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?

 

[jgsugden]

Something does not happen under the RAW unless the RAW says it does.

From the PHB - you do not know that a spellwas cast upon you unless there is a perceivable effect:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

As saving throws are involuntary, not perceptible saving throws, such as charms, may go undetected. Verbal or somatic components might be noticed, of course.

Also, the Spellcaster does not know if the target saved or not, unless there is a perceptible ramification:

A spellcaster doesn't automatically know whether a spell's target succeeded on a saving throw against the spell, but with most spells, the effects are perceivable on the target. #DnD

To specifically address your fireball example - usually players ask which monsters look most wounded. That will often indirectly indicate which ones saved.

 

[prabe]

@jgsugden has the principle correct--and I agree with it--but at least sometimes there are practical reasons the people around the table know which enemies have saved and which haven't. I mark them on the battlemat (soda bottle rings work well for this).

 

[jmartkdr2]

While the general rule is 'no they do not know', in practice, it's not worth the effort to hide this from players the vast majority of the time.

 

[Mort]

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?

Unless the spell expressly says so (e.g. Zone of Truth), then no, not definitively. But a DM should definitely give an indication depending on circumstances (fireball to the face vs. rolling mostly out of the way, for example).

Charm effects are interesting, the target may or may not know they were targeted, but if they do (say they understood the somatic components) and made their save, they could certainly act charmed (possibly triggering an opposed deception-insight check), the caster doesn't necessarily know the spell was successful.

 

[iserith]

While the general rule is 'no they do not know', in practice, it's not worth the effort to hide this from players the vast majority of the time.

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

 

[jmartkdr2]

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

I can imagine scenarios involving charms outside of combat, but they're rather specific.

 

[Mort]

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

Well it can lead to some interesting stations.

Players are trying to break someone out of jail. They charm the guard into showing them where the prisoner is located and then to help letting him out.

Guard makes his save vs charm person - but thinks quickly. He leads them to a door, opens it and goes "through there!" Players go through the (cell) door and guard promptly locks them in. I've seen this scenario play out - you'd think the players would ask some questions, be a lot more suspicious - but often, nope.

 

[iserith]

I can imagine scenarios involving charms outside of combat, but they're rather specific.

Well it can lead to some interesting stations.

Players are trying to break someone out of jail. They charm the guard into showing them where the prisoner is located and then to help letting him out.

Guard makes his save vs charm person - but thinks quickly. He leads them to a door, opens it and goes "through there!" Players go through the (cell) door and guard promptly locks them in. I've seen this scenario play out - you'd think the players would ask some questions, be a lot more suspicious - but often, nope.

I don't think the off chance of this situation arising is worth hiding saves behind a screen. I roll in the open.

 

[prabe]

I can imagine scenarios involving charms outside of combat, but they're rather specific.

Yeah. I'm a good deal cagier about saves outside of combat. There's less to keep track of, and it's kinda fun roleplaying someone who made his save against a charm-type effect.