Does the caster know if sending worked?

[TYPO5478]

Sending says that trying to contact creatures on another plane of existence has a 5% (possibly higher) chance to fail. Assuming no reply comes, would the caster know definitely whether his message was received or not?

 

[el-remmen]

The description of the spell does not say either way, but I have always ruled regardless of the location of the target of the sending if they do not reply the caster has no way of knowing if the person got the message, is refusing to answer or perhaps may even be dead or unconscious.

 

[Nifft]

My rulings are:

1/ You know when a spell fails (but not necessarily why); and

2/ A person can only be targeted by one sending at a time, other casters get a cosmic busy signal. (This may be a house rule.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dross]

The description of the spell does not say either way, but I have always ruled regardless of the location of the target of the sending if they do not reply the caster has no way of knowing if the person got the message, is refusing to answer or perhaps may even be dead or unconscious.

I suppose a ruling will depend on whether you beleive that a Sending lost in the "ether" equals a made saving throw/failed spell.

My take on a non-reply is that you know the spell worked, but that the receipient didn't reply. If dead isn't receipient considered an object so the spell fails? Unconscious is a bity murkier, but maybe the spell succeeds but the caster doesn't know why the target didn't reply (sans prior arrangements).

Mind you, these are my thoughts from the rules, not backed up by the RAW, AFAIK

 

[Piratecat]

We rule that there's no way to tell if the spell works unless the recipient choses to respond. There's no RAW reason for that judgment, though, just our preference.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Only very slightly related... I like to use sending offensively. On my days off, I'll load up my higher level spell slots with them and pester the crap out of the bad guys that I've met....

"What'cha doin'?" or "There is no hope. You might as well give up. You're going to die." or "Come out with your hands up. We've got the place surrounded." and so on.

Later
silver

 

[Piratecat]

That's genius.

 

[shilsen]

Only very slightly related... I like to use sending offensively. On my days off, I'll load up my higher level spell slots with them and pester the crap out of the bad guys that I've met....

"What'cha doin'?" or "There is no hope. You might as well give up. You're going to die." or "Come out with your hands up. We've got the place surrounded." and so on.

I've had bad guys use it to mess with PCs in precisely the same way. Taunting by Sending is a nice way to cheese people off.

 

[Alzrius]

At the end of Condemnation, Pharaun casts a sending and then hopes that the spell makes it.

 

[evilbob]

The closest thing to a similar situation that I can find is under the listing for saving throws:

Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Sending is a targeted spell, so if it had a saving throw, you'd know if it worked. However, it does not, so it becomes a matter of interpreting whether or not "knowing if a targeted spell works" is an inherent function of casting targeted magic, or an inherent function of a targeted spell having a saving throw. Hmm...