Divinations

[Bullgrit]

In your experiences, does using divination spells actually work out to help the caster in an adventure? I'm not talking about detection spells, but rather spells where you can ask questions and get answers.

As a DM, I can't remember a time when a Player tried one of these spells. There have been many, many times when I wish someone had used one. I even included a magic skull artifact in a treasure a group of PCs found. They discovered that if you placed a gold coin in its mouth, it would answer a yes or no question (up to 3 times per day). They tested it a bit and discovered that its answers were accurate, but then they didn't bother using it for any actual adventure questions. (There were a few times I wanted to shout, "Why don't you just ask the skull!?")

Once, I specifically made a cleric (D&D3) who regularly prepared augury and had the focus and material components always on hand. I wanted this cleric to be the "wise answer man" of the party. I used augury four times before giving up on the spell -- all four answers were "weal and woe."

The last two times I used the spell was after we had opened the magically sealed double doors on an ancient tomb. We were wondering if it would be better to close the doors behind us or leave them open; would the doors relock if we closed them, or would bad guys/things come in behind us if we left them open?

The answer to letting them close and to propping them open (two different questions, two separate castings) was "weal and woe." (Both times, the DM gave the answer to the question before/without rolling the percentage dice -- he kept forgetting the answer wasn't automatic.) A total waste of effort and money. We ended up discovering that the doors would not relock when they closed and we were able to just push them open again.

I'd like to hear some specific examples of divination spells actually helping a party of adventurers.

Bullgrit

 

[arscott]

Augury is particularly awkward, but I've seen other more powerful divinations work well for the party.

 

[the Jester]

In 3.5, my nigh-epic to early-epic party went through Return to the Tomb of Horrors- which includes the original- and divinations got them through.

One pc had a high-level diviner cohort, and although it often slowed the game down a bit, using tons of contact other planes, communes, etc. really made them incredibly effective. They pretty much knew what was going on. They ended up with tons of custom divinations too- proleptic visions let Orbius (the diviner) know if their dominions or loved ones came under attack, for instance, and they could respond almost instantly via teleportation.

Even against enemies under mind blank or the like, the party could learn a lot by indirect questions that told them what was going on with that enemy's allies or lackeys.

Divinations can be damn effective, as long as the dm doesn't refuse to ever let the party learn anything.

 

[Celebrim]

Divinations can be really hard on the DM because the DM often doesn't know the answer. Many DM's simply give as vague of answers as they can get away with out of frustration.

My experience with divinations is that they work pretty well when they let the player's play 20 questions and get 'yes'/'no' questions. When they rely on the DM predicting the future or making up some poetic riddle on the spot, that is usually too high of a burden on the DM and the spell proves useless in practice. Also, divination spells are very hard to balance. They tend to be either balanced by something ('vagueness') that renders them useless whenever it matters, or else gamebreaking in the sense that they shortcut plots. Adjudicating 'speak with the dead' is a case in point.

In the case of your doors, I would have probably tried to use the weal/woe answers to address your specific concerns in a 'yes'/'no' way. I'm aware of just how problimatic vague divinations can be and I try to do my best to make them roughly as useful as they were intended to be. However, I fully sympathize with any DM that panics when the player attempts some sort of precognition.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On a more minor note, a party member Detected Magic (a divination) and uncovered an aura of illusion on a visitor, which led to his being uncovered as an assassin under magical disguise.

As far as higher-level divinations, they are hard indeed to run, but I've given useful results to Divination, Hypercognition, etc., leading the party to treasure and plot points.

 

[Yabanjin]

I see divinations in D&D as a helpful source of player feedback. Sometimes it lets me know that I previously didn't make a piece of information clear enough, or that I didn't let them know where they could find information easily. It's also a way for players to send the message that they're sick of rolling charisma skills and want to get on with things. As a DM, I love divinations, because they don't just put the PCs back on track, they put me back on track.

Used too often, though, they can become an annoying no-brainer sort of tactic. Much like having the rogue listen at every door and check every door for traps, it can fit some play styles to have the PCs always use divinations before going to work. On the other hand, it can also be frustrating to watch fun surprises get revealed too early, or see something that would have been a neat kick-in-the-door moment turn into a plodding tactical exercise. In those cases, I like to just be upfront and say, "I think you'll have more fun if you're surprised, but I'll tell you if you really want to know."

 

[Dausuul]

Divinations can be really hard on the DM because the DM often doesn't know the answer. Many DM's simply give as vague of answers as they can get away with out of frustration.

My experience with divinations is that they work pretty well when they let the player's play 20 questions and get 'yes'/'no' questions. When they rely on the DM predicting the future or making up some poetic riddle on the spot, that is usually too high of a burden on the DM and the spell proves useless in practice. Also, divination spells are very hard to balance. They tend to be either balanced by something ('vagueness') that renders them useless whenever it matters, or else gamebreaking in the sense that they shortcut plots. Adjudicating 'speak with the dead' is a case in point.

In the case of your doors, I would have probably tried to use the weal/woe answers to address your specific concerns in a 'yes'/'no' way. I'm aware of just how problimatic vague divinations can be and I try to do my best to make them roughly as useful as they were intended to be. However, I fully sympathize with any DM that panics when the player attempts some sort of precognition.

Total agreement with this post. I find divination magic to be a major headache in play.

I think what would make it a lot better for me would be if there were limitations on divination spells that both a) made them seldom-used, and b) imposed a span of time between question and answer such that I, the DM, would have time to work out what the answer should be.

As it is, I ban most divination spells outright from my games.

 

[Piratecat]

My players use divinations extensively, and I absolutely love them. We also use them quite a bit in Sagiro's game. I design my adventures expecting their use, which means that the players get a payoff when they think to try them. My major complaint is more of a meta one; commune sometimes takes forever to resolve if the players really plan out their questions. I try to put a time limit on it.

One of the reasons I love spells like commune is that it rewards the players for cleverness, even as it sometimes obscures the truth. The yes/no answers make this almost certain. I build plots that are at least a little bit multi-layered, so the players are unlikely to hit on the exact truth just through the divination. It usually gives them a good place to start, though.

Bullgrit, I'd suggest that your DM may have handled the augury spell a little better. My players love augury because it's a nice definitive answer. Divination usually ends up with something a little cryptic ("Ready oil and open flame light your way to wealth!") My players once cast that before a planned fight against a particularly nasty pseudonatural troll laying in wait for them, and I got to use it with that exact phrase. We were pretty amused.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

I used commune and divination every chance I got as a player in the Age of Worms campaign. I loved the access to information, but did run into the problem of talking too much time figuring out the questions (when I didn't prep them in-between sessions).

A sphinx that answers questions at 100 gp apiece is perhaps the single greatest resource available to the players in my Caverns of Thracia game (the other contenders are the map of the dungeon they've made and a magic sword that detects secret doors). In an OD&D campaign where you get XP for GP, that cost is just enough to make third-level PCs think twice about other ways they could gain information, without making it restrictively expensive. One of the hooks I dangled in front of them last session was that the sphinx would give them her treasure hoard if the party defeated the necromancer who forced her to hang out in the dungeon answering questions for cash - it's sorely tempting because they know there are thousands of their own GP in there, plus whatever treasure of her own!

As both a player and DM I keep track of the questions I ask and the answers given. When I DM lots of times I don't know the answer until the PCs ask, but I like that feeling of discovering what's going on at the same time the players do, and having a record of the answers I give out helps keep things consistent when I later figure out what the answers mean.