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

[Sword of Spirit]

You going to be having your players make concentration checks on spells that all the enemies have saved against as well?

Not unless the spell somehow has an ongoing effect. I'm not sure how anything I said would imply I would. I was claiming basically the opposite. You can't concentrate in ignorance. If the spell takes up your concentration you know it. If it doesn't, you know it doesn't. In the instance of a multi-target spell, you'd know if they all made their save, because your concentration wouldn't be there.

 

[5ekyu]

Can we go ahead and get this nipped in the bud before it spirals out of control and confuses way to many of yall. Let's get someone to tweet JC and ask if you can continue concentrating on a spell that's targeting a single enemy even after the enemy passed it's save? Maybe use faerie fire as an example?

Actually why ask a side question with another spell instead of asking the main question anout know a spell failed and suggestion in specific? Seems like the faerie fire may inadvertantly hide the real context. Nobody would willingly maintain concentration if the spell failed with all saves made and they knew it, right?


Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not playing coy, nor is it concealing the effects of a spell, nor is it denying a spellcaster insight. A save is something inherent to the creature making the save not the event provoking it. If there's an obvious and clear indication of pass/fail then sure that's obvious and clear but if it's not clear then it's not clear.

It could be a case where most spell effects are obvious, so the rules suggest that the caster always knows, and if there's a weird corner case then the DM can adjudicate that. It's kind of like how you can always tell when you hit someone with an arrow, unless it's a weird circumstance where you can't (e.g. they're invisible, or something distracted you between when you fired the arrow and it hit).

I mean, in most cases saves should be obvious, right? If someone is hit directly by a fireball, versus avoiding the brunt of it, then that's something an observer might reasonably be able to see; so we can just say that everyone sees that, because otherwise it would be a ton of bookkeeping to determine who exactly saw what.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not unless the spell somehow has an ongoing effect. I'm not sure how anything I said would imply I would. I was claiming basically the opposite. You can't concentrate in ignorance. If the spell takes up your concentration you know it. If it doesn't, you know it doesn't. In the instance of a multi-target spell, you'd know if they all made their save, because your concentration wouldn't be there.

Don't assume cause and effect, though. We do know that you don't need to maintain concentration on a targeted spell, if they make their save. We don't know whether that's because the successful saving throw breaks our concentration automatically, or because we can otherwise tell when a spell is resisted and there's simply no reason why anyone would want to continue concentrating in that case.

Whichever reality is in effect, the rules which reflect that reality would look the same either way, which is why we can't use those rules to determine what's actually happening there. It's sufficiently ambiguous for a DM to rule either way.

 

[Saeviomagy]

We do know that you don't need to maintain concentration on a targeted spell, if they make their save. We don't know whether that's because the successful saving throw breaks our concentration automatically, or because we can otherwise tell when a spell is resisted and there's simply no reason why anyone would want to continue concentrating in that case.

Whichever reality is in effect, the rules which reflect that reality would look the same either way, which is why we can't use those rules to determine what's actually happening there. It's sufficiently ambiguous for a DM to rule either way.

Well, no - the rules that would reflect the reality where a spell ends when the save is made are ones that say "when all targets of a spell successfully save, the spell ends".

For an example that counters the previous claim that "the spell ends for that target" is only used for spells which can affect multiple targets, take a look at
maze: single target, concentration, broken by making a check, specifically says the spell ends
searing smite: single target, concentration, broken with a save, specifically says the spell ends
tasha's hideous laughter: same

To me there's a clear line between spells which end when there's a save made, and spells which don't, but no longer do anything to their target.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, no - the rules that would reflect the reality where a spell ends when the save is made are ones that say "when all targets of a spell successfully save, the spell ends".

For an example that counters the previous claim that "the spell ends for that target" is only used for spells which can affect multiple targets, take a look at
maze: single target, concentration, broken by making a check, specifically says the spell ends
searing smite: single target, concentration, broken with a save, specifically says the spell ends
tasha's hideous laughter: same

To me there's a clear line between spells which end when there's a save made, and spells which don't, but no longer do anything to their target.

One caveat before I continue. Showing a single target spell that reads "the spell ends" doesn't invalidate my point about the language "the spell ends for that target" being language only used for multi target spells.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, no - the rules that would reflect the reality where a spell ends when the save is made are ones that say "when all targets of a spell successfully save, the spell ends".

For an example that counters the previous claim that "the spell ends for that target" is only used for spells which can affect multiple targets, take a look at
maze: single target, concentration, broken by making a check, specifically says the spell ends
searing smite: single target, concentration, broken with a save, specifically says the spell ends
tasha's hideous laughter: same

To me there's a clear line between spells which end when there's a save made, and spells which don't, but no longer do anything to their target.

The objection to your new spell examples is simple. They are spells that all involve the target saving an initial save and then having repeated save attempts throughout the duration of the spell. Note that none of those spells say the spell ends if the target fails the initial save before they start affecting the target (for the ones with a save before they start affecting the target).

Note that Tasha's Hideous laughter says that after the initial save attempt that if the target fails that save "the effects continue for the duration". With that line in there it would be very unclear and ambiguous what was supposed to happen when the creature made it's secondary save unless they spelled it out.

All the examples you want to use as the PHB intending to spell out certain spells that end after a save and certain ones that don't... the actual real reasons certain phrases were included were for far simpler reasons and once you think through those reasons it makes your position all the more absurd.

 

[Saeviomagy]

All the examples you want to use as the PHB intending to spell out certain spells that end after a save and certain ones that don't... the actual real reasons certain phrases were included were for far simpler reasons and once you think through those reasons it makes your position all the more absurd.

If my argument is absurd, when I've listed the section of the rules that says "individual spells say what happens on a save", and individual spells that specifically say a spell ends on a save, and spells which have no effect, yet do not specifically say they end on a save - where is anything to support the argument that "spells end when they are saved against, even if they don't specifically say so"?

 

[FrogReaver]

If my argument is absurd, when I've listed the section of the rules that says "individual spells say what happens on a save", and individual spells that specifically say a spell ends on a save, and spells which have no effect, yet do not specifically say they end on a save - where is anything to support the argument that "spells end when they are saved against, even if they don't specifically say so"?

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. Some spells that target additional creatures had tospecifically 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.

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. 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. 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.

 

[Zippee]

I mean, in most cases saves should be obvious, right? If someone is hit directly by a fireball, versus avoiding the brunt of it, then that's something an observer might reasonably be able to see; so we can just say that everyone sees that, because otherwise it would be a ton of bookkeeping to determine who exactly saw what.

No not really - in the case of observing a fireball, you will see all (except maybe for creatures with damage immunity=fire, who may just stand and laugh at you) creatures in the AOE fall, dive, roll, hold up shields, etc. (whatever the narrative flavour of 'roll a saving throw' is for them) but you would not necessarily know how successful those saving throws have been, or whether some had also benefitted from evasion, or fire resistance or whatnot. Your 6 seconds of observation would be, whoosh, bang, lots of scrabbling and burning, some are still on their feet, others aren't getting up. You may be able to see that someone has been totally unaffected [evasion success, immunity] but that's about it.

I don't see how it adds to the bookkeeping though, the saves get rolled, damaged is applied, the narration is 'boom' [or whatever], next action.



Unless you play in a universe where everyone has a full and detailed HP calculator for each enemy going on - in which case, sure you'll know who made a save and who didn't - but that is extra bookkeeping and brings mechanics far too much to the forefront for me. I recognise the playstyle and to each their own, but I don't go there myself.