Spell Saving Throw Questions

[KOLE]

Two specific scenarios have come up recently in game that I'm curious about feedback on, both involving spell saving throws.

Scenario A, party is under investigation from the crown after they took down a double agent who acted as the king's advisor. They did not yet have substantial evidence to bring for the trial other than a conversation the rogue had overheard. During the trial, the high priest placed all of them within a Zone of Truth. The party consented to this IC as their own Cleric has used the spell on numerous occasions. All the party members, however, made their saving throw and the priest informed the king that his magic was powerless on them and they were all still capable of lying.

The party would have much preferred to have failed their saving throws. Some spells specify effects of a spell on willing vs. unwilling creatures, I.E., Polymorph, but Zone of Truth and others say "MUST make X saving throw". I would assume this is intentional? I ruled that because of the wording, each member had to make a save as normal, but not all spells specify this in their wording.

Scenario B, the party has made a recurring enemy of a particular Enchantment Wizard. He doesn't have any great schemes or world ending ambitions, but he is neutral evil, has proven this on numerous occasions, and is a clever spellcaster that often finds himself crossing paths with our party. He's never afraid to run or teleport away when things aren't going his way, hence his recurring nature. Last time we ran into him, our Arcane Trickster managed to catch him off guard, trigger a surprise attack, and backstab him for terrific damage, nearly oneshotting him. He won initiative, however, and responded with a Hold Person- which succeeded- and getting the hell out of dodge.

This encounter, he has a bit of a grudge against the AT. He catches the rogue scouting- off guard thanks to Pass Without a Trace, and once again casts Hold Person. This time, however, the AT makes his save. Before I can continue, however, the AT asks "Would I remember how that spells feels before resisting it? Or maybe his incantation?" Intrigued, I had him roll an Arcana check- which he has expertise in, easily making the DC 15 check. I told him yes- he recognized the incantation and sensation of a Hold Person spell. So then he surprises me by saying he stands perfectly still and pretends to be effected by the spell.

Not something I expected. I have him roll deception- with a low DC- and he succeeds. It's his turn in initiative, he readies an actions to unleash two dagger attacks if the wizard steps within reach. The wizard, successfully deceived into thinking the rogue is helpless- steps in with a dagger of his own to pay the AT back for his backstab. Short ominous monologue, slow ponderous steps, the wizard draws in close, gloating, his dagger gleaming in the dim light-

Bam! Readied action triggers, AT spins around and slashes him twice- puts him on the ropes enough for him to Dimension Door away once again.

It was a great moment- but it got me thinking. I would pretty much never let a PC think their spell took effect when it hadn't. Do all Spellcasters know when their targets succeed or fail on a saving throw? I can see charm spells getting extra hairy if you have a smart NPC who plays along just long enough to trick the party, and a few other scenarios where being tricked could really mess up a plan. What do you guys rule on this? Is it okay if the party always knows but can use it against enemies? Should opponents be able to do the same? Or should neither side? I'm curious as to what you think.

[Malifice]

Two specific scenarios have come up recently in game that I'm curious about feedback on, both involving spell saving throws.

Scenario A, party is under investigation from the crown after they took down a double agent who acted as the king's advisor. They did not yet have substantial evidence to bring for the trial other than a conversation the rogue had overheard. During the trial, the high priest placed all of them within a Zone of Truth. The party consented to this IC as their own Cleric has used the spell on numerous occasions. All the party members, however, made their saving throw and the priest informed the king that his magic was powerless on them and they were all still capable of lying.

The party would have much preferred to have failed their saving throws. Some spells specify effects of a spell on willing vs. unwilling creatures, I.E., Polymorph, but Zone of Truth and others say "MUST make X saving throw". I would assume this is intentional? I ruled that because of the wording, each member had to make a save as normal, but not all spells specify this in their wording.

There is Sage Advice on this and the RAW answer is 'unless the effect gives you the option of intentionally failing a save, you cant choose to intentionally fail it.'

That said, RAF I'd allow it. If a PC wants to subject himself to Zone of Truth, I'd have no problem with him intentionally failing the save if he choose to.

If you didnt want to leap out of the way of a falling block of stone (make a Dex save) you dont have to as far as im concerned.


Scenario B, the party has made a recurring enemy of a particular Enchantment Wizard. He doesn't have any great schemes or world ending ambitions, but he is neutral evil, has proven this on numerous occasions, and is a clever spellcaster that often finds himself crossing paths with our party. He's never afraid to run or teleport away when things aren't going his way, hence his recurring nature. Last time we ran into him, our Arcane Trickster managed to catch him off guard, trigger a surprise attack, and backstab him for terrific damage, nearly oneshotting him. He won initiative, however, and responded with a Hold Person- which succeeded- and getting the hell out of dodge.

This encounter, he has a bit of a grudge against the AT. He catches the rogue scouting- off guard thanks to Pass Without a Trace, and once again casts Hold Person. This time, however, the AT makes his save. Before I can continue, however, the AT asks "Would I remember how that spells feels before resisting it? Or maybe his incantation?" Intrigued, I had him roll an Arcana check- which he has expertise in, easily making the DC 15 check. I told him yes- he recognized the incantation and sensation of a Hold Person spell. So then he surprises me by saying he stands perfectly still and pretends to be effected by the spell.

Not something I expected. I have him roll deception- with a low DC- and he succeeds. It's his turn in initiative, he readies an actions to unleash two dagger attacks if the wizard steps within reach. The wizard, successfully deceived into thinking the rogue is helpless- steps in with a dagger of his own to pay the AT back for his backstab. Short ominous monologue, slow ponderous steps, the wizard draws in close, gloating, his dagger gleaming in the dim light-

Bam! Readied action triggers, AT spins around and slashes him twice- puts him on the ropes enough for him to Dimension Door away once again.

Im not sure you're running Surprise correctly, and you're certainly not running Readied actions correctly.

Readied action [Attack action] allows only the one attack.


I would pretty much never let a PC think their spell took effect when it hadn't.

Why?


Do all Spellcasters know when their targets succeed or fail on a saving throw?

I could be wrong, but unless success or failure is obvious (they dont turn to stone or into a Toad etc) then I dont think the caster does know. What your AT did was perfectly reasonable (and quite clever).

[Grimmnist]

In response to scenario A, I let my players choose to fail saving throws if they wish, I see the save as the character attempting to avoid the effect e.g. ducking away from a fireball, or the mind putting up barriers for a charm person.

Wow, really cool idea by the AT. I don't think there would be a lore reason a caster would know if they succeeded, Zone of truth specifically says the caster would know if the save is a success which makes me think this knowledge is in addition to the base rules for saves. Were this my table I would probably reserve enemies faking to have failed the roll to out of combat, similar to your AT example, I think it might slow down the combat a bit and I don't think it is in character for most enemies, for example what self-preserving human would pretend to be under the effects of Hold Person while the ranger was launching arrows at them.

I love this idea I might try it out in my campaign at some point.

[Laserlight]

For ZoT, I'd allow you to fail. There are probably other spells where I'd say you can't choose.

I would think the caster would know that his Hold didn't work because he doesn't have his Concentration occupied. I'd also be dubious about readying an action while you're pretending to be Held. But I"d allow it once because it's clever, with the comment "this does not create precedent".

[Ninja_Prawn]

I would think the caster would know that his Hold didn't work because he doesn't have his Concentration occupied.

It's kinda meta, but I agree with this. My feeling is that ruling that casters generally don't know whether or not their spell has been saved against will create a lot of problems down the line. I'm sure there are other features and abilities that assume players know whether the target has saved.

I've always rolled saves openly and told the players if the target passed or failed.

[guachi]

I always assumed you could intentionally fail a saving throw. Wasn't that something explicitly mentioned in older versions?

As to knowing if a target failed a saving throw, concentration does add another wrinkle. I agree that if a spell has concentration, you absolutely know if your concentration is still needed and, therefore, that a target might have made the save and rendered your concentration unnecessary.

[Chronos]

I'd rule that the enchanter was still concentrating on his spell, even though the spell failed and so concentration is irrelevant. And I wouldn't worry about the rogue setting a precedent, because it's not a trick that will be useful all that often.

[JackPhoenix]

I allow willingly failing some saves, but not all. You can choose to stand in the middle of enemy Fireball like a moron badass and autofail the Dex save, but you have no conscious control over your body resisting poison with Con save. So, you can willingly fail Str, Dex or Cha saves, as your physical ability and your force of personality is something you can control, but not Con, Int and Wis saves, as you have no control over your metabolism or immediate thought processes (and what was seen can't be unseen).

As for the casters knowing if their enemy saved against their spell or not, if the effect was obvious or if they have to keep concentrating, they would know, otherwise, no.

[Tanarii]

Xanthars rules the rogue should have needed to percieve the spell-casting to identify it, and used a reaction against DC 17 to do it. Of course, as soon as the caster started he would have revealed himself, so that's not a big deal.

Since there were no observable effects of the spell, the rogue shouldn't have even known what spell was from that side. You don't "feel" a failed Hold Person. It just doesn't affect you. In some cases, you don't even know if someone successfully cast a spell / you failed the save, if it has no perceptible effects. Hex is an example of that. Again not a big deal in this case, because the rogue would have perceived the casting, and passed a close enough DC.

As others have said, the kicker is the lack of concentration would have tipped off the caster.

[Malifice]

You don't "feel" a failed Hold Person. It just doesn't affect you.

That does depend on the DM and the magical metaphysics of his game though. Some DMs might describe a Hold Person as if you suddenly locked up physicially for a second but were able to surge through it (passed save) or maybe as your mind fogging over from some kind of psychic assault.

I certainly prefer this approach as it lets me inform the PCs and the story.