Question about spells failing

[kenderbard]

One of my players wants to know if when he casts a spell that requires a will save, and it succeeds, if he knows that the spell didn't work. To give more context, the spell in question is True Form. He wants to know if his caster knows when it doesn't work versus the target just not having any other form to reveal, though this can apply to some other more subtle spells.

It's of my opinion that, no, he shouldn't know whether or not a spell succeeded but I can see his point. Other spells you can tell at a glance whether they worked or not (Charm Person, for example.)

I wouldn't mind some thoughts/opinions on the matter.

[Bruunwald]

Page 216 and 217 of Core:

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.

[kenderbard]

Well that answers that but I do want to raise another question with this one specific spell. Let's say you're in a more stealth-based scenario. If someone were to save against True Form to resist being outed as, say, a spy, and you succeed the DC, but the caster knows their spell fail... thus that you did resist it, it implies that you have something to hide anyway. Still fair? Unfair?

[Bruunwald]

Well, true form does have an obvious physical effect. It reverts a shapechanged creature back to its normal form. So if it succeeded, the effect would be obvious.

The rule does not state whether the target feels the "hostile force" or "tingle" when it saves against a spell with a physical effect, but I would think that is granted; a given. I think this is just more of the famous Paizo space-saving by keeping word count down when an idea ought to be implied.

But what you're asking is, does the fact that a target saves at all imply that he is shapechanged? And the answer is no, of course not. The caster only knows the spell failed. Failure could indicate a save or that there was nothing to change in the first place. Absence of evidence is not proof. A target gets a save either way. The GM must cultivate a sense of unknown in this case, and allow the player/character to draw whatever conclusions they want.

See, the spell true form cannot detect magic. That's what detect magic is for. So you can't use it as a tool to feel out shapechanged creatures.

[Starglim]

kenderbard wrote:

Well that answers that but I do want to raise another question with this one specific spell. Let's say you're in a more stealth-based scenario. If someone were to save against True Form to resist being outed as, say, a spy, and you succeed the DC, but the caster knows their spell fail... thus that you did resist it, it implies that you have something to hide anyway. Still fair? Unfair?

A creature can save against an unknown, non-harmless spell even if the spell wouldn't actually do anything to it. If the caster said "I'm casting a spell on you to ensure you're what you seem, do not resist" and the target resisted, the caster would be entitled to consider that suspicious.

The caster has a game effect that overcomes polymorph-based disguises (provided he makes the required checks) and should get the benefit of that ability. The spy could have used other methods that wouldn't be defeated by true form, such as a mundane disguise, an illusion or an approach that didn't rely on changing his appearance.