Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

As a DM, I really dislike prophecy / fortune-telling / prognostication spells. Letting the players know something about what’s coming, when something is coming, feels like a horrible idea. And if I have to decided on the fly if something is going to be coming … then it’s even worse.

Don’t make me Augury. You wouldn’t like me when I’m Augury.

In the case of my most recent campaign, it was about our druid and his Augury spell (PHB 215-16):

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 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. 

We dithered a bit over whether this spell was focused on actions taken in the near term (or started in the near term?), the results in the near term, or both. A lot of people also have this problem, because it’s, honestly, a poorly worded spell.

Other groups have had questions come up around, say, results for whom (the caster? the party? an identified individual?). If going down this path is going to help the caster get their reward from the sheriff, but also lead to another party member’s arch-nemesis getting a shot at them, what are the results?

Or results from the perspective of whom (the caster? the spell’s otherworldly entity?). If the party is thinking of attacking the, oh, let’s say a lich, a goal a LG deity might wholly support, even if it’s certain death for the players … how does Augury turn out?

There’s a lot of interesting meta discussion out there about Augury (for those who find such things interesting), but here’s where I fall:

Timing

The spell is about “the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes“.

While some interpret this as “only things you are doing and have results in the next 30 minutes,” I think there is room there for not just actions, but a course of actions which is initiated within that 30 minutes. The course may not be completed in 30 minutes. The results may not be achieved or clear in the next 30 minutes. But Augury can, with increasing vagueness, deal with things beyond a half hour.

An (ironic) look to the past

Some folk note that the 3.5 rules were a lot more clear on this:

The augury can see into the future only about half an hour, so anything that might happen after that does not affect the result. Thus, the result might not take into account the long-term consequences of a contemplated action.

The rules lawyers then argue whether (a) that should help inform how to treat the 5e rules, or (b) the lack of such language in 5e means this restriction is no longer true. I would probably lean into the latter interpretation, as the rules are evolutionary, not de novo each edition. I think it also makes better story sense.

Some hypotheticals

For the otherworldly being (i.e., the DM), the more specific and bounded the course of action and timeframe are, the clearer the results. So, “Should we go through these doors and into the dungeon beyond?” is kind of open-ended … and the augury will be more approximate.

On consideration, the DM (the otherworldly entity) knows that

• The dungeon is likely to take several hours.
• The first room, even the first 30 minutes of rooms, are easy-peasy.
• The dragon at the end will be hard, even dangerous, but the treasure is pretty awesome.

The Augury would probably show Weal, for that treasure that lies at the foreseeable end of the course of action you are beginning in the next thirty minutes, even if the road may be bumpy to get there.

But … if the dragon was knowably (by the otherworldly being) of a CR that would quite likely lead to a partial or total party kill, then even if the path to it was some hours long, an Augury should show Woe.

In other words, it’s not just a “am I safe for the next 30 minutes?” spell, but “are my plans being initiated right now leading to significant benefit or harm going forward.” The further forward, the more hazy. And it’s not open-ended: “Yes, if you set off on this quest in the next 30 minutes then, at the end of your life in fifty years, you will look back on this day in pride, and your deity will reward you in the afterlife” is beyond the spell’s scope.

So let me frame the generic question this way: “Will this specific course of action I am taking lead most proximately to my being benefited or harmed?” That proximity may be beyond the thirty minutes. And the coupling of the dragon and the treasure she sits on may lead to a Weal and Woe answer. But it won’t be a “Yes, you will get through rooms 1-5 of the dungeon and find 50gp there, so definitely Weal, but, whoa, room 6 is gonna be a hot mess for you, but that’s more than 30 minutes out, so further deponent sayeth not!”

Another example: “Should I pick up this idol?” The idol is secretly cursed to draw attacking undead to you at the next New Moon, which is a week away. What should the Augury say?

I’d have it say Woe, even if the results aren’t within the next 30 minutes. On the other hand, if the idol was necessary to get into the Castle Arrgh, the next big step on the quest, then I’d give a Weal and Woe result; I might even do that if the curse drew attackers right now, because the proximate Woe is balanced by a greater later Weal. (I might also phrase it as “Woe and Weal,” to give some sense of the sequence.)

What about results that depend on die rolls? That one gets (ha!) dicier. Some folk argue that the spell assumes success (“We are going to sneak past the guards and find the plans in the leader’s tent — Weal or Woe?”), but if the DM thinks that highly unlikely due to the factors unknown to the players (a guard with a really high Perception), what to do?

In that case the DM should press to frame this into the specific questions, either (a) “We are going to sneak past the guards” → Woe) or (b) “We are going to look for the plans in the leader’s tent” → Weal.

In some cases, where everything hinges on a particular die roll (specifics good!), I might let the player make that roll in advance and so determine Weal or Woe. But in general, the spell itself demurs from “possible circumstances that might change the outcome”. The DM usually has to go with the probability curves. And if the players question it later when the Weal result turns pear-shaped?  Well, even an otherworldly entity isn’t omniscient.

Maybe a metaphor will help

Here’s a final metaphor: Weal or Woe is like an elevation climb on a road. “Will this road climb high?”

The clearest answer is how the trail is right now … but there might be a hill in the near distance that’s visible, or a vale … and a taller mountain, seen hazily, beyond that.

The more explicit the question, the closer the proximity, the clearer the answer; the further away, the hazier the answer, so that specifics become generalities, and the chance of Weal and Woe (“you will go uphill, and you will go downhill”) becomes greater.

So whose Augury is it, anyway?

Is the Augury from the perspective of the caster, the party, the otherworldly entity (patron? deity?) of the caster, or what? What determines a “good” vs “bad” result?

It seems to me that it’s from the perspective of the person casting the Augury. And it’s how they will feel about it at the time of the result, not some sort of objective measure (HP left, gold pieces in pocket, etc.). Maybe Weal means the player losing at a gambling bet, but learning that the loss goes to feed some orphans, evocative of the player’s origin story. Or maybe Weal means returning the artifact to their deity’s temple, even if they lost one of the party members along the way. Or Woe means losing that party member only to gain a treasure, and contemplating on the meaninglessness of gold against their value of friendship. (Or maybe those are a blend of Weal and Woe.)

Those are complex activities to fit in the scope of an Augury, but they are offered as edge cases.

That all requires a bit of understanding about the character. Do they value their deity’s goals above their own comfort, or even survival? How do they feel about loyalty to the party, vs personal gain? Ultimately, it’s about what they value.

So, yes, it’s more difficult than a simple XP/HP vs GP comparison, but that’s also life.

A couple more hypotheticals

Example. “Should we camp here where it’s safe, rather than keep going?”

Effects: The party is saved from a dangerous encounter down the road with orcs, but without the party’s intervention, the orcs kill their hostages, whose bodies will be found on the road the next day by the party.

Augury result: I would argue Weal and Woe … probably. If it’s an easy encounter, then it would be just Woe (the character was never in real danger, and something they would value, innocent lives, was lost). If it was a convention of liches, not orcs, and the hostages were dead regardless, it would be Weal (you’re alive, buddy, and can potentially do something about the bad guys later). A particularly Good-aligned caster might get results leaning to Woe (personal survival is less important than saving lives), while Neutral or Evil one might be focused on Weal.

Example: “Should the Rogue go into town to find out whether the caravan has come through?”

Effects: The Rogue is likely to be arrested upon setting foot in town for shenanigans the last time there, and be thrown into the clink overnight. The caster has previously opined that the Rogue needs a comeuppance. Also, in jail, the Rogue will find out about the caravan, before being released the next day.

Augury result: Weal. Yeah, the Rogue is going to be pissed at the outcome (“Even the bedbugs had bedbugs!”), but the caster is happy about both the poetic justice and the intel being gathered.