Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 3459156" data-attributes="member: 9789">Ehh, this seems a bit shakey to me.&nbsp; I hear your arguement but I'm not sure the spell is intended to work that way, either.&nbsp; (Can you really pay a few hundred gold to call grandpa back to the material plane and trap him there?)&nbsp; In any case, yes:&nbsp; not task at hand.Actually, I have to agree with moritheil:&nbsp; pretty much, no.&nbsp; Even the &quot;saving throw&quot; entry says that on a failed saving throw, you &quot;know the spell has failed.&quot;&nbsp; It doesn't necessarily imply &quot;you know it was the saving throw that failed, and not something else.&quot;&nbsp; In fact, it can probably be assumed a caster wouldn't know if a spell failed to SR, saving throw, invalid target, or &quot;DM says: I just hate you.&quot;&nbsp; Although presumably seeing the DM make a few rolls would imply one or the other...But then again, I guess the text doesn't NOT imply that, either.&nbsp; I guess this is really a DM's call, since it is neither stated nor refuted anywhere that I can find, and either side of the discussion can use the abiguity to their case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 3459156, member: 9789"] Ehh, this seems a bit shakey to me. I hear your arguement but I'm not sure the spell is intended to work that way, either. (Can you really pay a few hundred gold to call grandpa back to the material plane and trap him there?) In any case, yes: not task at hand. Actually, I have to agree with moritheil: pretty much, no. Even the "saving throw" entry says that on a failed saving throw, you "know the spell has failed." It doesn't necessarily imply "you know it was the saving throw that failed, and not something else." In fact, it can probably be assumed a caster wouldn't know if a spell failed to SR, saving throw, invalid target, or "DM says: I just hate you." Although presumably seeing the DM make a few rolls would imply one or the other... But then again, I guess the text doesn't NOT imply that, either. I guess this is really a DM's call, since it is neither stated nor refuted anywhere that I can find, and either side of the discussion can use the abiguity to their case. [/QUOTE]

Verification