Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9754904" data-attributes="member: 23751">Since it's up to me to run the gods of my setting, I have established that they are being used trivially.  The gods of my setting are very serious about what it is that they do and stand for.  They embody aspects of the world and spend their focus on seeing those things done.  Not being chatterboxes with their clerics about inane minor things like a Deck of Many Things.How is interrupting your deity over and over to ask him about an inane subject different from not asking your deity for anything when you cast healing spells?  How are you not seeing the difference?You are letting your biases blind you to what I'm saying again.First off, running my deities in a serious manner, and as such would be supper annoyed to be interrupted over and over in order to see if this shuffle of the deck is a good one, isn't a violation of the social contract.  That's not being a jerk.  It's simply a choice of how to run the gods of my setting.Secondly, I said very clearly that it would not be some gotcha situation where I waited until they cast it multiple times, slammed them down, and yelled "Neener! Neener!"  I was clear with you that I would let the player know how the gods feel and that interrupting them like that wouldn't go over well with his deity.  If he then proceeded to engage the bad idea with full knowledge that the god would be upset, that's not on me.  There is no being a jerk and violating the social contract going on."You contact your deity or a divine proxy and ask up to three questions that can be answered with a yes or no."  Who they contact is not a player choice.  They are communing with their god or a divine proxy, and since it's commune and a powerful priest involved, I don't do proxies.  They are ringing their god.  This is also a setting decision and not a violation of the social contract. These sorts of setting decisions are not the DM being a jerk.I don't see any random reading in the 5e version of commune.No wizards or druids can cast commune.  Druids can commune with nature, but nature isn't going know diddly about a very unnatural deck of cards.If you're conflated my talking about commune as talking about augury, which it seems like you might have, augury isn't going to work either.  It has no way of knowing what cards will be drawn.  It cannot answer weal(good), since it might not be a good result. It cannot answer woe(bad) because it might not be a bad result.  It cannot answer both weal and woe, since it might not be both.  Nothing is the only remaining answer.  Augury is a 2nd level spell, not some uber divination spell.  It can even be wrong if circumstances change things"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."Random draws from a Deck of Many things is very much a possible circumstance that could change the outcome.  That's how random works.As for the random aspect.  I've never used that.  It always seemed like hokey result, so I just used silence when it failed due to the percentage roll.</blockquote>

Verification