Spell Resistance versus Saving Throw

[Hypersmurf]

Anyway, that being said, from Hypersmurf's mention of the rules, although it would not necessarily become apparent to a caster that a spell failed due to Spell Resistance, he'd know it didn't seem to work, and he'd know the target didn't make its save. So he can then deduce what may have happened (he may have Mind Blank on, or Spell Immunity, or, in this case, Spell Resistance- he still doesn't know for sure, but he at least knows that the next casting of the spell might not necessarily work either).

Again, I'll use the Charm Monster example.

Failure due to SR provides no feedback, as written, to the caster. If the target makes a Spellcraft check and knows that the spell being cast is Charm Monster, he might choose to act as though he's charmed, in order to get close to the caster without having to run the gauntlet of meat-shields...

Someone who beats the Charm with a saving throw, however, the same ruse is impossible, as the caster knows that the save was made.

-Hyp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Again, I'll use the Charm Monster example.

Failure due to SR provides no feedback, as written, to the caster. If the target makes a Spellcraft check and knows that the spell being cast is Charm Monster, he might choose to act as though he's charmed, in order to get close to the caster without having to run the gauntlet of meat-shields...

Someone who beats the Charm with a saving throw, however, the same ruse is impossible, as the caster knows that the save was made.

-Hyp.

Hmm...if you go with this interpretation, then for consistency you'd also have to go with Thanee's point that there is also no feedback mechanism in the rules that tells you whether an attack has hit or missed. Apparently the only way to know that an attack has succeeded is to be the creature attacked and notice that your hit points have been reduced suddenly.

That seems a bit ridiculous, which tells me that what we're dealing with here isn't just a case in which the ruling on the subject is negative, but in which there is no rule. If there's no rule for whether SR has a feedback mechanism, then any interpretation is a house rule. Saving throws have a rule associated for this, but SR doesn't. There's also no rule for atmospheric re-entry, but that doesn't mean that you just take your 20d6 falling damage and nothing else. It means that there's no rule, so one must be house-ruled for the situation if it happens to come up.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm...if you go with this interpretation, then for consistency you'd also have to go with Thanee's point that there is also no feedback mechanism in the rules that tells you whether an attack has hit or missed. Apparently the only way to know that an attack has succeeded is to be the creature attacked and notice that your hit points have been reduced suddenly.

I'm inclined to agree. It's dependent on situation.

It's very easy to tell if someone beats Flesh to Stone somehow, even without automatic feedback. If they're not a statue, the spell didn't work.

It's not so easy to tell if someone beats Charm Monster.

It's very easy to tell if a successful attack is made on a naked commoner - he's bleeding, or he isn't.

On someone in full plate - harder to tell, perhaps.

Against an Earth Elemental? How do you tell the difference between an attack that beats all but one point of natural armor but doesn't actually go through, and an attack that beats the AC? Is there a major visible difference between one layer of rock and the next?

What about an attack against an air elemental, or water elemental, or fire elemental? What about the incorporeal?

How do you tell the difference between "tough skin" DR and Natural Armor? How do you tell the difference between "heals real fast" DR and Fast Healing or Regeneration?

You don't automatically know if an attack roll has been successful, in all cases.

-Hyp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Is it possible to tell if you wounded the commoner? Sure he's bleeding like a stuck pig, but what rule says that you can tell that he's bleeding? See where this kind of reasoning leads? Some things just aren't covered by the rules, either because it was unnecessary to do so, or it was overlooked. I'll say it again: If there are no rules, any interpretation is a house rule. You want the players to know when the hit a commoner, but not an earth elemental, that's your house rule. But there is no rule that says you ever know when you hit something, regardless of how obvious it would be. This isn't a problem, because it takes no effort at all to make the house rule, "if something is visible in a place you're looking, you see it."

The point being that this is an extreme example of the same species of problem that SR is. There's no rule, so it's up to the people playing to make something up to fill the gap. The absence of a rule is not the same as a negative rule. It's a hole, not a limitation or prohibition. Therefore, the argument that "this isn't supported by the rules" isn't a valid argument against some interpretation if the reason why it's not supported is that there's no rule at all.

There is nothing in the rules that says a wizard knows when he beats SR. There's also nothing that says he doesn't know, either. Taking one position or the other consists of writing a house rule that addresses the issue, but there is no universal answer.