When casting a spell with a non-obvious visual effect on an enemy, you get a sense that it failed whenever they succeed at a saving throw.
When a spell fails due to an immunity, however, does the character then know that they are immune to that effect? Or might the character simply think they made their save and try casting the spell again?
Well it only states when they succeed on the saving throw. So the default assumption would be that the spell succeeded based on the RAW, and it is also how I run that rules interaction in my games.
Here's what the RAW says on the matter, insofar as I know.
I'm afraid I don't grasp your meaning, Milo.
My answer would be, if this is really relevant, that the character that is immune but still makes the save. The caster knows if the save is made (for a targeted spell). However, no matter what the character isn't affected by whatever they are immune to.
So, if the character makes the save and is immune a caster might think they can affect the character by casting again.
If the caster doesn't receive the info that the spell failed, then they would presume the character had been affected. When the character acts in a way that demonstrates that they are not obviously affected, the caster may realize the opponent is immune to the effect.
What about something like flesh to stone?
Well, seems like it would be pretty obvious that it didn't work when they aren't turned into a statue. If the caster knows the spell failed then he might have cause to try again.
If he think the spell succeeded (because he didn't get the mental notification that it failed) then he should probably suspect the target is immune.
Yeah, it'd be pretty obvious it didn't work, but would the caster inherently no WHY it didn't work?
If they made a DC 10+CR Knowledge check, yes. Such Knowledge checks are non-actions that don't take any time to perform.
If you're doing Knowledge checks, I'd award a minor bonus to that if you've just watched your spell fizzle.
Of course, it might not be the monster itself but something it's carrying. And now I wonder if a caster can tell the difference between immunity to a spell, SR bouncing it, a made save, or just a resistance or DR no-sell. Granted, some spells that have effects on a save will show that difference if the creature just isn't affected by the spell at all, so that might be part of things too. Or he's just wearing his SR 19 armour and that die you heard the GM roll wasn't his save but your SR check.
Cunniyevo, I don't think it's a knowledge check. You're implying that it's knowledge about a type of monster that is immune to something, but what if it's a humanoid that happens to be immune to something through class powers or magical items. That is not something that a knowledge check to identify a creature would reveal.
No, I think it's reasonable for most wizards in such a situation to assume that a creature is immune. But they don't KNOW it for certain. They are making a conjecture based on limited information, but wizards are pretty smart guys. Also, it doesn't take much intelligence to know that when you know you're spell didn't fail, but the guy is unaffected by it that something has to be happening.
Immunity would be one on a small list of things that could conceivably achieve this affect. Rods of Spell Absorption might do the same, though I've always imagined the magic flashes of light and such veering from their target and into the item such that it's obvious the magic hit the item (and was unaffected) and that the target was not affected.
I think very recently acquired knowledge (from observing this particular humanoid in combat) still counts as knowledge for the purpose of making a skill check and it's a cleaner way to adjudicate it than using Spellcraft or Perception. The rules don't specifically say that you're aware of the difference between avoiding a spell effect through a will save or immunity (note that you are aware of spell resistance because you make a caster-level check for overcoming it). All you know is whether it failed. More than that requires meta-knowledge or a knowledge skill check. An example of meta-knowledge would be if you saw the GM roll a 1 on the save and did not roll any further dice, then told you that the spell failed. Then you, the player, would know that the creature was immune but your character shouldn't, and you wouldn't if your GM rolled behind a screen and/or rolled extra dice randomly.
We could FAQ Ravingdork's OP but in the mean-time, I think a knowledge check (with circumstance bonuses and penalties as-desired) is the closest mechanic.
A spell doesn't fail just because the creature is immune. The spell hits the creature successfully, it just doesn't do anything.
Think of it this way, this is a non-targeted spell example because it's the first thing I could think of, a fireball hits a fire elemental. Technically the fire elemental should make a save for half damage. And then his immunity to fire kicks in and reduces it to nothing. Most people, for the sake of time, just ignore making a save in the first place because the result is the same.
But, if a caster wants to know if the spell failed or not (and ignoring that AoE spells don't actually tell you) it's different from if the monsters is affected or not.
Oh, even better. Replace fireball with scorching ray.
Scorching Ray has no save at all so yes, you'd immediately know if you hit them but didn't seem to do any damage. Damaging spells are pretty easy to tell when an enemy is immune because of that, so I was thinking more along the lines of a creature that's immune to, say, mind-effecting, sleep or paralysis.
For Ravingdork's scenario, let's assume you're facing a dragon that's changed shape into a humanoid. For all you know, it's a human, so you cast Hold Person or Charm Person on them. What's the GM to do?
A.) Roll the will save and then say it failed regardless of the result?
B.) Don't roll the save and just say it fails?
C.) The sneaky third option is to have the dragon roll its Spellcraft to identify the spell that was just cast on it and if it succeeds, let it act like it was affected.
Since the CRB doesn't say one way or another, I'd err on the side of saying you don't automatically know the difference between a lucky save and an immunity. I'd personally advise a (non-action) knowledge check to understand what just happened.
I thought knowledge checks to identify a creature's strengths and weaknesses were generally done the moment you see the creature. If you don't learn of the immunity then, then you don't get a second check later. The knowledge skill description makes that clear.
Scorching Ray has no save at all so yes, you'd immediately know if you hit them but didn't seem to do any damage.
That's fair. I couldn't think of a particularly good example.
Change it to some theoretical fire damage dealing targeted spell with a save, and my general statement stands though. I'm not sure such a spell exists, but if it did the fire elemental would technically need to make the save, but would be still be immune to the damage.
Assuming the elemental fails the saves, the caster doesn't receive the knowledge that the spell failed, but can probably observe that it doesn't damage the elemental.
I think we are generally in agreement, except I don't think a knowledge check would let you know for certain that a creature was immune, but I think you could deduce based on what you know (spell didn't fail but creature doesn't seem to be affected) that it might be immune, or have some class ability or item that is providing immunity. But you could never be certain without seeing the item or something to that effect.
But I don't think this part of the question is as important as does the character automatically know the creature is immune. Which I think we agree the answer is no.
|
I thought knowledge checks to identify a creature's strengths and weaknesses were generally done the moment you see the creature. If you don't learn of the immunity then, then you don't get a second check later. The knowledge skill description makes that clear.
This. and a successful knowledge check don't give you everything. It give you very few informations:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
"It is a demon" (or whatever is the type or subtype of the creature) is an information. Actually the that kind of information, the first you get, give you a lot of useful informations:
- it can be targeted by spell or effects that target animals/humanoids/outsiders/etc?- it has darkvision/low light vision/nothing?
- an idea of how muck skills it has and how much BAB for its HD
- it is immune to criticals or not
and possibly other informations.
The check that Cuuniyevo suggested is something very different, it can be a Knowledge (arcana) check with a question like "What are the reasons that can cause this spell to fail?" and you can guess what protected the creature by that, but it don't give you direct informations on the creature.
- * - * -
On a aside, scorching ray isn't a targeted spell. it is a ray, then you target the ray.