Giving the Deck of Many Things to controlled followers negates almost all downsides

[Renduaz]

I've been thinking about The Deck of Many Things recently and just arrived at the conclusion that you can actually gain literally all but a few of it's benefits while suffering absolutely none of the negative effects by simply asking a series of creatures under your control such as a Familiar ( Which you can create and again and again and by the way can't even be imprisoned since you'll just cast the spell again, removing the last familiar and making an new one ), Planar Bound creatures, a bunch of successively summoned or dominated beings, whatever mental slaves you have access to for any reason, one at the time to draw one card from the deck for you. And before you wonder about it, since none of those cards restore mental control or give agency to creatures where it hasn't been already, they obey your commands as always.

Balance - Who cares? Your controlled creature is now a different alignment.

Comet - Yep, you lose a level, but nothing you couldn't do naturally.

Donjon, Euryale, Flames, Fool, Idiot, Rogue, Ruin, Skull, Talons, The Void - Sorry, Minion.

The Fates - "Hey, in case you get that one, I will tell you what to ask for."

Gem - "Gimme"

Jester - We lost 10,000exp. Oh well.

Key - Well, in case the creature isn't proficient with what we're proficient with, we still gain the item either way. Worst case scenario hand it to a party member, unless you just specifically control creatures who use weapons that you want.

Knight - The servant of my servant is..... you guessed it.

Moon - That's mine too.

Star - This would probably the only actual potential significant benefit we lose by using this method.

Sun - While we don't get the 50,000 experience, we do get the wondrous item.

Throne - The castle of my servant is.... you guessed it. Officially sign my inheritance right here, will you?

Vizier - I tell it what to ask.


The only real non-issue here is possibly the longevity of The Fates and Moon in case you want to reserve them, which is very easily circumvented with a familiar that, in the event of getting it, gets retracted into his pocket plane and brought out when needed, or long-term planar bound creatures, or an undead you can just re-assert control over every 24 hours, and just literally stuff it in a bag of holding or something and bring out when needed, since it's not a breathing creature. It would also be extremely easy to do this with even any other creature using various Control Extension and containment methods, but there's no need to cover the "advanced" material here, since we already have a bunch of perfectly good options.

[Malifice]

You're not losing XP or gaining it (or losing or gaining anything).

The familiar does. He gets the benefits (or penalties) of the draw.

[Renduaz]

You're not losing XP or gaining it (or losing or gaining anything).

The familiar does. He gets the benefits (or penalties) of the draw.

I know. You don't "lose" any exp from the cards I named regardless. When I say "lose" in that context, I mean we lose the potential gift of 10k/50k exp, that's what I mean.

[Malifice]

I know. You don't "lose" any exp from the cards I named regardless. When I say "lose" in that context, I mean we lose the potential gift of 10k/50k exp, that's what I mean.

Your DM could simply rule that as you are magically bound to your familiar, the effects target both of you.

That's what I would do.

Plus probably a secondary nasty story effect (some results of draws might free your Familiar from your service resulting in a NPC villian, loss of access to the spell etc until you can find a way to fix it - likely by completing a quest).

I find these threads weird. Its like people play in games without a DM or something. I know it's theory craft, but hey.

[Renduaz]

Your DM could simply rule that as you are magically bound to your familiar, the effects target both of you.

That's what I would do.

Plus probably a secondary nasty story effect (some results of draws might free your Familiar from your service resulting in a NPC villian, loss of access to the spell etc until you can find a way to fix it - likely by completing a quest).

I find these threads weird. Its like people play in games without a DM or something. I know it's theory craft, but hey.

If he though so I'd likely use an undead minion or Planar Bound creature or some other acquired thrall instead, but yes, a DM can do anything with house rules. Threads like this are indeed RAW theory-crating, since nobody can come up with any trick or strategies that pertain to predicting a DM's rulings.

[Malifice]

If he though so I'd likely use an undead minion or Planar Bound creature or some other acquired thrall instead, but yes, a DM can do anything with house rules.

They're not 'house rules'. They're DMing. There is no rule being applied. Just a ruling.

And rulings are not 'House rules'. Just a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.

And I sure I could twist **** up so that using a minion or the equivalent had a consequence for your character.


Threads like this are indeed RAW theory-crating, since nobody can come up with any trick or strategies that pertain to predicting a DM's rulings.

Exactly.

And theory crafting is cool and all, but why bother? Its just theory that has no sensible application to any actual game situation.

[Renduaz]

They're not 'house rules'. They're DMing. There is no rule being applied. Just a ruling.

And rulings are not 'House rules'. Just a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.

And I sure I could twist **** up so that using a minion or the equivalent had a consequence for your character.



Exactly.

And theory crafting is cool and all, but why bother? Its just theory that has no sensible application to any actual game situation.

You gave an example of a ruling that adds upon or alters the function of a magical artifact on the DM's own accord due to a RAW player action. You do realize that half of the threads discussing magical tricks, strategies, actions, spell combinations, magic item uses and so forth would be completely obsolete when it comes to the DM arbitrarily making a decision which adds to game mechanics in order to "balance" it, right? You should be asking like a hundred guys on this forum the same question.

I would not say it "has no sensible application". A DM could just as well decide to let it be done regularly, exactly as you would expect ( minion uses deck, gets effects of deck, nothing else of any special import happens ) and move on, either not minding the supposed "balance infraction" or allowing the player to be rewarded for exercising his brain. Some DM's do it that way.

[Malifice]

You gave an example of a ruling that adds upon or alters the function of a magical artifact on the DM's own accord due to a RAW player action.

No, I didnt. The rules are a framework upon which sits DM rulings. Like the Common Law, where Legislation forms the skeleton, and the law evolves and is interpreted and addded to by Judges and precedent.

Rulings are just that. Rulings. They can differ from 'RAW' all they want. A PC who is trying to lob a fireball through an arrow slit while an Orc is swinging an Axe at him isnt required to make a spell attack roll by 'RAW'. But I would certainly require one.

I'm sure I can find equally silly crap if I look hard enough. In 3E you can be restored from negative HP back up to 0 HP by drowning (drowning set your HP to 0 if you failed a Fort save to hold your breath). You can purhchase a 10' ladder, knock out the pegs, and sell the two struts as 10' poles for a profit. A Barbarian can rage, clutch a dagger between his teeth and dive naked into lava for a swim for a several seconds, emerging unscathed, and so forth.

All funny to theory craft, but useless in a game featuring a DM.


You do realize that half of the threads discussing magical tricks, strategies, actions, spell combinations, magic item uses and so forth would be completely obsolete when it comes to the DM arbitrarily making a decision which adds to game mechanics in order to "balance" it, right?

Exactly. I mean theory craft is intresting and all if you really want to spend your life on the internet discussing twisting the rules of a roleplaying games theory, as if the roleplaying games ruleset reflected some kind of objective 'thing' seperate from the context of the DM and the social contract that underpins all RPG groups.

I personally suggest backpacking around the world for a few years as a much more entertaining endeavor, but whatever floats your boat. Im not here to judge. I spend a lot of time discussing the rules here myself.


I would not say it "has no sensible application". A DM could just as well decide to let it be done regularly, exactly as you would expect ( minion uses deck, gets effects of deck, nothing else of any special import happens ) and move on, either not minding the supposed "balance infraction" or allowing the player to be rewarded for exercising his brain. Some DM's do it that way

Good on them. They probably also allow **** like infinie wishes via simulacrum loops and Pun Pun, and (barring some pretty cool cats and a pretty awesome DM) the game breaks down irretrievably.

Im pretty sure G.E.G. (may he rest in peace) would have twisted your actions in some way to ensure that you not only copped the results of the cards, but also a secondary (intresting) curse or side effect for your hubris that would have sent you on a thrilling quest to undo the mishcief your tampering with an artifact caused.

Maybe thats just me.

[Renduaz]

No, I didnt. The rules are a framework upon which sits DM rulings. Like the Common Law, where Legislation forms the skeleton, and the law evolves and is interpreted and addded to by Judges and precedent.

Rulings are just that. Rulings. They can differ from 'RAW' all they want. A PC who is trying to lob a fireball through an arrow slit while an Orc is swinging an Axe at him isnt required to make a spell attack roll by 'RAW'. But I would certainly require one.

I'm sure I can find equally silly crap if I look hard enough. In 3E you can be restored from negative HP back up to 0 HP by drowning (drowning set your HP to 0 if you failed a Fort save to hold your breath). You can purhchase a 10' ladder, knock out the pegs, and sell the two struts as 10' poles for a profit. A Barbarian can rage, clutch a dagger between his teeth and dive naked into lava for a swim for a several seconds, emerging unscathed, and so forth.

All funny to theory craft, but useless in a game featuring a DM.



Exactly. I mean theory craft is intresting and all if you really want to spend your life on the internet discussing twisting the rules of a roleplaying games theory, as if the roleplaying games ruleset reflected some kind of objective 'thing' seperate from the context of the DM and the social contract that underpins all RPG groups.

I personally suggest backpacking around the world for a few years as a much more entertaining endeavor, but whatever floats your boat. Im not here to judge. I spend a lot of time discussing the rules here myself.



Good on them. They probably also allow **** like infinie wishes via simulacrum loops and Pun Pun, and (barring some pretty cool cats and a pretty awesome DM) the game breaks down irretrievably.

Im pretty sure G.E.G. (may he rest in peace) would have twisted your actions in some way to ensure that you not only copped the results of the cards, but also a secondary (intresting) curse or side effect for your hubris that would have sent you on a thrilling quest to undo the mishcief your tampering with an artifact caused.

Maybe thats just me.

You started the sentence with "I didn't" then went on to explain how you did. "an example of a ruling that adds upon or alters the function of a magical artifact on the DM's own accord due to a RAW player action." - That is exactly what's the DM ruling in question is, yes. The rules can be a framework, yes, they can differ from RAW all they want, that's true. That's no different than how I phrased it, I only emphasized that this forum sees a lot of theoretical discussion, which is irrelevant when it comes to DM varied rulings, but people still do it since they just assume RAW is the baseline and ignore the fact that a DM can do whatever he wants in any campaign depending on the DM's choices, what he wants out of the game, or whatever else, since otherwise you can't share anything in terms of game mechanics and tactics since "DM says Booyakah and everything changes".

Regardless your follow-up comparison is wrong for this particular instance. This is not even, not RAW, but reasonably, an absurd scenario. Creature uses the deck, the deck is supposed to affect the creature actually using it, clever Wizard uses a minion as a guinea pig. This is even a real-world strategy. In this case it's actually the DM who makes "innovative" choices by creating some kind of in-game link between the caster and his slave which makes the deck know to target the caster. Which lore-wise, makes for a conceivable ruling, I have no problem with rulings. But the original scenario is not absurd or anything else.

Infinite Wishes via Simulacrum are actually the least broken, True Polymorph per RAW can create a galaxy-sized object and destroy a world or a mountain of gold or any magical artifact. But those popular uses are a bit less creative. And actually Pun-Pun doesn't work, it relies on Pazuzu doing stuff for you instead of just killing you or doing pretty much anything else right at the onset, for no reason.

[Lombra]

To me the deck of many things is clearly intended to work only with PCs or NPCs with class levels since it manipulates XP, hence I wouldn't allow it to work for other creatures. Plus, the wording is lacking the magical words:"the creature that draws this card" or "a creature that draws from this deck" or "a card drawn by a creature" which is a popular wording to determinate who can activate something.
But having someone else under your control drawing from the deck sure will prevent bad things from happening to you.

[Renduaz]

To me the deck of many things is clearly intended to work only with PCs or NPCs with class levels since it manipulates XP, hence I wouldn't allow it to work for other creatures. Plus, the wording is lacking the magical words:"the creature that draws this card" or "a creature that draws from this deck" or "a card drawn by a creature" which is a popular wording to determinate who can activate something.
But having someone else under your control drawing from the deck sure will prevent bad things from happening to you.

Well, I'm sure it wasn't intended, I am after all bypassing almost all of it's negative effects. By the way, you could easily control a creature with class levels. A bunch with the "Spellcasting" ( Not Innate ) class feature are low-level and common that it would hardly be a problem for any Wizard. But if you want to approach the subject of the "magical words", then there are actually a bunch of spells, magical items, poisons, potions, and even mundane items which all describe their workings with a "you" either in part, or completely. Which, if you were being consistent, would cause a lot of RAW and RAI contradictions both in your campaign if you were to determine that the creature manipulating a spell/item does not count as a "you" by wording.

But you could always, of course, as the poster above said, make a ruling against it for RAI or create a different ruling if the action is deemed too powerful for the campaign.

[Beelzebubba]

Don't bother.

This dude lives to post incredibly wobbly schemes as absolute truth, then agues with dishonest, disingenuous logic for pages and pages and pages.

Do yourself a favor and walk away.

[Easy_Lee]

This is a DM question, simple as that. As is often the case, the item doesn't specify what happens when a non-player pulls a card. In that case, a DM is free to rule whatever he likes.

As far as rule vs houserule, I'll make a thread about this.

[KorvinStarmast]

They're not 'house rules'. They're DMing. There is no rule being applied. Just a ruling. And rulings are not 'House rules'. Just a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
Besides you getting E Gary Gygax initials wrong ( :) ) your input to this thread is mostly how I see it. I'm sigging the above. (IIRC, his birth certificate has his first name as Ernest, which he passed on to his son Ernie).

[Renduaz]

Don't bother.

This dude lives to post incredibly wobbly schemes as absolute truth, then agues with dishonest, disingenuous logic for pages and pages and pages.

Do yourself a favor and walk away.

So other than insulting me like the incapable 13-year old you are, you have absolutely nothing else to say? Incredibly wobbly scheme... of giving a magical item to be used by another creature. And "dishonest, disingenuous logic" of....what exactly? Do you even know what I was talking about with the first poster? We weren't "arguing" about any kind of scheme. He said a DM will make a ruling to balance such an action, I replied that he's right, but DM rulings can't be predicted, yet threads discussing methods like these via RAW have always been a staple of this forum regardless of DM rulings.

Looking though your post history though, I can tell that you live to make ad hominem attacks against people instead of addressing any actual posts.

[Easy_Lee]

Let's be calm, guys. We're just debating stuff on the Internet here.

It's certainly true that you can't predict DM behavior without knowing the DM in question. It does us no good to predict how someone's DM will rule something. That's probably why official rulings are so popular online, because at least they're something.

As far as whether rulings that contradict official rules are still valid, or whether we should consider them house rules and not rulings, I made a separate thread for that. It doesn't really pertain to deck of many things.

[90sMusic]

Most DM's hate creative thinking and punish it horrifically. There is no logical reason why handing a deck of many things to a follower or some other subordinate creature, or even a dominated creature, wouldn't work and remove the downsides. Trouble is, DM's like downsides because they like punishing players. That's just a flaw with people at their core.

Ultimately if you think of a way to do something just try it, if your DM ignores all logic and reason and bends reality to conform to his ideas of what is fair or how he thinks things should work instead of how they actually do, just find another DM.

DM-Player relationships are like marriage, you need a good, compatible fit for both of you to really enjoy yourselves. If you get a free spirited, creative individual with an oppressive DM, you're both gonna have a bad time. Most DMs are oppressive, they want players to be very mundane and vanilla and play D&D like a video game instead of a world they're living in. If you ever try to use logic or reasoning or intelligence to "get around" things, a lot of them will make it not work despite the fact that it should.

[EvilAnagram]

I would love this. All a minion has to do is wish to be the master.

[FreddyNoNose]

Don't bother.

This dude lives to post incredibly wobbly schemes as absolute truth, then agues with dishonest, disingenuous logic for pages and pages and pages.

Do yourself a favor and walk away.

Which one?

[FilthyLucre]

I've been thinking about The Deck of Many Things recently and just arrived at the conclusion that you can actually gain literally all but a few of it's benefits while suffering absolutely none of the negative effects by simply asking a series of creatures under your control such as a Familiar ( Which you can create and again and again and by the way can't even be imprisoned since you'll just cast the spell again, removing the last familiar and making an new one ), Planar Bound creatures, a bunch of successively summoned or dominated beings, whatever mental slaves you have access to for any reason, one at the time to draw one card from the deck for you. And before you wonder about it, since none of those cards restore mental control or give agency to creatures where it hasn't been already, they obey your commands as always.

Balance - Who cares? Your controlled creature is now a different alignment.

Comet - Yep, you lose a level, but nothing you couldn't do naturally.

Donjon, Euryale, Flames, Fool, Idiot, Rogue, Ruin, Skull, Talons, The Void - Sorry, Minion.

The Fates - "Hey, in case you get that one, I will tell you what to ask for."

Gem - "Gimme"

Jester - We lost 10,000exp. Oh well.

Key - Well, in case the creature isn't proficient with what we're proficient with, we still gain the item either way. Worst case scenario hand it to a party member, unless you just specifically control creatures who use weapons that you want.

Knight - The servant of my servant is..... you guessed it.

Moon - That's mine too.

Star - This would probably the only actual potential significant benefit we lose by using this method.

Sun - While we don't get the 50,000 experience, we do get the wondrous item.

Throne - The castle of my servant is.... you guessed it. Officially sign my inheritance right here, will you?

Vizier - I tell it what to ask.

No DM worth his salt would allow any of this.

[Renduaz]

I would love this. All a minion has to do is wish to be the master.

Well, as I've explained in the beginning, that wouldn't be possible since the minion is still mentally dominated by the player, and no card from the deck has removed that condition. If the player told it not to use his wishes, it can't do so. He is basically a puppet of the player.

[Sigreid]

Well, as I've explained in the beginning, that wouldn't be possible since the minion is still mentally dominated by the player, and no card from the deck has removed that condition. If the player told it not to use his wishes, it can't do so. He is basically a puppet of the player.

IMO this all works out logically. Any character that did this would, however, be a horrible person.

[EvilAnagram]

Well, as I've explained in the beginning, that wouldn't be possible since the minion is still mentally dominated by the player, and no card from the deck has removed that condition. If the player told it not to use his wishes, it can't do so. He is basically a puppet of the player.
No, it obeys your commands, but can operate independently, as per the wording if the spell. Specifically, the wording says, "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." That means it is capable of acting on its own accord, s if it does not feel loyalty toward you, but rather obeys you begrudgingly (imps and quasits, I'm looking at you), then you had better be exact with your wording, or else that familiar will have a Wish, and that's not great for the master.

And to those of you who say, "Well I'll just make my wording perfectly exact," I just have to say good luck to you.

[druid91]

No, it obeys your commands, but can operate independently, as per the wording if the spell. Specifically, the wording says, "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." That means it is capable of acting on its own accord, s if it does not feel loyalty toward you, but rather obeys you begrudgingly (imps and quasits, I'm looking at you), then you had better be exact with your wording, or else that familiar will have a Wish, and that's not great for the master.

And to those of you who say, "Well I'll just make my wording perfectly exact," I just have to say good luck to you.

"Do only what I tell you to do, and don't do anything I didn't tell you to do, until I say otherwise."

It's really not hard. We're not talking a complex mission here.

[Tanarii]

Which one?
Killing me. :smallbiggrin:

"Do only what I tell you to do, and don't do anything I didn't tell you to do, until I say otherwise."

It's really not hard. We're not talking a complex mission here.
*Stops breathing, heart stops beating, dies, goes back to the Nine Hells.*

"That's the third imp I've lost that way!"

[Renduaz]

No, it obeys your commands, but can operate independently, as per the wording if the spell. Specifically, the wording says, "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." That means it is capable of acting on its own accord, s if it does not feel loyalty toward you, but rather obeys you begrudgingly (imps and quasits, I'm looking at you), then you had better be exact with your wording, or else that familiar will have a Wish, and that's not great for the master.

And to those of you who say, "Well I'll just make my wording perfectly exact," I just have to say good luck to you.

First of all, you do realize the familiar is not my sole option, right? I named several in the OP. Secondly, a few instructions given under the Zone of Truth with Detect Thoughts would enable me to guarantee your "phrasing" with very little hassle.

[No brains]

Something similar happened in Hellraiser II. It... uh... it sorta worked?:smallconfused:

Just beware that might not be hands that calls fate, but desire.:smallamused:

If you want to become a cenobite, then you're golden. :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

This is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect the enchantress of the party to do. Why do anything when you can get a dominated thrall to do it for you?
Mind you, this is the same party member who forces all subjects she controls to legally rename themselves to Igor.

[EvilAnagram]

First of all, you do realize the familiar is not my sole option, right?
Yes, I do. But it's probably your strongest. Binding a fiend will immediately go badly, and elementals are less than likely to be helpful.


Secondly, a few instructions given under the Zone of Truth with Detect Thoughts would enable me to guarantee your "phrasing" with very little hassle.
Not really. And I don't see how Zone of Truth offers more insight than Detect Thoughts in this scenario, which is very little. You didn't think it through all that much, which tells me that you tend not to think things through past the potential for you to benefit, which tells me you'll slip up early and often.

[JNAProductions]

I guess this would work? I mean, you're obviously a horrible person if you do it (you're either risking the life of someone who trusts you, or risking the life of someone you've Dominated with magic, and either way you're awful) but I don't see why this wouldn't work, usually.

That being said, it does rely on acquiring a Deck of Many Things, which is not easy to do.

[Renduaz]

Yes, I do. But it's probably your strongest. Binding a fiend will immediately go badly, and elementals are less than likely to be helpful.


Not really. And I don't see how Zone of Truth offers more insight than Detect Thoughts in this scenario, which is very little. You didn't think it through all that much, which tells me that you tend not to think things through past the potential for you to benefit, which tells me you'll slip up early and often.

Where did you bring up "Bind a fiend" from? To begin with, if I don't intend to reserve The Fates or wishes, I can virtually use almost any creature under spells with which it can't even "act independently" in your mind. Dominate Person/Monster and so on. Secondly, Long-Term Planar Binding can be done on any Fiend, Celestial, Elemental or Fey. Third, if I intend to reserve those things, I can pretty much just use an Undead which is utterly subservient and puppeteered, which destroys any last shred of your objections. Fourth, Zone of Truth is good because it's objective and lets you know if you failed, while Detect Thoughts is more vague whether with "surface thoughts" or what "prying deeper" means, both of which can be decided by the DM himself to his will. With both combined, giving an instruction to a familiar, and verifying he will follow it "as if my will was his will" since it can't lie, bypasses your complaints about "phrasing" which are irrelevant in the first place.

It seems like you're the only one in the thread who isn't thinking through his own contrarian arguments.

[Kane0]

Hmm, what happens if the thing you're controlling suddenly gains a few levels and doesn't fall under your control anymore? Familiars are CR limited, and the strength of undead controlled is based on spell slot used.

[Renduaz]

Hmm, what happens if the thing you're controlling suddenly gains a few levels and doesn't fall under your control anymore? Familiars are CR limited, and the strength of undead controlled is based on spell slot used.

Well a familiar is not CR limited per se, you just can only choose from a range of beasts with a certain CR. However nothing says the familiar is no longer controlled by you if it gains levels. By RAW it's controlled unless indicated otherwise, and there is no rule to indicate otherwise when it comes to gaining levels, so it would have to be a DM ruling. The same goes for Undead. There is a CR limit because of what you can create, but nothing changes in case it gains any ( although class levels aren't even the same as CR so that'd be a gray area ). It's still the same undead creature, it's still a ghoul/wight/zombie/else, you'd still be able to re-assert control over it. But even if the DM made a different ruling, there's a very simple solution - Just get rid of the undead that gained levels and move on to another one to draw the next card for you, which we're already doing in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

Unless you're chainlock, familiars lack language and intelligence to "declare" anything. Besides, I would rule out that declaring drawing cards from the deck is valid only of your free will, not if you're magically coerced.

[Renduaz]

Unless you're chainlock, familiars lack language and intelligence to "declare" anything. Besides, I would rule out that declaring drawing cards from the deck is valid only of your free will, not if you're magically coerced.

Debateable on "Declare" and an eagle has has much intelligence as Goliath with really low intelligence, but animals can actually recognize the "number 1" very well. While they don't have language per se, "Speak with Animals" is a thing, and they do have a means of verbal communication. At any rate, if it bothers you, you don't have to use a familiar.

[The_Hansard]

If I was DM and you're compelling a sentient being against their wishes and something bad happens to them then get ready for alignment checks.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I actually did this with my familiar after Augury* told me drawing a card myself was a bad idea. (DM didn't rule it as evil as the familiar wasn't a sentient being, and I was TN anyway). He drew the Skull and the Moon. I slaughtered the wraith, slaughtered my own wraith (seriously, it's a total wimp. It has half your hp and an average dpr of 11.) And now my familiar had three wishes.

It later ended up permanently polymorphing me into an ancient silver dragon (complete with total personality overwrite and NPCdom) when the final battle started going sideways.

*To my DM's great surprise. I swear, no one ever thinks of using divinations on the Deck for some reason. It's not as if it interferes with them in any way.

[EvilAnagram]

Where did you bring up "Bind a fiend" from?
Planar Binding. You literally bring it up in the OP. And in the same post you ask this question in.


To begin with, if I don't intend to reserve The Fates or wishes, I can virtually use almost any creature under spells with which it can't even "act independently" in your mind. Dominate Person/Monster and so on.
Right, but if you want to use people, and they receive non-transferable benefits, you're in for an eventual bad time when your spell wears off.


Secondly, Long-Term Planar Binding can be done on any Fiend, Celestial, Elemental or Fey.
Any fiend, fey, or celestial you can find that is capable of using the Deck is also capable of subverting your will with the power it receives. Elementals are less capable of doing so, but still likely unhappy with their situation and willing to rebel in small ways.



Third, if I intend to reserve those things, I can pretty much just use an Undead which is utterly subservient and puppeteered, which destroys any last shred of your objections.
I don't think a mindless undead is capable of declaring its intent to draw a card. That's an objection this situation doesn't shred.


Fourth, Zone of Truth is good because it's objective and lets you know if you failed, while Detect Thoughts is more vague whether with "surface thoughts" or what "prying deeper" means, both of which can be decided by the DM himself to his will. With both combined, giving an instruction to a familiar, and verifying he will follow it "as if my will was his will" since it can't lie, bypasses your complaints about "phrasing" which are irrelevant in the first place.
Not really. Zone of Truth specifically calls out several ways to subvert it, and Detect Thoughts provides marginal benefits beyond that. Tell the familiar/bound planar creature that it has to promise not to subvert your will, and it will say something to that effect that leaves wiggle room. At most, if Zone of Truth is in effect and you tell it to swear it does not plan to subvert your will, it will be unable to do so, being compelled both to lie and speak truly.

And saying phrasing doesn't matter when you're ordering around a creature compelled to obey your orders despite resenting you is downright silly.

I'm not saying you'll never reap any benefits from this. I'm saying you'll definitely get screwed over by it eventually.


It seems like you're the only one in the thread who isn't thinking through his own contrarian arguments.
Ooh. An old fashioned, "Nuh-uh, you are!" That's some fourth grade fire you're slinging there.

[Brawndo]

I handed a group of players a Deck of Many Things one time.

They paid homeless people to draw cards for them, after signing a contract that said anything bad they pulled was on them, but anything beneficial was to be handed over to the players if possible. They paid them a small sum for this, either way.

They literally had a wagon full of comatose bodies by the time someone pulled the Death card, and then it all fell to pieces.

[EvilAnagram]

I handed a group of players a Deck of Many Things one time.

They paid homeless people to draw cards for them, after signing a contract that said anything bad they pulled was on them, but anything beneficial was to be handed over to the players if possible. They paid them a small sum for this, either way.

They literally had a wagon full of comatose bodies by the time someone pulled the Death card, and then it all fell to pieces.

I love adventurers.

[Unoriginal]

"Do only what I tell you to do, and don't do anything I didn't tell you to do, until I say otherwise."

Dominated being stop listening to what you say, because you didn't tell them to listen and so it is part of the "anything".

[Easy_Lee]

Dominated being stop listening to what you say, because you didn't tell them to listen and so it is part of the "anything".

No reasonable person would rule it that way.

Dominate works exactly the way you would think it would work. To steal a phrase from Crawford, it's written in "plain English." The target is under the player's control. Real people are capable of working through contradictory instructions. Dominate doesn't take that away from them because it doesn't say that it does.

[Bohandas]

Your DM could simply rule that as you are magically bound to your familiar, the effects target both of you.

That's what I would do.

Plus probably a secondary nasty story effect (some results of draws might free your Familiar from your service resulting in a NPC villian, loss of access to the spell etc until you can find a way to fix it - likely by completing a quest).

I find these threads weird. Its like people play in games without a DM or something. I know it's theory craft, but hey.

It is not hands that summon us, it is desire -Pinhead

[Unoriginal]

No reasonable person would rule it that way.

Dominate works exactly the way you would think it would work. To steal a phrase from Crawford, it's written in "plain English." The target is under the player's control. Real people are capable of working through contradictory instructions. Dominate doesn't take that away from them because it doesn't say that it does.

If you say "don't do anything I didn't tell you to do", the plain English meaning is that the person doesn't do anything that they weren't told to do, and it includes listening.

Of course, Dominate Person has ways to bypass that, but Planar Binding specifically states "The creature obeys the letter of your instructions, but if the creature is hostile to you, it strives to twist your words to achieve its own objectives."

[Easy_Lee]

If you say "don't do anything I didn't tell you to do", the plain English meaning is that the person doesn't do anything that they weren't told to do, and it includes listening.

No it doesn't. Language is more nuanced than machine code. Furthermore, humans are not machines. And I'll be damned if this isn't the most moot point I've replied to today.

[Unoriginal]

No it doesn't. Language is more nuanced than machine code. Furthermore, humans are not machines. And I'll be damned if this isn't the most moot point I've replied to today.

Language is more nuanced than machine code, but it doesn't change that it is a valid interpretation in plain English and that we're talking about entities who are literally said to use the letter of the words but still try to hinder the caster if hostile.

[Easy_Lee]

Language is more nuanced than machine code, but it doesn't change that it is a valid interpretation in plain English and that we're talking about entities who are literally said to use the letter of the words but still try to hinder the caster if hostile.

That's what I'm saying to you. Your interpretation of valid English isn't an interpretation of valid English. If you were to scour the world, you would never find a single person who, acting in good faith, was unable to resolve verbal ambiguity. As proven by the sentence "this sentence is false", people don't BSOD just because they're told something confusing or contradictory.

And I'm done replying to you. Not only is this off topic, but I'm convinced you're being deliberately uncooperative.

[EvilAnagram]

That's what I'm saying to you. Your interpretation of valid English isn't an interpretation of valid English. If you were to scour the world, you would never find a single person who, acting in good faith, was unable to resolve verbal ambiguity. As proven by the sentence "this sentence is false", people don't BSOD just because they're told something confusing or contradictory.

And I'm done replying to you. Not only is this off topic, but I'm convinced you're being deliberately uncooperative.

His point is that interplanar entities who do not wish to serve the caster will intentionally refuse to resolve ambiguous phrases in their intended meaning because the book specifically says they won't. Yes, an average speaker of English will understand the intent, but the bound creature won't care about the intention.

Example: in the book Summer Knight, the protagonist enters into a contract with the fairy queen Mab, ruler of the Winter Court and Queen of Air and Darkness. He knows Mab is absolutely bound to follow the letter of her word no matter what happens, so he only agrees to perform a set number of tasks for her if she swears not to hurt him or his friends if he refuses to do a specific task. She agrees, then stabs him in the hand. She tells him it was not in retaliation, as per their agreement, but simply out of spite. Obviously, his intent was to keep her from harming him or his friends. Obviously, she did not care.

[Easy_Lee]

His point is that interplanar entities who do not wish to serve the caster will intentionally refuse to resolve ambiguous phrases in their intended meaning because the book specifically says they won't. Yes, an average speaker of English will understand the intent, but the bound creature won't care about the intention.

That isn't even the spell we were discussing. He threw that in to back up his argument. It has nothing to do with dominate.

[JackPhoenix]

If I was DM and you're compelling a sentient being against their wishes and something bad happens to them then get ready for alignment checks.

What's an "alignment check"? The terms keeps flying around some threads, but there's no such thing anywhere in the rules.

[Easy_Lee]

What's an "alignment check"? The terms keeps flying around some threads, but there's no such thing anywhere in the rules.

Alignment used to matter. A paladin could lose his features if he did bad things. It isn't enforced by the rules anymore.

Some DMs still try to enforce it, threatening to do things like take control of characters away from players if the player characters commit evil acts. It's kind of like playing Undertale.

[JackPhoenix]

Alignment used to matter. A paladin could lose his features if he did bad things. It isn't enforced by the rules anymore.

Some DMs still try to enforce it, threatening to do things like take control of characters away from players if the player characters commit evil acts. It's kind of like playing Undertale.

Even then (at least in 3e) there was no such thing as "alignment check". If you did things that broke your code of conduct, you've lost your abilities. And I've never played Undertale, so that simile doesn't tell me anything.

[Unoriginal]

That's what I'm saying to you. Your interpretation of valid English isn't an interpretation of valid English. If you were to scour the world, you would never find a single person who, acting in good faith, was unable to resolve verbal ambiguity. As proven by the sentence "this sentence is false", people don't BSOD just because they're told something confusing or contradictory.

And I'm done replying to you. Not only is this off topic, but I'm convinced you're being deliberately uncooperative.

I'm sorry, what?

I'm talking about beings who deliberately want to find loopholes in your wording to **** the caster over and you go "people have no problem with verbal ambiguity in general"? And then you accuse me of being the one who's deliberately uncooperative?

I would call that ironic.


That isn't even the spell we were discussing. He threw that in to back up his argument. It has nothing to do with dominate.

First of all, I was not exclusively speaking about Dominate, because it is only one of several methods of control that were mentioned in the OP.

Second, I freaking admitted that this kind of loophole would not work with Dominate:



Of course, Dominate Person has ways to bypass that

A Dominated person could misinterpret the instructions, maybe, but due to the way the spell work the one who casted Dominate would immediately correct it into the desired interpretation via telepathy.


I admit I was not clear, but it's no reason to be rude.

[Renduaz]

Planar Binding. You literally bring it up in the OP. And in the same post you ask this question in.


Right, but if you want to use people, and they receive non-transferable benefits, you're in for an eventual bad time when your spell wears off.


Any fiend, fey, or celestial you can find that is capable of using the Deck is also capable of subverting your will with the power it receives. Elementals are less capable of doing so, but still likely unhappy with their situation and willing to rebel in small ways.



I don't think a mindless undead is capable of declaring its intent to draw a card. That's an objection this situation doesn't shred.


Not really. Zone of Truth specifically calls out several ways to subvert it, and Detect Thoughts provides marginal benefits beyond that. Tell the familiar/bound planar creature that it has to promise not to subvert your will, and it will say something to that effect that leaves wiggle room. At most, if Zone of Truth is in effect and you tell it to swear it does not plan to subvert your will, it will be unable to do so, being compelled both to lie and speak truly.

And saying phrasing doesn't matter when you're ordering around a creature compelled to obey your orders despite resenting you is downright silly.

I'm not saying you'll never reap any benefits from this. I'm saying you'll definitely get screwed over by it eventually.


Ooh. An old fashioned, "Nuh-uh, you are!" That's some fourth grade fire you're slinging there.

1.I brought up Planar Binding, I did not bring up "Fiends".

2.I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my "spell wear off". I'm telling you that if I intend to use The Fates or Wishes immediately, then Dominate Person and Dominate Monster last an hour, during which I can already expend those benefits.

3. I'm not going to spend an hour discussing phrasing with you, but there are plenty of instructions which leave pretty much no "wiggle room" if someone has a basic degree of cleverness. ( I discussed some here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?528267-Conjure-Elemental-and-Planar-Binding-Combo&p=22133207#post22133207) ). "Don't speak or wish for anything without my explicit permission" followed by "If you obtain the ability to Wish from the deck of many things, you may only use that ability to wish for what I will describe when I tell you to do so, in the exact manner I describe, as if you wanted my wish to succeed as much as I do". Does that satisfy this phrasing obsession? Like I said, this can go on for an hour, I'm not going to list down all the possible things I could do.

4. That mindless undead can be a Wight or Ghast with an INT of 10/11 which is actually average to above. Claiming it can't "Declare" ( to make known or state clearly, especially in explicit or formal terms ) something which I even ordered it myself to by literally just moving it's mouth is the most stupid thing I've heard all day.

5. Being unable to to do so will inform me it requires further pressuring, although that's likely obsolete given I can accomplish the same with Dominate Person/Monster, Undead, Conjure Elemental or a familiar.

6. Phrasing matters in Planar Binding, but as the other poster said, it is hardly the obstacle you make it out to be for this specific action.

7. It's an old-fashioned truth, you are not thinking about your contrarian answer before accusing me of not tending to think things through.

[Bohandas]

It's entirely possible that gained items might resist being given away similarly to a Talisman of Zagy. It's even more plausible that the 4th level fighter might not agree to be transferred

[Matrix_Walker]

Once again, Renduaz demonstrates a mildly diabolical example of why the game requires a DM to adjudicate such things to ensure this sort of thing isn't rewarded at the table.

Keep scheming you crazy dreamer!

[Vogonjeltz]

I've been thinking about The Deck of Many Things recently and just arrived at the conclusion that you can actually gain literally all but a few of it's benefits while suffering absolutely none of the negative effects by simply asking a series of creatures under your control such as a Familiar ( Which you can create and again and again and by the way can't even be imprisoned since you'll just cast the spell again, removing the last familiar and making an new one ), Planar Bound creatures, a bunch of successively summoned or dominated beings, whatever mental slaves you have access to for any reason, one at the time to draw one card from the deck for you. And before you wonder about it, since none of those cards restore mental control or give agency to creatures where it hasn't been already, they obey your commands as always.

News check, DoMT has two requirements that the basic familiars from Find Familiar are incapable of fulfilling:

1) "you must declare how many cards you intend to draw" - Standard familiars can't speak.

2) "and then draw them" - Standard (and even most special) familiars don't have opposable thumbs. They can't draw cards from a deck.

Now, a Warlock could get past this using an Imp or Quasit formed familiar.

However, there are still two obvious problems even in this case: 1) You're depending on the DM to provide a DoMT. 2) The DM is the one who decides what cards got drawn.

So, if you try to game the system by sacrificing familiar after familiar, you're probably going to just have a DM who deliberately selects negative outcomes to punish your hubris. Even worse, there's nothing to indicate that the most dangerous effects (DonJon or Skull for example), don't prevent the familiar from being resummoned, permanently in the latter case.

[greenstone]

I would rule that creatures that are totally under your control are treated as an extension of you, so the cards affect you. After all, if you use your hand to draw a card, the card doesn't affect the hand instead of you. This covers dominated and charmed creatures as well as effectively-slave creatures like familiars and summons.

A minion, on the other hand, always has the choice to say "no", so the cards affect them.

"Yes, I know I swore an oath to give you the castle if I got that card but you know what, I'm choosing to break that oath. If you have a problem with that, come see me in my new castle!:smalltongue:"

The Deck of Many Things is generally held to be the invention of a trickster god. Such a god isn't going to let you use shenanigans to get around the item.

[Lo'Tek]

Player advice:
"If you think it's a curse don't even touch it with a ten-foot pole."
And that includes other tools like controlled creatures. The texts of the deck has changed a bit over time and editions and there seem to be many different versions (different deck sizes and images). While i am not sure what the current canon on the coast is, the old texts apply the effect to the person "in possession" of the deck and "choosing to draw". If your argument relies on you making the choices and taking good rewards (taking possession of the magical effect), I would not bet on getting away from the bad draws.
But it depends on the style of game: if genre savviness and using player knowledge to metagame is rewarded i would totally go for such a plan. If my DM reacts badly to such things, i would not.


DM advice:
Throw away the "draw -> effect -> draw" mechanic. Have a look at this example from the tarot deck in dragon magazin 77 for inspiration
Hermit (upright): Within nine days of returning home from this adventure or expedition, drawer will meet a visiting cleric of his own faith, of a level higher than his own, who will offer religious instruction to the drawer, "for the improvement of the mind," with a warning that the instruction will not be quick. After one month of study (if the drawer accepts the offer; this should be a decision of the player), the drawer will emerge with a 2-point increase in wisdom, but a 1-point loss in charisma. The cleric will then give the drawer a hint to the location of a magic item, and depart for places unknown.

The beauty of a magic item that predicts the future is that they can be kept (out of game, or even in game) until they play their effect in the story.
The players draw, look at the beautiful images of the cards and then slowly realize they have no idea what they mean. There is no explanation, no manual, no old gypsy lady, but the deep knowledge that somehow they have just decided their own fate and it might not be spoilered on the internet. Keeping the cards in play creates tension and mystery. What does it mean? When will it unfold? Is it good or bad? You can see how happy the group is, when a good effect is revealed and how paranoid those who still have unresolved cards become after a bad effect happened.
If you are really good you can set up situations in which the players understand it is a cards effect (see hermit for example) without explicitly saying that, creating much joy. Or you can have the group mourn a dead companion and then be very disturbed when the card they thought means death does not disappear.
A campaign could end with drawing plot hooks for the follow up.

[Primus Beno]

Ok, let's say you planar bind an air elemental and you hand the deck over to it and order it to draw. Since we're being very technical in our Rules as Written, not as intended, we need to do the same about the effects.

Because drawing from the deck could be very detrimental to it's health, we'll assume that it treats it as a hostile command and gets to try to subvert any command you give it, if possible. Elemental are not particularly bright so that may be a mitigating factor in how clever it can be. It's preferable to celestial/fiends and fey who can be quite clever.

The elemental will see the card before you and you'll have to command it to show you the card before you can give it commands to surrender whatever goodies it got.


Balance: The alignment swings to Good or Evil. The Air Elemental will now either view you as a hated enemy that needs to be destroyed or as a horrible person that takes away the free will of others and you should be stopped. It is now motivated beyond simple self preservation. Assuming it doesn't become trapped, it's going to gather allies and seek retribution/justice.

Comet: Free HD upgrade when it gets free to hunt you down.

Donjon: Hope that the elemental doesn't have any Djinn friends who might decide it's been gone too long and come looking for it. The Djinn may not be able to use the wishes themselves, but don't discount them from being clever. I'd hate to have a mob of air creatures rescue their friend and then decide to hunt me down who had the power of wishes.

Euryale: More honked off Air Elemental. Adding fuel to the fire.

The Fates: This is the card you absolutely do not want your elemental to draw, ever. According to the wording, the elemental will get to see it first and make a decision on what to do with it before you can issue any commands. It simply wants you to have never found the deck.

Flames: The devil wants to make the elemental suffer as much as possible, so now it's allied with you whether you want it or not. Sooner or later, it's going to see that your soul is very tempting since you are so much more powerful than the elemental and it's going to plot your downfall so it can reap your life essence. It may hate the elemental, but it desires your soul.

Fool: The air elemental draws the card and whispers to you "Fool".

Gem: By strict following of the rules as written, Air elemental have no feet, therefore no gems and gold appear.

Idiot: The INT could be lowered to the point where the elemental could be considered non-sentient and therefor unable to draw cards. At minimum, it's heading to an INT of 4, which is highly arguable if the elemental could draw anymore.

Jester: The air elemental draws the card and whispers to you "Foolish Fool"

Key: Since the DM chooses the weapon and the drawer must be proficient, no weapon appears. Air Elementals have no weapon proficiency. You're going to have to be very spesific about what you bind if you want to get the right weapon and the DM is likely to say "ok, a +2 silvered dagger appears". Why should you be rewarded with fabulous loot that you really didn't risk anything for?

Knight: You now have a weaker air elemental who you now have to issue complicated commands through the original air elemental to have it do anything. Would have just been easier to bind another air elemental, right?

Moon: Never discount on the elemental INT of 6 and it saying something dumb. In conversation with you, it could easily say something like "I hate you and I wish you would die". You could get around this by making a complicated statement that would restrict it to not saying wish unless you wanted it to. But remember that INT of 6...if you make a complicated wish that has careful language, it could very well screw it up by mistake.

Rouge: If an NPC doesn't like the elemental, it probably won't like you either. You summoned the thing it hates, so now you're lumped in with it. Guilt by association, I suppose.

Ruin: You don't want it drawing this card right after it draws the Throne or Gem (assuming it has the feet to receive the loot)

Skull: If I was feeling particularly cheeky, I would have the air elemental fight a particularly under-powered death avatar after they drew the Comet. If no Comet was available, I'd have the elemental throw the fight so it could go back to its home plane.

Star: The elemental just got faster. Awesome! You didn't get anything though.

Sun: As with the Gem, elemental don't have hands, so no wondrous item shows up. If you were binding a creature with hands, the DM could put something nasty there, like a sphere of annihilation or a cursed item. You might end up with something dumb, like a folding boat.

Talons: Not a big deal

Throne: The last thing you want is to have a angry air elemental with a grudge that has proficiency in persuasion with a bonus. You're making it into a dangerous villain that you can only hope that it draws a Donjon or something nasty to lock it away from you. This is very dangerous to have it it starts to gather friends to get you. As for the keep, sure you can have it give it to you. Who knows what kind of monsters the DM will put it in for you to try to claim it, especially when you tried to take all the risk out of drawing from the deck. You're probably high enough level to already build yourself a keep.

Vizier: This is another card where the elemental can act on it before you give it a command. It can waste the information on something trivial or information on how to get free. It's all mental and happens in a flash, probably wasting your opportunity to use it.

Void: This is a strange one for elementals since they really don't have bodies, they just animate the elements while they are summoned. It makes more sense for celestials, fey and devil/demons since they have a body. Honestly, this and the Donjon are cards you kind of hope for since a lot of cards are just going to make the creature angry and vengeful or power it up.


You are spending a LOT of resources for not much gain. You need to be at least 9th level before you can bind anything and that's only once a day. You can summon one thing a day and have it draw for you for negligible benefits. The only thing on here that would appeal to me as a 9th level wizard would be the wishes. Even the gold, fortress and magical items aren't big draws since I can get those adventuring anyway. The big draws of the deck are being able to get massive xp boosts (which you can't get since you aren't drawing) and the "get out of jail free card", which I've already explained probably won't work unless you get very complicated with your commands and with an INT 6 creature, the possibility of them screwing up is high. With a higher INT summoned creature, the possibility of them screwing you over is high as well.

Trying to take the risk out of the Deck of Many things takes a lot of the reward out of it. You're spending more energy trying to get something that could be done on a simple dungeon crawl

[Bohandas]

If he draws The Flames the DM should stop the game for a moment and play this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtTejkOpgbs

Seriously. Does this not remind anyone else of the premise of the first half of Hellraiser 2?