Things by itself is a broken item, either breaking the game with enormous boons or unceremoniously taking away a character that the player has spent an entire campaign building. Putting the Deck into a game then gutting players' agency by taking away class features when they objectively apply per the official rules is not cool.
Presently, I've spent more time behind the DM screen than I have as a player, and I've given out broken magic items. The best response I've found is to re-plan to account for the increased power, not to tell the player they can't because I didn't account for what they came up with.
You've also misread the Augury spell, You only get one use of it per day with 100% accuracy. You cast it and specify an action. If that action is drawing one card, you get the answer and choose whether to draw accordingly. If that action is drawing multiple cards, then it will almost certainly be weal and woe, without giving you any information on which of the cards are which. If you attempt to use Augury again in the same day, you have a less than 100% chance of success, making the divination practically useless. A long rest takes 8 hours, and you can only take one per 24 hour day. You can't draw three cards in a day with any certainty on the latter two cards with Augury.
You also seem to have mis-interpreted the card at the end of your post. It doesn't bestow the ability to defeat the next enemy on your own. It's a challenge. If you are able to defeat the next enemy by yourself, then you get the reward. If you lose, or your party helps, you don't get the reward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to point out Schrödinger's cat as an analogy for this situation.
Pronouns: he/him/his.
My posting scheduled is irregular: sometimes I can post twice a week, sometimes twice a day. I may also respond to quick questions, but ignore harder responses in favor of time.
My location is where my character for my home game is (we're doing the wild beyond the witchlight).
"The Doomvault... Probably full of unicorns and rainbows." -An imaginary quote
If the cat was a familiar and it drew a card, my default would be that the wizard Schrödinger should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment where a cat, which has a 50/50 chance of being alive or dead(due to a hypothetical vial of poison that has a 50% chance of breaking each hour), is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until the cat is observed, due to quantum superposition. Therefor, until the card is drawn and as such observed, it is considered both good and bad, because the deck is magically randomized. In fact, I'd say that if a character picked up a card, looked at it, then flipped it over and placed it back on the deck, it would come up as a new card, without any movement/rearranging of the in-game cards (the DM would of course shuffle the IRL deck).
Pronouns: he/him/his.
My posting scheduled is irregular: sometimes I can post twice a week, sometimes twice a day. I may also respond to quick questions, but ignore harder responses in favor of time.
My location is where my character for my home game is (we're doing the wild beyond the witchlight).
"The Doomvault... Probably full of unicorns and rainbows." -An imaginary quote
Schrodinger didn't have access to literal Divination magic. To the action proposed with Augury, is along the lines of, "If I draw the top card immediately after getting the answer from this spell"... the character should absolutely get an answer, because regardless of how the deck is randomized, the spell glimpses the future to determine of it is a favorable outcome or not, and acting in line with the foreseen future should lead to that same outcome. The spell is identifying the card that will be flipped if the action is taken.
Lol, maybe I should have referenced Schrödinger's undead servant. Even so, my default would have remained the same that the "wizard Schrödinger" should face whatever consequence of the card getting pulled.
I don't think there should be a way to play tricks with the Deck of Many Things.
If the peak into the box is of an exact moment six seconds into the future, and then you open the box that same six seconds into the future, it's the same peak, not two different peaks... you just saw that same peak twice.
It's Divination. Schrodinger's cat only applies to that uncertainty when the cat in the box isn't observed. The spell is observation, removing that uncertainty by observing the outcome. Performing the action after already observing it is just playing out what's already been seen.
Making Augury not work in a situation that's clearly exactly the type of situation it's designed for is the equivalent to the DM only hitting the Bear Totem Barbarian with Psychic damage. It's not cool to penalize the players for being clever by not letting them benefit from their abilities.
I'm not sure, when WotC formulated the Augury spell, that they intended it for use with a deck that was certainly conceived with random chance in mind.
Augury is in the Player's Handbook and the Deck of Many Things is in the DMG... they've both been around in 5e since the beginning of the edition.
Augury is explicitly to get a definitive answer regarding if a specific course of action will be good or back for the caster. It's a little like the Lucky Feat, except it's only good for once per day, uses a spell slot, and can be applied to situations not involving dice rolls. If you want to know if something is worth doing or not, you cast the spell, and proceed accordingly, because per the spell's description, if you only cast it once per day, you have 100% accuracy.
The Deck of Many Things is objectively a specific course of action that can be good or bad for the card-puller. It's exactly (rules as written) the type of scenario that Augury is for.
Yep, and this may be another of those cases where RAI and RAW part company.
I personally doubt that I'd allow Augury to be used with the Deck of Many Things and, even if I did, there might be complications. Rubs hands.
If you want to apply the logic used by Heisenberg, then yes, observation via casting Augury changes the quantum state. That's the point of the spell. To remove uncertainty from the equation and give the results of a specific course of action taken in the next 30 minutes. It would be pretty disappointing for a cleric or paladin to prepare this spell that already has pretty narrow application just to be told that their spell, that does not have any chance of a failure on its first cast, somehow fails anyway. That's not very creative or fun, and if you truly want the Deck to be a source of chaos, the description of the Augury spell lets you do that as a DM without nullifying the spell.
A useful part of the description says the answer does not take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome. That alone gives the DM more than enough creative liberty to make the spell's omen less reliable than the players may hope. If the party sits and ruminates on the answer and tries to use the full 30 minutes to decide, there are plenty of things that can change or threaten to change their circumstances in that time and force either an impulsive decision or a missed opportunity. Also, they won't sit and take 2 hours making a pros and cons list(like many parties stuck in analysis-paralysis will) if they get 30 minutes maximum to act, past that point(or sooner if the DM decides that circumstances change) and their information is useless.
Something I think is far more interesting is that the spell does not tell you which otherworldly entity answers you, "good results" can mean different things to different beings. Telling your cleric "you prepare the ritual and pray to your deity, but an unfamiliar presence answers" is a good way to convey the idea that the Deck can produce all manner of events that aren't easily defined as good or bad when described from another being's perspective. Do you trust the strange omen? It could be a lawful good entity that sees your party(or a member of it) deserving of punishment from the Flames card. It could be a being from the Nine Hells begrudgingly telling the truth about the Moon card. It could be any being that could conceivably give them an estimate of whether the outcome is good or bad. Casting a spell that requires a being powerful enough to predict the Deck could find them some unwanted or unexpected attention; that powerful, otherworldly being may not enjoy the knowledge that the Deck is now in their possession and seek to rectify that. Getting an answer you don't expect or one you don't completely trust is far more interesting than no answer at all. Augury as-written has plenty of possible outcomes, as does the Deck. Combining the two could lead to an absolutely wild sequence of events depending on what knowledge is granted and how that knowledge is used.
I do not think there is a way to "beat" the Deck, and players trying to do so are probably metagaming anyway and that's not cool. There are plenty of interesting ways to make players respect the fact that drawing a card from the Deck is meant to be a gamble with legendary, reality-bending consequences while also making it clear that a 2nd level spell probably isn't going to be able to give them crystal-clear information or an easy answer. If they use the spell once in a very clever way, that is probably worthy of a more reliable answer, if they are spamming the spell daily hoping it eventually works then that's not really deserving of the beneficial answer they are begging for. After all, that's not why you let them find the Deck in the first place, right?
Absolutely.
It's a potential face-off between a divine demand for absolutes (though delivered through a second level spell) and a deck of arguably principled uncertainty (shuffled into the magic of a legendary item).
Even with the best of access, could a god or similar know the outcome of a pull? I can't see how but, if so, why not just give the dec to the god? Which gods, if any, could know? Could they do it when working through the weak provision afforded by a second-level spell? How would the god feel about having their abilities applied, at a close to baseline level, against a legendary item?
One way or another I think there's plenty of potential for sparks to fly. Even if the god is disposed to help, there could be a potential for the incompatibility from an item that wasn't intended to be a Deck of Selective Prediction. If divine power was somehow successfully applied (perhaps by dice rolls) I'd imagine there could be a potential of the damage or destruction of the deck (which again may be determined by dice rolls). If divine power was less than successfully applied (as indicated by those dice rolls) I'd predict trouble in heaven. Claimed divine powers are being used to check a deck of cards.
And can the card even be checked without revealing the card? I think that early on in the casting time of the spell the caster could be informed if the checking of the card would also cause a releasing of its magic.
lol. weal and woe become "that worked" and "you shouldn't have asked that"/"you wouldn't have wanted to 'know'".
nice!
but, in principle, I still like the idea of trying to use augury.
I like the idea that a cleric, with the support of their celestial wing ~man, might attempt a bit of priestly ~sleight of hand (basically spell attack) to use Augury to sneak a look at a card if they turned in in the next turn. A failed roll would cause the card to be activated immediately. The 'to hit' target could increase with repeated use. A crit miss could impose the effects of a number of negative cards at DM's discretion.
DMs need to recognize that D&D is a cooperative game, not just between the players, but also between the players and the DM. Everyone's role is to help tell an entertaining/captivating story for the whole group. An adversarial DM is counter-productive to those ends, and is comparable to a player's character consistently acting against the party because, "it's what my character would do". It's toxic behavior.
The DM has the power to set the ground rules before the game starts, and the DM is the only one who can determine if a Deck of Many Things is even available at all in a campaign. In the case of the Deck of Many Things, if there's a house-rule that Divination doesn't work on it, that needs to be stated at the very latest when the Deck is first introduced as a possibility. Changing rules mid-game to cut the legs out of the players' plans is unfair, and doesn't make the game more enjoyable.
Augury specifically states that it has a 100% accuracy rate for the first casting by a character each day. The clear intention of the spell is that it tells whether the specified action will be good, bad, both, or neither for the caster. The specific entity answering the question doesn't matter, because if the answer was based on a perspective contrary to how the player-character would interpret the result, the spell would be less than useless, contrary to the 100% accuracy promised in the description. If you specify the action of pulling a card immediately after getting the answer from Augury, there aren't any unpredictable variables that would change the outcome.
It's not Schrodinger's cat because the outcome ceases to be unobserved once it has been divined. If you take the exact action as described, you should get the same outcome that you foresaw.
The spell Augury also only gives you information. There's nothing in the game that would cause it to trigger the effect of the card, and it would again be punishing the player by taking away a tool they acquired when they tried to use it in an intelligent way.
If the DM wants to have all spells that reference contacting extra-planar entities carry additional risks in their personal homebrew, that likewise needs to be specified before the game starts. Introducing something like that well into the game when a player is trying to divine the safety of pulling a card from the Deck of Many Things is adversarial and unfair. It's punishing players for thinking their way through problems by imposing unforeseeable consequences (unforeseeable because the rules are changing). That's a quick path to turning otherwise good players into problem players in other campaigns (I've seen it happen).
Players need to recognise that D&D is a cooperative game in which DMs will typically invest long hours to prepare a great stage for events in which players can shine. For instance, if a player has a desire for a risk-taking type of game then the DM might even go as far as to provide that god-awful and difficult to manage item the Deck of Many Things to the players.
Players have the power to then work out their own narratives in the situations that they develop in the world fashioned by the DM around them. If players then wanted to get a god to provide a service for them that, from my worldbuilding point of view, that god could not even do for themselves - they are abusing their DM. Their trying to get a certain result via a second-level spell from a legendary item that I don't think, even with full access to power, they would be able to certain to achieve. For players to rules-lawyer to force a world change to suit their hack makes the game utterly shit for the DM.
If the DM wants to satisfy their players desire for risk by supplying risky items then great. If players then want to remove all that legendary risk with a quick ritual cast of a second-level spell so as to give them a result better than a ring of infinite wishes then I think you may cordially expect many a DM to tell them to edited
The Deck of Many Things is a ridiculous item that the DM has full power to choose if it appears in the game at all or not. And as I've said before, the DM has the right to set rules in the game, but the relevant house-rules NEED to be set before a player makes a decision that's fully in line with the rules as written. If you hate Augury (or Divination spells in general) that much, you might as well ban it(them) from your table from the start and avoid this situation altogether. That at least would be exponentially better than letting a character take the spell, then not letting them use it when it would be at its most useful.
It's like if you have a campaign featuring werewolves, but you make the werewolf curse something special that can't be removed by Remove Curse or Remove Disease, you need to specify that before the characters are in a position to try to use one of those spells, because rules as written, whether you consider being a werewolf a disease or a curse, one of those two spells would work, and you're unfairly penalizing the player for their choices if you don't let the spell work, and you didn't tell them beforehand.
The Deck of Many Things has a lot of cards in it, and you don't have to take away the one thing the Augury spell does to keep the player from cheesing the spell to get all of the good cards quickly. You could have the deck shuffle itself every day, so the player will never know when they've gotten all of the beneficial cards. Alternatively, you could have the deck only be able to be drawn in order, so if the player chooses to not draw a card, no other cards can be drawn until that card is drawn. Both of those options let the spell do the one thing it can, but limit its power without giving a giant middle finger to the player.
In no way is Augury ever "better" than a ring of infinite wishes. Your complaints read like a DM who's built a railroad of a campaign, and can't stand for players to deviate from the track you set. If you need the players to color inside the lines, don't give them the Deck of Many Things.
Ye gods you blow things preposterously and unfairly out of proportion. You are big on telling DMs, quite one-sidedly and pointedly, what they need to do.
Multiple contributors have explained patiently why a combo use of the legendary Deck of Many Things with the second level Augury spell is broken, but you aren't having any of it - and then you push a narrative of a DM that can't stand a change of plans. You want to change a deck that is designed to deliver random cards to one that produces predictable results.
This is how play goes: players come up with plans of what they want to do and their hard-working DM adjudicates on how those plans may or may not work. Unlike the characters, the DM does not have divination magic to know in advance what the players' ideas might be. My suggestion would be that players either choose to mention their ideas as early as possible to get an as early as a possible response from the DM or they leave things to the drama of the moment while being prepared for whatever decision may come. Certainly, if a cleric goes into an items shop to specifically try to buy a deck of cards, it might be advised to try things like arcana checks to try to see, within the context of the world developed for them by their DM, any extent to which their plans may work.
Can a second-level, ritual cast divination spell remove capricious chance from a legendary card deck? That's a question for your DM and, in this context, I'd suggest that you might ask it of your DM. Personally, if I had been in a position to try to use Augury with the Deck, I'd hope the DM wouldn't allow a questionable option of purely positive results as it would wreck the game.
The positive deck cards are:
Personally, I think that consistent positive pulls by the party cleric would wreck the game for the cleric, the other players and DM. That's my take. A group could certainly discuss matters themselves and see if they come to a different conclusion.
So let's look at the issues:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/augury
That's three cards pulled in timespan which might be as brief as three minutes and which could certainly be achieved in a couple of hours. You might arguably need to get another card pulled (potentially be a charmed enemy or an on deathbed ally) between your own augury checks but, otherwise, you could just make pulls in different circumstances and/or at different times and secure an unlimited and game-breaking stream of positive results.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/deck-of-many-things
The comet card presents an issue in regard have enemies pull cards between your augury checks. This is why I suggested that the enemy might potentially be charmed but it's debatable whether even this would prevent the magic from working. Once the comet card is gone then enemies could be forced to pull cards to less concern for the party.
I don't think a playable interpretation of the deck would work if the next card to be picked is fixed. If that were the case, augury could be cast to pick all the good cards while enemies could more cleanly be forced, tricked or charmed into picking the bad cards.
Now I'll come back to my question.
Even if players are dumb enough not to attempt arcana etc. checks to see if a check of a legendary deck could work, at a minimum I'd personally still give notification on the mechanics before any magic activated. Other DMs might not be so lenient. The cleric would be making a check on the content of a magic activating card.
If however, a group was happy for the deck to be broken, then you could say that the next card to be pulled would be fixed. All the good results could go to your cleric while all negative results could go to enemies.
Your cleric would get, ability to "single-handedly defeat the next hostile monster or group of monsters you encounter + experience points enough to gain one level", ability "to avoid or erase one event as if it never happened... at any ... time before you die", "Twenty-five pieces of jewelry worth 2,000 gp each or fifty gems worth 1,000 gp each", "10,000 XP", "A rare or rarer magic weapon with which you are proficient appears in your hands", "the service of a 4th-level fighter", "the ability to cast the wish spell 1d3 times", ability to"summon an avatar of death*", +2 to "one of your ability scores by 2" even to "exceed 20", another "50,000 XP, and a wondrous item", "proficiency in the Persuasion skill, and you double your proficiency bonus on checks made with that skill" and "rightful ownership of a small keep somewhere in the world", ability "within one year of drawing this card, [to] ask a question in meditation and mentally receive a truthful answer to that question." If a party is happy to have a group that becomes incredibly unbalanced, fine. Otherwise, I pity the potentially "railroad" type DM that then has to try to balance this mess. Alternatively, it might be manageable for the cleric to split off and join another group.
A group of mercenaries traveling around forcing curses onto random people would have serious consequences from the law enforcement in the world, and if you're dealing with alignment in the game, that would take a hit for the deliberate harming of people for their own gain.
But we agree that any limitations need to be set BEFORE they come up for Divination spells.
You've repeatedly failed to grasp what I'm saying. I never once told DMs what house rules they should have at their table. I did explain how changing rules on the fly to thwart the players is toxic, and discourages creativity from the players. That's not a rule, it's an explanation of what happens. I've seen it first hand as a player, when a toxic DM turned half the party into murderhobos by constantly changing the rules to discourage all courses of action except mindlessly attacking everything.
And you're blaming Augury, when the Deck of Many Things by itself is a broken item, either breaking the game with enormous boons or unceremoniously taking away a character that the player has spent an entire campaign building. Putting the Deck into a game then gutting players' agency by taking away class features when they objectively apply per the official rules is not cool.
Presently, I've spent more time behind the DM screen than I have as a player, and I've given out broken magic items. The best response I've found is to re-plan to account for the increased power, not to tell the player they can't because I didn't account for what they came up with.
You've also misread the Augury spell, You only get one use of it per day with 100% accuracy. You cast it and specify an action. If that action is drawing one card, you get the answer and choose whether to draw accordingly. If that action is drawing multiple cards, then it will almost certainly be weal and woe, without giving you any information on which of the cards are which. If you attempt to use Augury again in the same day, you have a less than 100% chance of success, making the divination practically useless. A long rest takes 8 hours, and you can only take one per 24 hour day. You can't draw three cards in a day with any certainty on the latter two cards with Augury.
You also seem to have mis-interpreted the card at the end of your post. It doesn't bestow the ability to defeat the next enemy on your own. It's a challenge. If you are able to defeat the next enemy by yourself, then you get the reward. If you lose, or your party helps, you don't get the reward.