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?

 

[overgeeked]

How would you have phrased it differently to more clearly mean what Crawford says it means? I can see ways to phrase it to mean otherwise, but I stand by my position that people reading it as unclear are reacting to it being daft, not to it being unclear.

If they meant for that "1 hour" to apply to the whole list of activities, it's badly written. You could fix it with literally a colon.

As I said above, "at least 1 hour of: walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity". That makes it clear the 1 hour proviso applies to each entry on the list.

Otherwise it can easily be read as the 1 hour only applying to the walking. It's a list of strenuous activities. This thing is strenuous, so is that thing, and so too this other thing. Each item on the list is a separate entry in the "what is strenuous activity" category. One hour of walking is strenuous. Fighting is strenuous. Casting spells is strenuous. Or similar activity is strenuous.

To make it clearer, turn the list into bullet points.

This:

"Strenuous activity is:

• at least 1 hour of walking
• fighting
• casting spells
• or similar adventuring activity"

Does not mean the same as this:

"Strenuous activity is at least 1 hour of:

• walking
• fighting
• casting spells
• or similar adventuring activity"

They wrote the first but apparently meant the second.

I would not define casting a cantrip as strenuous. Nor would I define walking a bit strenuous. I would, however, define engaging in combat as strenuous. But casting a leveled spell? You have a finite amount of magical energy you can use per day, expending that resource is strenuous. If it weren't strenuous, why only have a finite amount of it? Short answer is game balance, granted, but if there's no connection between the fiction and the mechanics, they're bad mechanics. While making an attack might technically be "combat" I don't think it's reasonable to say a ranger firing an arrow at a rabbit is "strenuous". Fighting off a pack of wolves...even if the combat lasts for 6 seconds...yeah, that's absolutely a strenuous activity.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If they meant for that "1 hour" to apply to the whole list of activities, it's badly written. You could fix it with literally a colon.

As I said above, "at least 1 hour of: walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity". That makes it clear the 1 hour proviso applies to each entry on the list.

Otherwise it can easily be read as the 1 hour only applying to the walking. It's a list of strenuous activities. This thing is strenuous, so is that thing, and so too this other thing. Each item on the list is a separate entry in the "what is strenuous activity" category. One hour of walking is strenuous. Fighting is strenuous. Casting spells is strenuous. Or similar activity is strenuous.

To make it clearer, turn the list into bullet points.

This:

"Strenuous activity is:

• at least 1 hour of walking
• fighting
• casting spells
• or similar adventuring activity"

Does not mean the same as this:

"Strenuous activity is at least 1 hour of:

• walking
• fighting
• casting spells
• or similar adventuring activity"

They wrote the first but apparently meant the second.

I would not define casting a cantrip as strenuous. Nor would I define walking a bit strenuous. I would, however, define engaging in combat as strenuous. But casting a leveled spell? You have a finite amount of magical energy you can use per day, expending that resource is strenuous. If it weren't strenuous, why only have a finite amount of it? Short answer is game balance, granted, but if there's no connection between the fiction and the mechanics, they're bad mechanics. While making an attack might technically be "combat" I don't think it's reasonable to say a ranger firing an arrow at a rabbit is "strenuous". Fighting off a pack of wolves...even if the combat lasts for 6 seconds...yeah, that's absolutely a strenuous activity.

The thing is, the first reading defines "casting a spell" (which would include cantrips) as "strenuous activity." It doesn't even need to be an Action - a bonus action or reaction would count.

Which I think we all agree is a bit silly. But then again, describing 50 minutes (500 rounds) of combat as "not strenuous" because you need a full 600 is also silly. I don't think anyone disagrees with that assessment. Which is why I think very, very few people play this RAW, when it matters in actual play.

 

[overgeeked]

The thing is, the first reading defines "casting a spell" (which would include cantrips) as "strenuous activity." It doesn't even need to be an Action - a bonus action or reaction would count.

Which I think we all agree is a bit silly. But then again, describing 50 minutes (500 rounds) of combat as "not strenuous" because you need a full 600 is also silly. I don't think anyone disagrees with that assessment. Which is why I think very, very few people play this RAW, when it matters in actual play.

I’d say altering the material reality around you through nothing but an act of sheer willpower is basically the definition of a strenuous activity. Yeah, it might not be “fun” in the gamey sense, but spellcasting is strenuous.

 

[prabe]

The thing is, the first reading defines "casting a spell" (which would include cantrips) as "strenuous activity." It doesn't even need to be an Action - a bonus action or reaction would count.

Which I think we all agree is a bit silly. But then again, describing 50 minutes (500 rounds) of combat as "not strenuous" because you need a full 600 is also silly. I don't think anyone disagrees with that assessment. Which is why I think very, very few people play this RAW, when it matters in actual play.

I dunno. It seems staggeringly clear to me. I mean, there are things in the 5E rules that aren't clear; this has never struck me as one of them (and it still doesn't).

As to running it RAW--I basically do. The rules say any strenuous interruption needs to last at least an hour to interrupt a long rest, so any interruption that doesn't last at least at least an hour doesn't interrupt a long rest. It's a pretty daft rule, but I don't care enough to figure out a fix (and I don't want to wrong-foot the players, who are used to my current ruling).

 

[embee]

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:

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.

The PHB misused commas is what it comes down to. Those should be semicolons.

Want an idea of what one hour of fighting looks like? Watch the famous Hallway Fight from S1:E2 of "Daredevil." It's a five-minute fight. Can we agree that that would interrupt a Long Rest?

 

[Lanefan]

View attachment 134615

The PHB misused commas is what it comes down to. Those should be semicolons.

Want an idea of what one hour of fighting looks like? Watch the famous Hallway Fight from S1:E2 of "Daredevil." It's a five-minute fight. Can we agree that that would interrupt a Long Rest?

I see it as they just got the order wrong, leading to needless confusion.

It should read "... strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, at least one hour of walking, or similar ..."

Either that, or they really did want resting to be ridiculously easy.

 

[jgsugden]

View attachment 134615

The PHB misused commas is what it comes down to. Those should be semicolons.

Want an idea of what one hour of fighting looks like? Watch the famous Hallway Fight from S1:E2 of "Daredevil." It's a five-minute fight. Can we agree that that would interrupt a Long Rest?

Think of it another way.

You go to bed. You sleep 4 hours. Then you're awakened by a fire alarm. You run outside and discover the neighbors house is on fire. You help them get some things out of the garage, etc... for an hour until the situation is steady, then you go back to bed. And sleep 3 more hours.

You might be a bit tired the next day - but does that mean you're going to end up exhausted? Or unable to function normally? I have cats, a dog, 2 kids, and maybe an evil spirit in my house. I often miss an hour of sleep due to the antics of one of them. I'm just fine.

Will participating in 1 round of combat break a short/long rest?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

 

[prabe]

The PHB misused commas is what it comes down to. Those should be semicolons.

If that was the meaning they wanted, yes. I think they could have achieved the same ends by putting the "1 hour of walking" last in the list (which is what I would have done, personally).

Want an idea of what one hour of fighting looks like? Watch the famous Hallway Fight from S1:E2 of "Daredevil." It's a five-minute fight. Can we agree that that would interrupt a Long Rest?

I think I've made it clear that I don't disagree that the rule as it's written is daft--in fact, I think I've described it as such. My point is that the people who are saying it's unclear are disbelieving what they're reading, because it's daft.

 

[overgeeked]

If that was the meaning they wanted, yes. I think they could have achieved the same ends by putting the "1 hour of walking" last in the list (which is what I would have done, personally).

I think I've made it clear that I don't disagree that the rule as it's written is daft--in fact, I think I've described it as such. My point is that the people who are saying it's unclear are disbelieving what they're reading, because it's daft.

Again, no. It is both unclear and daft.

 

[Ashrym]

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?

There is not outside of the insight check unless a spell's description states otherwise or there is a noticeable effect .

Or cast detect magic, identify, or similar spells for confirmation.