D&D 5E Can a caster tell if someone saved or not against their spell?

[Blue]

Is there a definitive rule if a caster knows if a target succeeded on a save or not?

The example that came up is someone (a bard) cast Charm Person, which has no visible effect when cast. The target (an enchanter wizard who also has the spell) identified the spell as it was being cast, saved, and acted friendly.

Outside of other checks (deception vs. insight, etc.) is there any inherent knowledge by the caster if the spell save was successful or not in the rules? There was in some earlier editions, but 5e is it's own definition.

Another example could be several targets in fireball, and one takes half damage thanks to fire resistance, not a successful save. Outside other checks, would the caster inherently know that target had failed their save?

 

[el-remmen]

What @overgeeked said. Also, for rolls where the result on the die may be contrary to the DM's narration, the DM can just narrate progress combined with a setback rather than outright failure on the task. I don't make any "secret" rolls.

So much can happen behind the scenes in a game in or out of combat (like in the example above, it may not be need to known to the players until combat, but as the DM I would want to know ahead of combat breaking out how prepared or not the ambushers might be, if a scout spotted the party and hurried ahead to warn the ambushers, etc. . . but I respect the game philosophy, even though it doesn't jib with my DMing style. As a player for a short time with a DM that rolled in I simply never looked at his rolls and waited til he narrated the result!

I had a friend who used to roll out a list of d20 rolls ahead of time and then use them for "secret rolls" so he could show the players the list if there was every any question. Otherwise he did all other rolls openly.

Okay and now I am done with the topic. Onward!

 

[Dausuul]

Right. I can see no upside to Jeremy's ruling.

I can. Consider the scenario described in the OP: A target of charm person recognizing the spell and pretending to be charmed. That could lead to all kinds of exciting results, especially if the spellcaster is an NPC and the target is a PC. And it's only possible if you can fake a failed save against a charm effect.

Now, this is a rare case, and it's a hassle to hide this information from the players. On balance, I think it's better--from a purely practical "keep the damn game moving" standpoint--to let the caster know if a save is made or failed. But you do lose out on some interesting possibilities.

 

[iserith]

I can. Consider the scenario described in the OP: A target of charm person recognizing the spell and pretending to be charmed. That could lead to all kinds of exciting results, especially if the spellcaster is an NPC and the target is a PC. And it's only possible if you can fake a failed save against a charm effect.

Now, this is a rare case, and it's a hassle to hide this information from the players. On balance, I think it's better--from a purely practical "keep the damn game moving" standpoint--to let the caster know if a save is made or failed. But you do lose out on some interesting possibilities.

Not interesting enough in my view.

 

[Quartz]

I swear I am not trying to start another "roll in the open" vs. "behind a screen" debate - but am curious how you handle other rolls that may require secrecy.

Preprinted list of d20 rolls. Players don't even know that you're rolling, let alone how many times.

 

[Lanefan]

I never tell them whether a save was made or not, until-unless the effects (or lack of) become obvious and-or the PCs do some work to find out, for a few reasons:

First, if the target is somehow immune to the effect I want to be able to go through the motions anyway even if the roll is meaningless: e.g. casting a fear effect on someone who is for whatever reason fearless - did the target resist that? Better try another one. The PCs won't and can't know the difference in this case between an immune target and a lucky one. On a broader scale, I-as-DM reserve the right to make meaningless or fake rolls at any time.

Second, it allows for trickery with charm etc. as described upthread.

Third, in general it keeps them guessing just that little bit longer. In a game last night, for example, I fireballed a group of dire wolves at a distance - I thought I got them all (perfect aim roll) but didn't, as there was at least one I hadn't seen; and though most of them got to us looking a bit singed we had no way of knowing how much any one of them had been softened up. In the same battle some of the wolves were Slow-ed; we've put a save on Slow, and as the wolves were already engaged they weren't moving much, meaning we had no real way of knowing which had been affected until the next round, when some didn't get all their attacks.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's interesting that Jeremy Crawford's ruling appears to disagree with the rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's interesting that Jeremy Crawford's ruling appears to disagree with the rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

He probably doesn't even remember what was written in Xanathar's because he knows the whole point of all of this stuff in 5E is to make a ruling at the time of the question rather than waste time flip through book after book trying to find what had been written down previously.

 

[Mannahnin]

Pretty much. It seems like most of his rulings which I've seen are aimed at making the asker regret having asked.

 

[jgsugden]

It's interesting that Jeremy Crawford's ruling appears to disagree with the rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

Please elaborate on the contradiction you're referencing.

 

[jgsugden]

The way I see it (and as far as I know this contradicts no rules - except the one house rule I specifically call out):

1.) Bob casts a spell. If Bob wishes to do so subtly, he may roll a stealth check to try to do it on the QT. However, this is usually done at disadvantage (DM ruling on how hard it is). If there is something that needs to happen during casting, such as wording a suggestion during the casting of the suggestion spell
2.) DM determines whether anyone can see or hear the spell being cast. Maybe even smell if it has stinky components. This may involve perception check. This only determines that a spell is being cast, not what the spell is. If the spell has a target,and the spellcaster is seen casting, I will hint at the target.
3.) If someone observes the spell being cast,and they have the capability, they can cast a counterspell. Alternatively, they can use their reaction to identify the spell. (As a house rule, if the spell is known to you, or available to be prepared by you, you do not require a reaction and can identify it for free - this requires the DM to know the spells that each PC has - knowing the cleric spell lists, the druid lists, the spells known of a sorcerer, the wizard's spellbook, etc...).
4.) Check the spell description for indications of obvious effects at casting. If so, describe them to those that observe it,
5.) If observed, they can use their reaction to identify the spell. It is too late to counterspell.
6.) Determine if the spell takes effect. This may involve saving throws or attack rolls.
7.) Check the spell description and determine if there is an obvious effect based upon whether the spell took effect. If so, describe them to those that observe it. On Strength and Dexterity saves, as well as many attack rolls, this also involves actions that go with the saving throw.
8.) If observed, they can use their reaction to identify the spell. It is still too late to counterpsell.

For spell-like abilities, such as the School of Enchantment Hypnotic Gaze, there is no spellcasting, but might be obvious activities that take place when spellcasting would normally take place.