D&D 5E Does the caster know if a spell target makes their save?

[The Crimson Binome]

But, and I guess this is the point I'm trying to get across, I feel like the two should have full portability. If a fact would be easily deduced from the long form narration, like damage resistance or the result of saving throws, it's not fair to conceal the game mechanic from the players.

Exactly. The mechanics and the flowery prose are just two languages that are used to convey the same information.

The big problem, in practice, is that long-form narration isn't nearly as precise as short-hand mechanics. Ambiguity hurts here. If the DM says that you suffer a glancing blow, or that the ogre's club strike solidly and sends you reeling, then that information isn't useful to the player, unless you've been playing with that DM for so long that you're fluent in their particular dialect of narration. As a player, I need to know whether a hit deals 15 damage or 30 damage. It's literally a matter of life and death, for the character.

 

[Kurotowa]

The big problem, in practice, is that long-form narration isn't nearly as precise as short-hand mechanics. Ambiguity hurts here. If the DM says that you suffer a glancing blow, or that the ogre's club strike solidly and sends you reeling, then that information isn't useful to the player, unless you've been playing with that DM for so long that you're fluent in their particular dialect of narration. As a player, I need to know whether a hit deals 15 damage or 30 damage. It's literally a matter of life and death, for the character.

Well sure, the long form narration should supplement the game mechanical information, not replace it. It just gets kinda dry when the DM is tired or distracted and gives nothing but the raw game mechanics. "The blue dragon attacks the Druid this round. *roll roll roll* Take 37 damage."

 

[Saeviomagy]

Because all of those spells you keep trying to list have simple explanations about why they say those things. There's no 5e conspiracy where some spells end when the target fails a save and others do not. All spells end on a failed save unless they have some other ongoing continuing effect.

Show me a skerrick of rules that says so. Or even suggests so.

Some spells that target additional creatures had to specifically spell out what happens when one of those multiple creatures fail a save (the spell ends on that creature). Some spells that allow recurring saves have to detail that the effect they initially caused ended (they do this by saying the spell ends when the target makes it save against the recurring save). For basically every other spell it would be wasted words. If the spell caused no effects because the creature passed it's initial save why waste the space on every spell saying it ends then.

Because it does have an effect. It means that the caster doesn't conclusively know that the spell has taken effect. It means the caster may maintain concentration on the spell, despite it doing nothing.

It's interesting to note that, along with other qualities, the spells that may continue on even if the target has saved also happen to be those where telling a pass from a fail might be difficult.

In fact this is the first discussion that anyone even attempted to make the argument that a spell doesn't ended when the target/targets all save against it.

Right. The first person to notice something is automatically wrong. This is a thoroughly meaningless point to raise.

I actually assumed that what you think - that a spell ends when it is not having an effect - but that's not actually what the rules say.

It was all done in an attempt to rules lawyer 5e so that casters wouldn't know when a few specific spells affected a creature.

If "rules lawyer" means "read what the rules actually say", then your sentence makes no sense, so my guess is you're using it as a pejorative term. Knock it off and make a real argument.

Now I agree that's a fine way to play. It could be interesting especially in the right kind of campaign, but the amount of twisting and ignoring the simpliest explanations for how 5e handles concentration is mind boggling.

Except your 'simplest explanation' actually involves making up rules, unless you can tell me where the idea "if a spell no longer affects anyone, it expires" is actually written.

 

[FrogReaver]

Show me a skerrick of rules that says so. Or even suggests so.

Because it does have an effect. It means that the caster doesn't conclusively know that the spell has taken effect. It means the caster may maintain concentration on the spell, despite it doing nothing.

It's interesting to note that, along with other qualities, the spells that may continue on even if the target has saved also happen to be those where telling a pass from a fail might be difficult.

Right. The first person to notice something is automatically wrong. This is a thoroughly meaningless point to raise.

I actually assumed that what you think - that a spell ends when it is not having an effect - but that's not actually what the rules say.

If "rules lawyer" means "read what the rules actually say", then your sentence makes no sense, so my guess is you're using it as a pejorative term. Knock it off and make a real argument.

Except your 'simplest explanation' actually involves making up rules, unless you can tell me where the idea "if a spell no longer affects anyone, it expires" is actually written.

Exhibit A: Years of D&D 5e by everyone including yourself and every spell ever cast has had it's concentration immediately ended when it no longer had any effect it could cause.

So I'd say you are goina need an explicit rule to show that concentration doesn't end when spell effects end to overrule the years and years of precedent that has been established on this one in 5e.

If rules meant something for years and years and then suddenly a spell gets discussed and someone tries to imagine a rules way for it to work in their favor that is rules lawyering. That's what was done here. That lawyering ignores 5+ years worth of D&D 5e experiences for everyone.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Exhibit A: Years of D&D 5e by everyone including yourself and every spell ever cast has had it's concentration immediately ended when it no longer had any effect it could cause.

"How my group plays it" != "what the rules say"
In other words, your group has a houserule. An inadvertant one, but a houserule nonetheless.

So I'd say you are goina need an explicit rule to show that concentration doesn't end when spell effects end to overrule the years and years of precedent that has been established on this one in 5e.

... for your group. For my group, I can't say the question has yet come up, mainly because nobody has every said "hey, I should know if the save was passed or failed because of concentration". People cast a spell, I describe the obvious results.

Outside of that we usually forget about concentration until someone tries to concentrate on a second spell, or is in danger of losing concentration, neither of which are likely to occur for spells with subtle effects.

Simply put, it's not come up.

Maybe your group is different and you have some sort of marker to show that people are concentrating. Or you've had to explicitly tell someone their concentration is no longer necessary for some reason.

If rules meant something for years and years and then suddenly a spell gets discussed and someone tries to imagine a rules way for it to work in their favor that is rules lawyering. That's what was done here.

No, it's not. It's a rule mistake. You might decide that it's worth keeping, but it's still a mistake.

That lawyering ignores 5+ years worth of D&D 5e experiences for everyone.

Given that I've not actually had a situation where a definitive ruling on this has come up... count me out of your 'everyone'. I would suspect that a great many people are in the same boat. Were this to have come up in game with suggestion or charm person, then I probably would have ruled the deception to be possible on the spot, based on prior editions where the concentration mechanic did not exist.

So from my point of view, this interpretation validates some 20 years of D&D for my group.

That's neither here nor there though. The idea that "we've been playing the rules way X for a long time" changes what the rules actually are is farcical.

 

[FrogReaver]

"How my group plays it" != "what the rules say"
In other words, your group has a houserule. An inadvertant one, but a houserule nonetheless.

What's ridiculous is saying every group that has ever played D&D 5e has houseruled that. That's exactly what you are saying.

... for your group. For my group, I can't say the question has yet come up, mainly because nobody has every said "hey, I should know if the save was passed or failed because of concentration". People cast a spell, I describe the obvious results.

For every group, including yours. When a target saves against any spell they are not required at any table to make concentration checks because every table knows the spell is ended when the target/targets all save against it.

Outside of that we usually forget about concentration until someone tries to concentrate on a second spell, or is in danger of losing concentration, neither of which are likely to occur for spells with subtle effects.

When someone takes damage they are in danger of losing concentration. Are you saying your casters never get damaged after casting a spell all the enemies saved against?

 

[FrogReaver]

Given that I've not actually had a situation where a definitive ruling on this has come up... count me out of your 'everyone'. I would suspect that a great many people are in the same boat. Were this to have come up in game with suggestion or charm person, then I probably would have ruled the deception to be possible on the spot, based on prior editions where the concentration mechanic did not exist.

You are very much included. Keep ignoring the 20ft elephant in the room all you want. The proof is in that your group does it and you haven't done 1 thing to say that proof is wrong. When a creature saves against any of your casters spells then you don't force them to make concentration saves for that spell when they are damaged later in that encounter.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

(EDIT: I was wrong, see further posts.)

Let me muddy the water further.

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell...if the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target." - Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 86

That's just a snippet from the Invalid Spell Target section, and there's more stuff in the rest of the section.

It seems to imply that you wouldn't mystically know if a target succeeded or failed on a save (which is the real question I've been asking--obviously they should be able to make inferences based on physical observation). But then the last sentence seems to confuse the matter. What is "otherwise" referring to? Is it referring to saves that do have effects on targets who succeed? Is it therefore saying that in such a case you mystically know that the spell didn't do anything to that target (which would be a weird distinction to make)? Or is it intending to say, "Otherwise, you do not perceive that the spell did anything to the target" (which would work better with the former statement)?

I'm leaning toward "appears to" and "you perceive" meaning the same thing--ie, referring to physical observation--which would tend to make me believe that the general rule (since the invalid target material seems like it requires certain interpretations of valid target to make sense) is that you don't mystically know these things (but can make inferences based on observation).

 

[5ekyu]

Let me muddy the water further.

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell...if the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target." - Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 86

That's just a snippet from the Invalid Spell Target section, and there's more stuff in the rest of the section.

It seems to imply that you wouldn't mystically know if a target succeeded or failed on a save (which is the real question I've been asking--obviously they should be able to make inferences based on physical observation). But then the last sentence seems to confuse the matter. What is "otherwise" referring to? Is it referring to saves that do have effects on targets who succeed? Is it therefore saying that in such a case you mystically know that the spell didn't do anything to that target (which would be a weird distinction to make)? Or is it intending to say, "Otherwise, you do not perceive that the spell did anything to the target" (which would work better with the former statement)?

I'm leaning toward "appears to" and "you perceive" meaning the same thing--ie, referring to physical observation--which would tend to make me believe that the general rule (since the invalid target material seems like it requires certain interpretations of valid target to make sense) is that you don't mystically know these things (but can make inferences based on observation).

i do not get where you take from that "imply that you wouldn't mystically know if a target succeeded or failed on a save " bit when it clearly says that if the spell has a save for nothing then the target " the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw". That says there that there is an "appear to succeed on save". You cannot tell whether that "appear to save"

After that, the "otherwise" makes perfect sense as it applies to all those spells with either no save or a save with effects even on success - like say half-damage - where the lack of those shows you the immunity or invalidity itself.

"appears to have succeeded on its saving throw" != "you wouldn't mystically know if a target succeeded or failed on a save" by a long shot.

They could easily have said "The invalid target is obviously unaffected. For some spells that may be evidence of a successful save or immunity or invalid target, you don't know. But for others, that can be a clear sign of immunity or invalid target." if their intent was to make the save secret.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

i do not get where you take from that "imply that you wouldn't mystically know if a target succeeded or failed on a save " bit when it clearly says that if the spell has a save for nothing then the target " the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw". That says there that there is an "appear to succeed on save". You cannot tell whether that "appear to save"

After that, the "otherwise" makes perfect sense as it applies to all those spells with either no save or a save with effects even on success - like say half-damage - where the lack of those shows you the immunity or invalidity itself.

"appears to have succeeded on its saving throw" != "you wouldn't mystically know if a target succeeded or failed on a save" by a long shot.

They could easily have said "The invalid target is obviously unaffected. For some spells that may be evidence of a successful save or immunity or invalid target, you don't know. But for others, that can be a clear sign of immunity or invalid target." if their intent was to make the save secret.

You're right. I realized that about 10 minutes after I posted it.

I'd probably summarize the rule they are making as "You mystically know if a spell takes hold on a target. If the spell does not take hold, you do not mystically know why (it could be because they made their save, because they are an invalid target, or some other reason)."