In 1st Edition when a spell failed to take hold because the enemy passed the save, the rules were explicit that the caster was aware of that fact. However, I cannot seem to find any similar rule in 2nd Edition.
Do you know when the target(s) pass or critically pass their save? Particularly with spells like talking corpse.
Sorry, I meant talking corpse. Edited the above post.
In 1st Edition when a spell failed to take hold because the enemy passed the save, the rules were explicit that the caster was aware of that fact. However, I cannot seem to find any similar rule in 2nd Edition.
Do you know when the target(s) pass or critically pass their save? Particularly with spells like talking corpse.
In the case of that spell, I would say no the player doesn’t get to know. If the player knew the result, then the success feature wouldn’t matter regarding the option to lie.
In the case of that spell, I would say no the player doesn’t get to know. If the player knew the result, then the success feature wouldn’t matter regarding the option to lie.In 1st Edition when a spell failed to take hold because the enemy passed the save, the rules were explicit that the caster was aware of that fact. However, I cannot seem to find any similar rule in 2nd Edition.
Do you know when the target(s) pass or critically pass their save? Particularly with spells like talking corpse.
Indeed. This came up tonight in one of our games, so it makes a big difference in how many spells operate.
|
I would say most of the time, you only know the result because you can see the result, rather than feel it like in 1e. You know they failed against a fireball because they took damage, you know they passed vs confusion because they aren't confused, etc. Spells like this, which gives you info based on the target's save, you wouldn't know. It's much better that way.
While I agree with the conclusion, I don't follow the examples provided. If the enemy succeeds at the save against the fireball they also take damage - just less of it. And depending on the result of the random designation of target, confusion may also be indistinguishable from non-confused (randomly target an actual enemy) so depending on the GM and how they portray the confusion and whether people can automatically detect when an enemy is flat-footed, confusion may also be an invisible condition.
As far as I can tell it depends on the GM. The spell doesn't have the secret trait like stealth, recall knowledge, etc., so at the very least the rules seem to say that it's not a problem if the GM let's the player know. Personally, though, I'd make it so the player doesn't know and has to figure it out based on how the undead is responding to their questions.
There are a few feats that let you deliberately pretend to fail a save when you didn't, which to me implies someone would know otherwise:
Keep Up Appearances ReactionFeat 1
UncommonHuman
Source Character Guide pg. 12
Access Taldan nationality
Trigger You are affected by an emotion effect.
Taldan pride means you never show weakness. Roll a Deception check and compare the result to any observing creatures’ Perception DCs. On a success, that creature believes you were unaffected by the emotion effect. A creature tricked in this manner can’t benefit from the emotion effect and can’t use abilities that require you to be under this emotion effect; for example, if you successfully use this ability to trick a will-o’-wisp into believing you aren’t under a fear effect, it can’t use its Feed on Fear ability on you.
Spy's Countermeasures Feat 10
Archetype
Source World Guide pg. 131
Archetype Lion Blade
Prerequisites Lion Blade Dedication
You’ve learned how to analyze and fake your responses to the most common magic used against spies. Whenever you succeed at your save against a divination or mental effect, you can Identify Magic to identify the spell as a free action triggered when you succeed, even if you didn’t notice the spell being cast. If you successfully identify a divination effect targeting you and the spell would normally fail or have no effect, you can create a substitute result, causing the spell’s caster to think the spell succeeded, with a result of your choice. If you successfully identify a mental effect targeting you and the spell would normally fail or have no effect, you can make it appear as if you were affected and attempt to play along with the spell; if the spell normally establishes a mental link, it functions normally but you can disregard any commands you receive through the link.
If a caster 'just knows by magic' whether you succeed or fail at your save against their spells, how would pretending to succeed be possible?
Sorcerer: *casts Fear*.
Fighter: *fails save*. *Taldan Pride kicks in*. "Ha, you don't scare me fool."
Sorcerer: "Dude, I got the mental ping that you failed the save. I know you are terrified."
-------
If, on the other hand, the caster has to infer success or failure based on visible effects, then a feat to mask those visible effects, and therefore fool the caster, would make sense.
There are a few feats that let you deliberately pretend to fail a save when you didn't, which to me implies someone would know otherwise:
Though I do agree that normally a caster should be able to infer success or failure of their spells. It just isn't a guaranteed thing.
If you cast a fireball and the target looks rather singed afterwards you can infer that they succeeded at their save at best. Not sure if it was half damage, full damage, or double damage - but you can tell that they took damage.
If you cast a fireball and the target quickly shields themselves from the blast with their cloak and afterwards looks no worse for the wear, then you can infer that the critically succeeded at the save and took no damage because of that.
If you cast a fireball and the target stands there and looks at you funny and otherwise doesn't seem to mind that a ton of fire damage just engulfed them, then you can infer that they are immune to fire damage.