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?

 

[AnotherGuy]

The guard isn't reacting to the charm spell (which he would likely have no way to identify). The guard is reacting to the request that he help them break someone out of jail.

Ah, fair point!

 

[Lanefan]

Since I'm rolling all saves in the open, in practice it's necessary to rule that both caster & target are fully aware - target knows they had to make a save, caster knows if save succeeded. I guess I might allow Deception vs Insight if someone tries to fake failing a save but the roll would still be visible....

The answer, of course, is to roll saves in secret. Otherwise you're giving away info that the PCs often wouldn't have; including immunity if you skip rolling the save.

 

[Lanefan]

In the case of Hold Person (and others), it's even more blatantly obvious - Am I still concentrating on a spell?

Yes, until-unless you become aware that your concentration is Doing Nothing.

Often said awareness will be immediate, or close on which you'd drop concentration; but it's easy to think of situations where a caster might be unaware of whether her spell worked or not and end up concentrating on maintaining an effect that in fact didn't happen.

 

[S'mon]

The answer, of course, is to roll saves in secret. Otherwise you're giving away info that the PCs often wouldn't have; including immunity if you skip rolling the save.

IMC they (the caster) have the info. Works fine.

 

[jgsugden]

"Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."

That's the tricky part....

... and only applies to invalid targets, right? So you perceive that nothing happened to an invalid target. It has no bearing on what happens when there are valid targets. Crawford's statement wasn't explicit that it was addressing only valid targets, but there are character limits to be considered in the medium of delivery.

Further - a rule doesn't exist unless it does. Players gain access to the information the rules say they are provided, and there is nothing in the rules that tells us to reveal that a saving throw has been made. We can see the spellcaster casting, we can perceive things described in the spell description as perceptible, but outside of that, there is nothing to tell us to share the saving throw results. Silence on the topic in the book tells us not to do anything, not that it is unclear on whether to do something or not.

 

[Kurotowa]

First, let's make it clear that the number of spells without a clear tell as to if the target saved is a very small list. Anything with a Dex or Str save means they have to take physical actions to resist and the result is probably obvious. Most conditions are fairly evident, especially if you know exactly what you're looking out for. And the big one is that most of the more subtle spells are Concentration, and it's immediately apparent if the spell failed to take and there's nothing to Concentrate on. So 90% of the time it isn't an issue.

Now, are there exceptions? Absolutely. Mass Suggestion isn't Concentration, so if you're suggesting a conditional action and not engaging in social interaction to follow up then it may not be readily apparent who's under the effect. A spell or effect that imposes a more subtle condition like Poisoned or Deafened without needing Concentration might be a little hard to read. But these are edge cases, not something that's going to come up a lot unless Mass Suggestion is your party's go-to solution to everything.

 

[Voadam]

I mean, sometimes it's blatantly obvious whether your spell worked or not - did your Hold Person target stop moving?

 

[prabe]

First, let's make it clear that the number of spells without a clear tell as to if the target saved is a very small list. Anything with a Dex or Str save means they have to take physical actions to resist and the result is probably obvious. Most conditions are fairly evident, especially if you know exactly what you're looking out for. And the big one is that most of the more subtle spells are Concentration, and it's immediately apparent if the spell failed to take and there's nothing to Concentrate on. So 90% of the time it isn't an issue.

Is there a place in the rules where it says specifically that you know if you don't need to Concentrate? Some spells talk about retargeting while keeping concentration (like Hex or Hunter's Mark) but that seems to be a really rare feature. I mean, I don't know of anything in the rules that says you know the target of, e.g., your Charm Person spell saved because there's not an effect to concentrate on.

 

[Voadam]

Is there a place in the rules where it says specifically that you know if you don't need to Concentrate? Some spells talk about retargeting while keeping concentration (like Hex or Hunter's Mark) but that seems to be a really rare feature. I mean, I don't know of anything in the rules that says you know the target of, e.g., your Charm Person spell saved because there's not an effect to concentrate on.

203-4 in the PH is the section on Concentration. It does not specify any knowledge link, just that it is required for some spells and how it can be broken.

 

[Kurotowa]

Is there a place in the rules where it says specifically that you know if you don't need to Concentrate? Some spells talk about retargeting while keeping concentration (like Hex or Hunter's Mark) but that seems to be a really rare feature. I mean, I don't know of anything in the rules that says you know the target of, e.g., your Charm Person spell saved because there's not an effect to concentrate on.

The rules do not explicitly say either way, but Concentrating on a failed spell is both less supported and less fun to my eye. Really, we've been around in this circle more than once over the years. Always someone says, "Well technically it doesn't say you can't Concentrate on a failed spell..." but never once has someone said "I think it's good game design and fun for the players if they're Concentrating on a failed spell without being able to tell it failed."