Does the caster know if sending worked?

[evilbob]

The logic of this question is quite puzzling, and it seems as though a good case can be made for either side.

On one hand, you've got that for most spells, even ones with saving throws, the caster doesn't know if it the save was made. It would follow that targeted spells with a saving throw seem more like an exception, rather than a rule. Therefore, the caster shouldn't know.

On the other hand, you've got that a spell without a saving throw is should be more powerful than a spell with a saving throw. It seems wrong to penalize a spell without a saving throw and not allow the caster to know if it works, since if it only -had- a saving throw (and thus was a weaker spell) then the caster would know. (This seems similar to the "should harm cause massive damage checks" argument.) In this case, it seems wrong to penalize a spell for not having a saving throw, so the caster should know.

On the other, other hand, it seems clear that the sort of flavor and intent behind the spell is to just fling off a message to someone, not to be able to detect if someone is alive or know any of the other information a caster would know if he knew whether or not the spell worked. So, based on the flavor and apparent intent, the caster should not know.

If anyone else is reminded of Vizzini at this point, you're not alone.

A 4th level spell (scrying) and a zero-level spell (message) can accomplish just as much as this one 5th level spell - albeit with a saving throw that you would know failed - and you'd certainly know if it worked, which means a 4th level spell would effectively tell you more. A 5th level spell shouldn't be trumped by a 4th level spell, so the caster should know.

However, several higher levels spells - legend lore, for example - seem more suited and better designed to divining information about a subject that could technically be gleaned by a caster of sending, albeit with a much more detailed response. Upper level spells shouldn't be trumped by 5th level spells, so the caster shouldn't know.

Nothing is listed in the spell's description to indicate that the caster should "know" if his message is received or not. Therefore, he shouldn't know. However, nothing specifically is stated in other targeted spells with no spell resistance and no saving throws (for example, discern location) that they should know if their spell worked, and there's really nothing keeping you from knowing whether or not those kinds of spells worked or not, so it doesn't necessarily mean that the spell's description has to include something of that nature. Therefore, the caster should know.

*pant pant*

I hope I've tricked someone into revealing something at this point, because otherwise I'm still completely unsure myself as to which side this should come down on.

 

[TYPO5478]

Interesting analysis, evilbob. Although I fear you may be in danger of dropping dead due to iocaine powder poisoning.

If we consider magic as analogous to technology (a dangerous proposition, I know), a telephone call is the most accurate comparison I can think of. Imagine I try to call you on the phone. If you answer the phone, I can infer a few things with some degree of certainty:

• That you are most likely alive
• That you are capable of responding
• That you are in the vicinity of your phone (wherever that happens to be)

If you don't answer the phone, I won't know the reason I didn't get through (maybe you didn't hear it or didn't feel like answering it, maybe there was interference with our signals, maybe you actually aren't alive, maybe you dropped your phone in the toilet...). But I will absolutely know that I didn't reach you.

It shouldn't be difficult to extend this reasoning to sending. Obviously there may be some discrepancies in analogy. For example, some spells specify that they are fooled by things like polymorph or illusion magic. If there is more than one viable recipient for sending, perhaps the spell fails. Perhaps all possible recipients receive it. Maybe one is chosen at random.

I'm not looking to use the spell to be able to determine identity (or even existence). But I think that a caster should be able to determine, on some simple, basic level, whether the spell actually passed a message from himself to another creature or not.

Of course none of this gets into the question of familiarity. Exactly how familiar does one have to be with the recipient for sending to even work?

 

[Piratecat]

My concern with it is simple: if you know whether it got through or not, you will always be able to divine - using a spell not intended for the purpose - whether the recipient is alive or dead.

"We killed the lich, and I think we got his phylactery! But how can we tell?"
"Easy - I'll cast sending!"

"Alas, my Great uncle has been dead these many years since he disappeared on an adventure."
"No he's not! I cast sending, and although he didn't answer, the spell still went through - so he must still be alive!"

You get the idea.

 

[Vorput]

This thread calls for:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html

 

[TYPO5478]

My concern with it is simple: if you know whether it got through or not, you will always be able to divine - using a spell not intended for the purpose - whether the recipient is alive or dead.

"We killed the lich, and I think we got his phylactery! But how can we tell?"
"Easy - I'll cast sending!"

"Alas, my Great uncle has been dead these many years since he disappeared on an adventure."
"No he's not! I cast sending, and although he didn't answer, the spell still went through - so he must still be alive!"

You get the idea.

I see what you're saying, and I might agree with you if death implied nonexistence. But in D&D, it's a well established fact that death simply means transference to a different plane of existence. Why couldn't sending simply contact the intended recipient on the outer planes? The recipient would still have to actively reply to let the caster know he was dead.



P.S. Love the Order of the Stick!

 

[Dross]

Something to consider.
The first sentence of the SRD spell description says: You contact a particular creature with which ......

So does the problem lie with the definition of "contact" in this context? I believe that it implies communication between two entities.

TYPO5478 gives an example of someone contacting, in that there is communication (both sides are aware of the other for instance).

Another other example is mail (e- or paper). If the mail does not make it to it's destination it comes back to you (it failed). But if the receipient receives but does not read the the mail....?????

Or how about talking/yelling at someone. You know they are there, but did they not hear you or are they just ignoring you?

 

[the Jester]

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.

My epic level alienist uses sending like a 13-year-old girl uses her cell phone: she 'calls' anyone she's interested in talking to, all the time.

 

[evilbob]

I see what you're saying, and I might agree with you if death implied nonexistence. But in D&D, it's a well established fact that death simply means transference to a different plane of existence. Why couldn't sending simply contact the intended recipient on the outer planes? The recipient would still have to actively reply to let the caster know he was dead.

I think allowing someone to speak with the dead may actually go well beyond the intended purview of this spell (even if it does "fix" the problem of "can tell if someone/thing is dead or not"). While that may be an interesting interpretation of the reading of the spell and D&D logic, at the same time that opens a huge can of worms ("Hooray! I've finally saved up 450 gold so that I can hire a wizard to talk to my dead daddy again!") that is probably best left shut... (Not to mention that if this were a valid way to use the spell, we'd probably see more use of it in literature and other mediums...)

 

[TYPO5478]

I think allowing someone to speak with the dead may actually go well beyond the intended purview of this spell (even if it does "fix" the problem of "can tell if someone/thing is dead or not"). While that may be an interesting interpretation of the reading of the spell and D&D logic, at the same time that opens a huge can of worms ("Hooray! I've finally saved up 450 gold so that I can hire a wizard to talk to my dead daddy again!") that is probably best left shut...

Why? Is there something in the way it's written that makes you think that?

Sending is a level 4 spell for clerics, whereas speak with dead is a level 3 spell for them. And sending is level 5 for wizards and sorcerers. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow sending to contact the dead; it's still only a very short message that's being relayed. It's not like invoking a séance and having a conversation with a dead person, or even calling or binding them. Not only that, but it seems to me (and this is completely my own interpretation) that the dead, having shuffled off their respective mortal coils, would be less likely to respond to a sending than a live entity. I assume that the dead would be less interested in the events and concerns of mortals than the mortals involved.

 

[evilbob]

Sending is a level 4 spell for clerics, whereas speak with dead is a level 3 spell for them.

Ah, but you've missed one important point here: speak with dead is actually a sort of misnomer. You are not speaking with the soul of the deceased, you are simply talking to a corpse. All this spell does is extract information that is basically "stored" in the dead body of a creature. Vastly different; far less powerful. (Seriously, this spell is way more crappy than people think.) I can't think of any other D&D spell allows direct contact with dead people (short of maybe wish or miracle) - that's not to say there isn't one, but there's nothing in core I'm pretty sure. Why would this one?