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?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Please elaborate on the contradiction you're referencing.

Check the last part of the section on Invalid Spell Targets.

 

[Voadam]

Check the last part of the section on Invalid Spell Targets.

Page 85-86 of XGtE. Its a bit oddly worded.

INVALID SPELL TARGETS
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. 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.

So you perceive that spells on invalid targets have no effect on the target, and this appears the same as when spells that are negated on a successful save are successfully saved against. This seems to indicate that casters generally do not know whether someone saved other than from the effects of the save.

This rule would be consistent though with the position that casters have a mystic connection to their cast spells and can generally tell that they are succesfully saved against or not and it is only when the target is invalid that the situation feels the same as a saved against spell, but that would seem an odd set up.

 

[prabe]

Page 85-86 of XGtE. Its a bit oddly worded.


So you perceive that spells on invalid targets have no effect on the target, and this appears the same as when spells that are negated on a successful save are successfully saved against. This seems to indicate that casters generally do not know whether someone saved other than from the effects of the save.

This rule would be consistent though with the position that casters have a mystic connection to their cast spells and can generally tell that they are succesfully saved against or not and it is only when the target is invalid that the situation feels the same as a saved against spell, but that would seem an odd set up.

In principle, I suppose you're right, but you're marking which entities are charmed or held (like on a battlemat), and you skip one that looks like a valid target but isn't, there's no way for the players to know the difference. All they know is that one isn't affected by the spell.

 

[overgeeked]

Considering some of Crawford's terrible rulings, I don't think he's the best person to ask for advice. According to him up to an hour of combat and spellcasting will not interrupt a long rest. So...you know, not a great source.

 

[prabe]

Considering some of Crawford's terrible rulings, I don't think he's the best person to ask for advice. According to him up to an hour of combat and spellcasting will not interrupt a long rest. So...you know, not a great source.

That's in the PHB:

A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity — at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

So, as bad as some of the Sage Advice stuff is, that's not an example of it.

 

[jgsugden]

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.

I'm not sure this is a conflict.

If the spell is one that has no effect if the save is made, it appears to have succeeded on the save when there is an invalid target. As a caster, we know that some creatures resist our spells at time. If we cast a spell and it doesn't work, they appear to have saved, but we do not know (unless the DM decides to tell us or there is an obvious detectable impact). I think the use of the word appears here is intentional.

If the spell is not negated by a save, then it seems like the spell does nothing to the invalid target. That tells us nothing about the behavior of a valid target.

As far as I can tell, there is no conflict between what Jeremy and the PHB says (that you only know what is obvious from the effects of the spell that are detectable with your senses or explicitly spelled out in the spell).

 

[overgeeked]

That's in the PHB:

So, as bad as some of the Sage Advice stuff is, that's not an example of it.

It can be read differently. I read it as the one hour applies only to walking. Any fighting, any casting spells, or similar adventuring activity will interrupt the long rest. To say that combat only becomes strenuous after 60 minutes is to fail to understand what combat is.

 

[prabe]

It can be read differently. I read it as the one hour applies only to walking. Any fighting, any casting spells, or similar adventuring activity will interrupt the long rest. To say that combat only becomes strenuous after 60 minutes is to fail to understand what combat is.

I don't disagree that it's a bad rule, but if the one hour only applied to walking I'd expect the sentence/s to be structured differently--I don't think it's a misreading of the rules as they're written to say that you need to be fighting for an hour to disrupt a long rest.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't disagree that it's a bad rule, but if the one hour only applied to walking I'd expect the sentence/s to be structured differently--I don't think it's a misreading of the rules as they're written to say that you need to be fighting for an hour to disrupt a long rest.

Likewise if the one hour were meant to apply to all the listed activities it would have been written differently.

"one hour of: walking, fighting, spellcasting..."

As written it can go either way. Because the outcome is so dumb otherwise, I read it as one hour of walking, any fighting, any spellcasting.

How can combat not be strenuous until it reaches 60 minutes? You're under attack. There's a real possibility of death. Quite literally there are things trying to murder you. That is inherently stressful and trying to not die while trying to murder someone else is inherently strenuous.

Besides. Rulings not rules. I don't care what the RAW says when it says dumb stuff.

 

[prabe]

Likewise if the one hour were meant to apply to all the listed activities it would have been written differently.

"one hour of: walking, fighting, spellcasting..."

As written it can go either way. Because the outcome is so dumb otherwise, I read it as one hour of walking, any fighting, any spellcasting.

How can combat not be strenuous until it reaches 60 minutes?

Besides. Rulings not rules. I don't care what the RAW says when it says dumb stuff.

As I said, I don't disagree that it's a bad, silly rule (though I haven't houseruled it at all in the games I'm DMing, because I don't care all that much). I just think don't think the meaning is as in-doubt as you do.

If it meant what you think it means, I'd expect it to read something more like:

A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. If the rest is interrupted by strenuous activity — fighting, casting spells, or at least 1 hour of walking or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

I mean, I was surprised to find out there was a Sage Advice ruling on this, because the text seems to me to so obviously mean what the ruling says it means. Obviously YMMV and all-a-that.