MechE_ |
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.
Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html
I believe that a good a rule of thumb is this - if it targets individual creatures, you know if they make the save or not (even if it targets 3 individual creatures) but if it targets an area (and creatures just happen to be in that area), you do not know (innately as part of the spell) if they make their save or not.
In the past (and let me make it completely clear that this is just a quick house rule that I use) I have allowed players a perception check to notice what amount of damage the subject of their fireball took. (DC of the Perception check = DC of the save against the fireball. This can, of course, be modified however you wish - I usually add 10 to the DC if it's a reflex based save and the target has evasion.
mplindustries |
The intent (as seen by flipping saves to attack rolls in 4e) was for the controller of the effect to know whether or not the target saved.
However, there is no explicit rule and every GM handles things differently. I think most allow open flow of information (whether spells worked, enemy's ACs, etc), but not by a wide margin.
Oladon |
Combining the saving throw text (given above by MechE) with the text of the Master Spy's "Fool Casting (Su)" ability, it seems pretty clear that casters normally know whether or not a (targeted) spell succeeded.