What don't I get about Hunter's Mark?

[Lord Ruby34]

Hunter's Mark strikes me as a spell that's much better for some user's than others. On an archery focused Hunter Ranger you could be applying Hunter's Mark immediately and begin shooting your longbow at your target, made more effective by a bonus to hit for your fighting style. On a melee ranger you get the same number of attacks, but at a lower bonus, and with more danger of losing your concentration. If you're a two-weapon fighter, you get more attacks to use it with, but your bonus action can deal damage already, usually to the realm of 1d6+5~, which is about two hits with Hunter's Mark, which would probably take 3 attacks or so, but you're in even more danger of losing your concentration, as you don't have a shield and will take more hits. Then, whenever you kill something, you move you mark again, and still don't get to benefit from your mark.

The spell becomes even worse for Beastmaster's, as it doesn't apply to your beast, and if you're playing the popular revised ranger, you never even get extra attack. Yet every time I hear talk of the ranger Hunter's Mark is treated as their best spell in all circumstances. What am I missing that makes it so good?

[Man_Over_Game]

Several of the Ranger subclasses have means of providing multiple attacks, namely the Hunter and the Gloomstalker.

Plus, it sounds like you're comparing the pre-Extra Attack levels, which is only levels 2-4. With Extra Attack, Hunter's Mark is dealing 2d6 damage, when TWF without a Fighting Style is doing 1d6.

Combine both TWF and Hunter's Mark, at level 2, you're making 3 attacks in two turns (so Hunter's Mark is only adding 3d6 damage over two turns.

However, combine the two once you hit level 5 and you're making 5 attacks in two turns (so Hunter's Mark is adding 5d6 damage in the same amount of time).

Or, use it on a ranged combatant, and you jump from +1d6 per turn to +2d6 (doubling in strength).

[Tetrin]

It’s a bonus action to cast, not to apply damage. It’s better when you make more attacks, as you add 1d6 damage per hit. So on your first turn, cast hunter’s mark, then take the attack action, each hit dealing an extra d6. Next turn, you can apply that extra damage at no action cost. It’s a really damage efficient spell in a combat that lasts more than 3 turns

[JackPhoenix]

Several of the Ranger subclasses have means of providing multiple attacks, namely the Hunter and the Gloomstalker.

Plus, it sounds like you're comparing the pre-Extra Attack levels, which is only levels 2-4. With Extra Attack, Hunter's Mark is dealing 2d6 damage, when TWF without a Fighting Style is doing 1d6.

Combine both TWF and Hunter's Mark, at level 2, you're making 3 attacks in two turns (so Hunter's Mark is only adding 3d6 damage over two turns.

However, combine the two once you hit level 5 and you're making 5 attacks in two turns (so Hunter's Mark is adding 5d6 damage in the same amount of time).

Well, you'll need to keep switching the mark to different targets as they are dying, which also takes bonus action, and if the original targets escape, you're out of luck as the mark is stuck on it, making the mark even less effective for melee character.

[Man_Over_Game]

It’s a bonus action to cast, not to apply damage. It’s better when you make more attacks, as you add 1d6 damage per hit. So on your first turn, cast hunter’s mark, then take the attack action, each hit dealing an extra d6. Next turn, you can apply that extra damage at no action cost. It’s a really damage efficient spell in a combat that lasts more than 3 turns

Heck, someone deals an average of about 8 damage per attack. Hunter's Mark adds an average of 3.5 damage. Find me another level 1 spell that increases your damage on every attack by 40%. Divine Favor adds 2.5 damage, or about 30%.


Well, you'll need to keep switching the mark to different targets as they are dying, which also takes bonus action, ...
Sure, but you don't HAVE to use it with TWF. Works just as well with a bow or a whip or anything else.


...and if the original targets escape, you're out of luck as the mark is stuck on it, making the mark even less effective for melee character.
I mean, if they escape, that...actually works out quite well! The secondary benefit of Hunter's Mark is that you can easily track down the target. If the enemies are already fleeing, then I'd say that killing them is mostly pointless. If one of them runs to the hideout, the enemy camp, or to their treasures, then I'd consider that a great use of Hunter's Mark.

Consider that vs. the "coveted" Hex, which people commonly combine with Eldritch Blast, or Divine Favor. Those spells would do nothing in this circumstance, when Hunter's Mark turns a fleeing monster into a boon.

If I was the DM, and the Ranger was clever enough to have the monster flee, I'd probably create a cache that the monster fled to that the Players can benefit from, as a reward for using the spell cleverly.

In fact, besides grappling, and the fact that it's available via Warlock level/Magic Initiate, when is Hex ever going to be better than Hunter's Mark?

[stoutstien]

I wish we could just exchange primeval awareness for an ablity to apply hunters mark on a weapon attack. Kind of a weaker smite but can be maintained for good damage.

[Lord Ruby34]

I think that makes sense, it that the spell is very good with a hunter, when it effectively does something like 5 or 6d6, but less good on a beastmaster, where it might deal 2 or 3d6 damage. My entire experience with the spell is just white room thinking, as no one has ever played a ranger at my table. I was looking over how few ranger spells I get, and lamenting how I felt like I needed to spend one on Hunter's Mark, but now I'm less sure about how effective it is.

[stoutstien]

I think that makes sense, it that the spell is very good with a hunter, when it effectively does something like 5 or 6d6, but less good on a beastmaster, where it might deal 2 or 3d6 damage. My entire experience with the spell is just white room thinking, as no one has ever played a ranger at my table. I was looking over how few ranger spells I get, and lamenting how I felt like I needed to spend one on Hunter's Mark, but now I'm less sure about how effective it is.
two of the ranger sub classes in Xans, monster slayer and horizon walker, get a good repeatable bonus action to apply extra damage.

[KOLE]

Every attack you make deals an extra d6 on a hit. For reference, if you’re using a d6 weapon like a shortsword, it’s like a free critical every time you hit, except that it also doubles on a real crit as well! It’s a simple, marvellous spell, especially on a ranged hunter. If it doesn’t speak to you, pass on it. Never take a spell just because you’re “supposed” to, especially on something with limited spells known like a ranger. Also, you do have a point that it’s bot ideal on a beast enclave.

[Contrast]

Yet every time I hear talk of the ranger Hunter's Mark is treated as their best spell in all circumstances. What am I missing that makes it so good?

I feel like you answered your own question to a certain extent. It's best on ranged rangers and not as good on melee rangers and beastmasters are also particularly poor. Which is probably also most peoples general assessment on the power level of those options. So if you're asking for advice on how to play your ranger there's a good chance the answer will be 'take Hunters Mark and use a ranged weapon'.

[Man_Over_Game]

Every attack you make deals an extra d6 on a hit. For reference, if you’re using a d6 weapon like a shortsword, it’s like a free critical every time you hit, except that it also doubles on a real crit as well! It’s a simple, marvellous spell, especially on a ranged hunter. If it doesn’t speak to you, pass on it. Never take a spell just because you’re “supposed” to, especially on something with limited spells known like a ranger. Also, you do have a point that it’s bot ideal on a beast enclave.

Personally, I've always been partial to the tactical use Hail of Arrows or Entangling Strike. Hunter's Mark is more for those that prefer damage over control, or have plans to use the utility aspect of the spell.

[KOLE]

Personally, I've always been partial to the tactical use Hail of Arrows or Entangling Strike. Hunter's Mark is more for those that prefer damage over control, or have plans to use the utility aspect of the spell.

My Hunter could keep Hunter's Mark going for several encounters. The damage over the course of the day added up, a lot, and my other slots were saved for goodberries to keep the party on their feet and save the Cleric some slots. Simple, but effective. I see what you're saying, and I respect that style, but sometimes the simple consistent path is king in my book. But I'm the type who wouldn't be disappointed in a simple +1 weapon vs. a flavorful once a day gadget. I like the simple boosts that are always relevant.

[Chronos]

Yeah, as others have said, the sort of ranger it's most useful on (archery) is the most common sort of ranger. It's not useful for all playstyles, but then, that'll be true of any spell.


Quoth Man Over Game:

Personally, I've always been partial to the tactical use Hail of Arrows or Entangling Strike.
Entangling Strike certainly has its uses, but I'm finding that it's not as useful as I'd expected. The problem is that, while the Restrained condition is useful on most targets, where it's most useful is on enemies that lack ranged attacks. But enemies that lack ranged attacks tend to have very good Strength saves. And the extra damage from it will usually be less than or equal to what you'd get from Hunter's Mark, even if you upcast it.

As for Hail of Thorns (I assume that's what you meant), it's great if you have one tough enemy surrounded by a bunch of weaker enemies, but that's a situation that I've found my group doesn't encounter much: We usually get one or two tough enemies, or a number of enemies that are more spread out. Plus it's not so great if you've got a melee party member already next to your target. Your mileage might vary on this one, though.

[RSP]

Consider that vs. the "coveted" Hex, which people commonly combine with Eldritch Blast, or Divine Favor. Those spells would do nothing in this circumstance, when Hunter's Mark turns a fleeing monster into a boon.

...

In fact, besides grappling, and the fact that it's available via Warlock level/Magic Initiate, when is Hex ever going to be better than Hunter's Mark?

Hex is better than Hunter’s Mark, hands down.

First, if you had used Hex’s second feature on Dex, that fleeing monster will have Disadvantage to hide from the party (which I’m assuming would ultimately be the point of fleeing, that is, not being found). This is basically a push as it’s equal to have Advantage to Wis checks, vs Disadvantage to Dex checks.

And that’s not even one of the better uses of it. Hex’s out of combat utility outshines Hunter’s Mark. Want to convince someone of something? Disadvantage their Wis checks. Want a competitor to look foolish convincing others to work against you? Hex their Cha. You already covered the most used combat application: Hex for grapples (which you dismiss for some reason as not a reason why Hex would be better).

Second, and more to the point, Hunter’s Mark only works on weapon attacks, whereas Hex works on any attack. That’s a big difference.

[KorvinStarmast]

It’s a bonus action to cast, not to apply damage. It’s better when you make more attacks, as you add 1d6 damage per hit. So on your first turn, cast hunter’s mark, then take the attack action, each hit dealing an extra d6. Next turn, you can apply that extra damage at no action cost. It’s a really damage efficient spell in a combat that lasts more than 3 turns And if the enemy disengages or flees (We had that happen a bit in our ToA campaign when doing jungle battles), it is easier to track them down and finish them off.

[Chronos]

Really, for most purposes, Hex and Hunter's Mark are the same, and in practice, the biggest difference between them is just which class gets which one.

[strangebloke]

HM is just not that good in melee, unless you're wittling down an enemy with lots of HP.


Hex is better than Hunter’s Mark, hands down.

First, if you had used Hex’s second feature on Dex, that fleeing monster will have Disadvantage to hide from the party (which I’m assuming would ultimately be the point of fleeing, that is, not being found). This is basically a push as it’s equal to have Advantage to Wis checks, vs Disadvantage to Dex checks.

And that’s not even one of the better uses of it. Hex’s out of combat utility outshines Hunter’s Mark. Want to convince someone of something? Disadvantage their Wis checks. Want a competitor to look foolish convincing others to work against you? Hex their Cha. You already covered the most used combat application: Hex for grapples (which you dismiss for some reason as not a reason why Hex would be better).

Second, and more to the point, Hunter’s Mark only works on weapon attacks, whereas Hex works on any attack. That’s a big difference.

Hunter's mark doesn't have somatic components so you can cast it with your hands full without needing warcaster.

Hunter's mark helps you both with survival and perception checks to find your target, which technically is better than just applying disadvantage to either dex or wis.

Overall, I agree with you. But there are some niche cases where HM comes out ahead.

[KorvinStarmast]

Overall, I agree with you. But there are some niche cases where HM comes out ahead. Like when that Oni turns himself invisible after you have marked him. :smallcool:

[Grod_The_Giant]

And that’s not even one of the better uses of it. Hex’s out of combat utility outshines Hunter’s Mark. Want to convince someone of something? Disadvantage their Wis checks. Want a competitor to look foolish convincing others to work against you? Hex their Cha.
Um. I expect the fact that you very clearly just cursed them would play into those scenarios. Even if you cast it from hiding, they'll be aware of the effect.


Second, and more to the point, Hunter’s Mark only works on weapon attacks, whereas Hex works on any attack. That’s a big difference.
Not really. There aren't many spells that have you making multiple attacks in a turn. Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, Spiritual Weapon to an extent, and... what else? It's usually not giving you more than +1d6 with spells, while the weapon user is swinging two or three times a round.

[Man_Over_Game]

Um. I expect the fact that you very clearly just cursed them would play into those scenarios. Even if you cast it from hiding, they'll be aware of the effect.


Not really. There aren't many spells that have you making multiple attacks in a turn. Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, Spiritual Weapon to an extent, and... what else? It's usually not giving you more than +1d6 with spells, while the weapon user is swinging two or three times a round.

To add on this, at what point would someone have Hunter's Mark and be making spell attacks? You have to be Ranger 2 to get the spell in the first place, and only the Druid would find that multiclass desirable. On top of that, most of the Druid's best cantrips are not attack-based, which means they won't benefit from Hunter's Mark or Hex.

I can't think of many scenarios where the fact that Hunter's Mark uses weapons and Hex doesn't really matters.

Rather, if you allowed Hunter's Mark to activate from any attack, what would change? Why would that comparison matter?

[Mellack]

Um. I expect the fact that you very clearly just cursed them would play into those scenarios. Even if you cast it from hiding, they'll be aware of the effect.



I'm not so sure that is true. From PHB:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

[RSP]

Um. I expect the fact that you very clearly just cursed them would play into those scenarios. Even if you cast it from hiding, they'll be aware of the effect.

Not to derail this thread, but describing the casting as “very clearly” is DM dependent. The effect of Disadvantage doesn’t have a perceptible effect, unless you or your DM rules that the game mechanic of requiring rolling 2 dice instead of one is perceivable by the character. Per the rules:

“Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all.”

So even if your DM goes with “every casting of every Spell is noticeable to everyone” there would be no reason why any particular creature would know they were the target of said casting, or what the effect of it was. Again, unless the Hexed in-game character is aware of the real-world player rolling 2 dice, instead of 1.

Plus, you could also just transfer a pre-running Hex, which isn’t perceivable at all, RAW.

And just to be clear, you’re not saying the V component of HM is less noticeable than the VS components of Hex, correct? RAW would not support this.



Not really. There aren't many spells that have you making multiple attacks in a turn. Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, Spiritual Weapon to an extent, and... what else? It's usually not giving you more than +1d6 with spells, while the weapon user is swinging two or three times a round.

So your argument is that a spell limited to just weapon attacks isn’t limited compared to a spell that works with either spell or weapon attacks? Hex works with anything that HM works with, plus with any spell that is an attack. That seems definitely better.

Plus, it doesn’t matter if a spell has multiple attack rolls or not; any spell attack roll, even a single one, benefits from Hex, but not HM.

[RSP]

To add on this, at what point would someone have Hunter's Mark and be making spell attacks? You have to be Ranger 2 to get the spell in the first place, and only the Druid would find that multiclass desirable. On top of that, most of the Druid's best cantrips are not attack-based, which means they won't benefit from Hunter's Mark or Hex.

I can't think of many scenarios where the fact that Hunter's Mark uses weapons and Hex doesn't really matters.

Rather, if you allowed Hunter's Mark to activate from any attack, what would change? Why would that comparison matter?

Well there’s campaigns that allow multi-classing for one. And subclass spell lists, like the Vengeance Paladin.

I mean you’re asking why Hex would be thought of as better than HM. Put it this way, if you’re a Bard choosing Magic Secrets, and for whatever reason you’re choosing between only Hex or Hunters Mark, which would you choose?

I’d wager the vast majority, if not all, would Hex, due to it having better out of combat versatility and it applying to any attack, as opposed to just weapon attacks.

If you changed HM to apply to any attack, that would certainly put the two closer in balance, but RAW, that’s a significant difference that favors Hex.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well there’s campaigns that allow multi-classing for one. And subclass spell lists, like the Vengeance Paladin.

I mean you’re asking why Hex would be thought of as better than HM. Put it this way, if you’re a Bard choosing Magic Secrets, and for whatever reason you’re choosing between only Hex or Hunters Mark, which would you choose?

I’d wager the vast majority, if not all, would Hex, due to it having better out of combat versatility and it applying to any attack, as opposed to just weapon attacks.

If you changed HM to apply to any attack, that would certainly put the two closer in balance, but RAW, that’s a significant difference that favors Hex.

I'm not necessarily saying that there's no difference between Hunter's Mark and Hex. I'm saying that there is virtually no reason that Hunter's Mark weapon attack requirement is ever a factor.

Rather, tell me a build where that particular difference matters. Unless the Ranger is doing something weird (like grabbing Magic Initiate for Eldritch Blast, when they could have instead grabbed Find Familiar and Booming Blade), I just don't see any valid reason for the Weapon Attack portion to have any relevance.

It seems like a valid concern in the original argument, but I'm asking, explicitly, why does that matter?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Not to derail this thread, but describing the casting as “very clearly” is DM dependent. The effect of Disadvantage doesn’t have a perceptible effect, unless you or your DM rules that the game mechanic of requiring rolling 2 dice instead of one is perceivable by the character. Per the rules:

“Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all.”

So even if your DM goes with “every casting of every Spell is noticeable to everyone” there would be no reason why any particular creature would know they were the target of said casting, or what the effect of it was. Again, unless the Hexed in-game character is aware of the real-world player rolling 2 dice, instead of 1.

Plus, you could also just transfer a pre-running Hex, which isn’t perceivable at all, RAW.
...okay, I googled a bit, and it looks like (at least by word of Crawford) we're both half-right?

Typically, a target doesn't know it's under the effect of a spell like hex until it experiences the spell's effects.
So they wouldn't know anything was wrong until they had to make the check, at which point they'd notice the mental fog or whatnot.


And just to be clear, you’re not saying the V component of HM is less noticeable than the VS components of Hex, correct? RAW would not support this.
I'm saying it's irrelevant because you're not trying to use Hunter's Mark in a social setting.


So your argument is that a spell limited to just weapon attacks isn’t limited compared to a spell that works with either spell or weapon attacks? Hex works with anything that HM works with, plus with any spell that is an attack. That seems definitely better.

Plus, it doesn’t matter if a spell has multiple attack rolls or not; any spell attack roll, even a single one, benefits from Hex, but not HM.
Not exactly; my argument is that in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter which spell you're using-- both Hex and Hunter's Mark are really only worth the concentration if you're triggering them multiple times a round, and outside of Eldritch Blast, that usually won't be the case for spell attacks. It's not that Hex doesn't have an advantage, it's just that it's only a marginal one.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm suddenly very conscious and vary about having converted hunter's Mark into a potion.
Luckily ifor me my potions only last a minute

[Chronos]

Quoth Man_Over_Game:

Rather, tell me a build where that particular difference matters.
OK, a paladin-warlock multiclass where the paladin part is Oath of Vengeance. The paladin already has Hunter's Mark; do you want to additionally spend one of your warlock spells known on Hex? If you're going pure blade, probably not... but Hunter's Mark won't work with Eldritch Blast.

[RSP]

I'm not necessarily saying that there's no difference between Hunter's Mark and Hex. I'm saying that there is virtually no reason that Hunter's Mark weapon attack requirement is ever a factor.

Rather, tell me a build where that particular difference matters. Unless the Ranger is doing something weird (like grabbing Magic Initiate for Eldritch Blast, when they could have instead grabbed Find Familiar and Booming Blade), I just don't see any valid reason for the Weapon Attack portion to have any relevance.

It seems like a valid concern in the original argument, but I'm asking, explicitly, why does that matter?

I was just responding to your “when is Hex ever going to be better than Hunter's Mark?” statement. The answer involves when one wants “out of combat usefulness” and “when using spell attacks.” Again using the Bard selecting a Magic Secrets Spell, it’ll be Hex over HM every time.

Now it seems you’re asking “why would a single-classed Ranger ever need Hex?” And the answer is “They wouldn’t;” but I’m not sure why this question matters.

[Aquillion]

Consider that vs. the "coveted" Hex, which people commonly combine with Eldritch Blast, or Divine Favor. Those spells would do nothing in this circumstance, when Hunter's Mark turns a fleeing monster into a boon.Warlocks get to three beams by 11th level, which does make a difference. Also, I'd argue that Hex's attribute check disadvantage is more valuable, since it's easier to force it into play (it's excellent for a party with a grappler, say, and can make it really hard to counterspell effectively.)

The tracking ability of Hunter's Mark is sometimes useful, but the reality is that most of the time you want to track monsters you haven't found yet, not ones you already encountered.

[RSP]

...okay, I googled a bit, and it looks like (at least by word of Crawford) we're both half-right?

So they wouldn't know anything was wrong until they had to make the check, at which point they'd notice the mental fog or whatnot.

If that cited tweet is the one I’m thinking of, I believe JC was referring to the damage part of Hex as a noticible effect, not the Disadvantage part. I find it way too metagamey to think of characters being aware of the actual rolling of the dice.

Either way, though, his tweets don’t mean anything official and the RAW takes precedence.



I'm saying it's irrelevant because you're not trying to use Hunter's Mark in a social setting.

Right: you wouldn’t use HM in a social setting, but you would have effective uses for Hex. Again, the effectiveness of Hex in combat or social situations, while HM is only effective in combat, speaks to the overall more effectiveness of Hex.

And that example of using HM on an enemy to track them, the one specific instance where HM is more effective, Hex still has some effectiveness.



Not exactly; my argument is that in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter which spell you're using-- both Hex and Hunter's Mark are really only worth the concentration if you're triggering them multiple times a round, and outside of Eldritch Blast, that usually won't be the case for spell attacks. It's not that Hex doesn't have an advantage, it's just that it's only a marginal one.

So your argument is “if you don’t use spell attacks, Hex and HM are equal in terms of their damaging effects.” Sure. But the inverse, just using spell attacks, means Hex maintains its effectiveness while HM does nothing.

So let’s compare each of these situations:

Social: Hex is effective, HM does nothing
Combat with Weapon attacks: both equally effective.
Combat with spell attacks: Hex is effective, HM does nothing
Used to track: Hex is effective, HM is more effective

Reviewing all this, Hex is always at least partially effective in these situations, whereas HM has whole instances of doing nothing, and the only instance where HM is more effective than Hex, is a very niche one.

I don’t see a valid argument against Hex being the better spell.

[strangebloke]

If that cited tweet is the one I’m thinking of, I believe JC was referring to the damage part of Hex as a noticible effect, not the Disadvantage part. I find it way too metagamey to think of characters being aware of the actual rolling of the dice.

Either way, though, his tweets don’t mean anything official and the RAW takes precedence.

His tweets do mean something. They're official RAI and have a large amount of influence on how the game is actually played.

In any case, you're not making a RAW argument here. You're saying that disadvantage being perceptible is too 'metagamey' which is not a RAW term last I checked.

And personally, I would wager that if you're effectiveness at a given thing is suddenly cut in half, you'd notice. Like, gosh, this is the equivalent of being suddenly turned into an incredibly drunk person. If this happened to you in real life you'd think that you were having a stroke.

You might not guess that it's a spell, but its sure as heck going to influence what you do next.

In the reverse scenario (where an NPC hexes a PC) it'd require a pretty overbearing DM to be like: "You roll with disadvantage. NO! You don't realize that you're impaired! Stop checking for poison! You're metagaming!"

The 'imperceptible' spell effect described is Detect Thoughts, which has no effect on the target, or indeed, on anything except the caster. Connecting it to disadvantage on all ability checks related to an ability seems pretty tenuous.

Right: you wouldn’t use HM in a social setting, but you would have effective uses for Hex. Again, the effectiveness of Hex in combat or social situations, while HM is only effective in combat, speaks to the overall more effectiveness of Hex.
Hex has verbal, material, and somatic components. What kind of social situation are you in that you can whip out the eye of newt, utter an incantation, and and gesture around in an obviously magical manner without drawing everyone's attention?

Unless a spell's components are obviously discreet (such as the verbal component of suggestion) XGtE suggests that people know when you're casting magic.


So your argument is “if you don’t use spell attacks, Hex and HM are equal in terms of their damaging effects.” Sure. But the inverse, just using spell attacks, means Hex maintains its effectiveness while HM does nothing.

So let’s compare each of these situations:

Social: Hex is effective, HM does nothing
Combat with Weapon attacks: both equally effective.
Combat with spell attacks: Hex is effective, HM does nothing
Used to track: Hex is effective, HM is more effective

Reviewing all this, Hex is always at least partially effective in these situations, whereas HM has whole instances of doing nothing, and the only instance where HM is more effective than Hex, is a very niche one.

I don’t see a valid argument against Hex being the better spell.

The last sentence is straw-manning, and shifting the goalposts. Nobody's been arguing that HM is strictly better. People have been arguing that there are other cases where HM is better. If you don't have a free hand (because you're restrained or because you're wielding S&B) or if you're trying to track someone or if you're attacking something that has resistance/immunity to necrotic damage (which is a lot of monsters) then HM is better.

This was in response to your statements that:


Hex is better than Hunter’s Mark, hands down.

...

Second, and more to the point, Hunter’s Mark only works on weapon attacks, whereas Hex works on any attack. That’s a big difference.

You're imposing a false choice here. "HM isn't better, therefore, Hex is!" Everyone else here is just declining from saying that either spell is strictly better. Both spells are better depending on the situation. You might be able to argue that the stuff that Hex is better at comes up more often because you can force it to come up (hex STR checks to help the fighter shield bash) but that's about as far as I think you can take this line of argument.

[Torsopants]

The OP is basically 100 % correct - Hunter's Mark works a lot better with some builds than others.

And that's in principle fine, because if all options were equally good all the time, then building a character would be a nonsense enda endeavor.

The problem is that there are no relatively better options for twf/melee rangers. There's no advantage to leverage, especially as levels go up.

Some options beyond the PHB alleviate this.

[Hytheter]

Hex has verbal, material, and somatic components. What kind of social situation are you in that you can whip out the eye of newt, utter an incantation, and and gesture around in an obviously magical manner without drawing everyone's attention?

It's worth noting that this only applies when you actually cast the spell. Moving Hex to a new target after the last one dies has no such requirements, so you could carry it over from a previous encounter, or cast it on a bug out of sight before immediately squishing it so you can move it to the real intended target unnoticed.

[strangebloke]

It's worth noting that this only applies when you actually cast the spell. Moving Hex to a new target after the last one dies has no such requirements, so you could carry it over from a previous encounter, or cast it on a bug out of sight before immediately squishing it so you can move it to the real intended target unnoticed.

As humorous and flavorful as this is, it is rather a niche case.

[RSP]

His tweets do mean something. They're official RAI and have a large amount of influence on how the game is actually played.

In any case, you're not making a RAW argument here. You're saying that disadvantage being perceptible is too 'metagamey' which is not a RAW term last I checked.

RAW states it needs to have a perceivable effect to be noticed.

RAI, you can use JC’s tweet to make an argument; however, he doesn’t state whether it’s the damage that noticible or the Disadvantage; so my statement was RAI in regard to that tweet, that is, I believe his intent in that tweet was “the damage aspect of Hex is noticeable.”

I’m sure you or others could view it differently, but those views aren’t better or worse than mine in terms of figuring out RAI, so I’d say it’s a moot point.

Also, JC’s tweets aren’t “officially” anything.



And personally, I would wager that if you're effectiveness at a given thing is suddenly cut in half, you'd notice. Like, gosh, this is the equivalent of being suddenly turned into an incredibly drunk person. If this happened to you in real life you'd think that you were having a stroke.

You might not guess that it's a spell, but its sure as heck going to influence what you do next.

I’m glad you’ve decided what every instance of Advantage or Disadvantage feels like to the character. I’m not sure what relevance your house rule has in this discussion though.

In regards to this house rule, when a character that doesn’t have Darkvision is in dim lighting, do they suddenly feel like “an incredibly drunk person”?

Likewise, if a character is under the effects of Hex and Enhance Ability, each targeting Wis, do they still feel like “an incredibly drunk person?”

If the targeted ability is Str, do they still feel drunk? Cha?

Just curious how your house rule impacts different situations.



In the reverse scenario (where an NPC hexes a PC) it'd require a pretty overbearing DM to be like: "You roll with disadvantage. NO! You don't realize that you're impaired! Stop checking for poison! You're metagaming!"


5e is a roleplaying game. The Players often know a lot of information that their characters don’t, including, but not limited to, the fact that the character doesn’t really exist as a living creature and that their entire reality is just a game.

If the players at your table decide to use their knowledge of the game, such as that a roll is made with Disadvantage, to impact how their character acts (that is, the character knows that “a skill check” was made, and made at Disadvantage), that’s stepping outside of the point of the game: to role play.

If this happens at your table and the DM or players have an issue with it, then they should work that out.

However, this doesn’t change the idea that the characters are not supposed to be acting as if their aware of the game mechanics such as dice rolls.

When a character in your games does something, like trying to walk a tightrope, are they aware of their die roll? If it’s a 1, and they fall, does the character react “damn I rolled poorly on my skill check,” or do they only react to the in-game fiction?

If a Disadvantage roll still results in two high numbers, let’s say on that same tightrope walk, do they still feel incredibly drunk? For instance, let’s say the skill check rolls are a 19 and a 20, with the 20 being dropped. Does that 19 mean they smoothly walk the tight rope, or does the character feel like “an incredibly drunk person” crossing the tight rope?



The 'imperceptible' spell effect described is Detect Thoughts, which has no effect on the target, or indeed, on anything except the caster. Connecting it to disadvantage on all ability checks related to an ability seems pretty tenuous.

No it doesn’t.

In other news: Detect Thoughts isn’t the only spell that has imperceptible effects. Suggestion, for instance, actually forces a character to take physical action(s), yet is also used as an example of an imperceptible effect.

As an aside, someone who’s trying to call out others as “straw manning” and “shifting the goal posts,” might not want to present points that resemble “if it’s not Detect Thoughts, then it’s perceptible.”



Hex has verbal, material, and somatic components. What kind of social situation are you in that you can whip out the eye of newt, utter an incantation, and and gesture around in an obviously magical manner without drawing everyone's attention?

Unless a spell's components are obviously discreet (such as the verbal component of suggestion) XGtE suggests that people know when you're casting magic.

Again, not quite. We know what the components to spells are from the PHB.

V=“the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”

S=“might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures.”

M=“access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus”

So, RAW, you could say “Hello, my name is John Smith” and, so long as you have the right pitch, resonance and sounds, you’ve fulfilled the V component.

RAW, a character who appears to be just very active with their hands while talking, could fulfill the S component.

RAW, holding a staff could fulfill the M component.

So, no, RAW, your example is not the only way to cast the spell. You’re not actually arguing this though as you already stated components can be done discreetly. So which is it, can components be done discreetly, like with Suggestion, as you posted? Or can they not?

Odd that you think I need to defend that while you yourself use it as an argument. Or are components only allowed to be discreet when it suits your arguments?

Secondly, XgtE “suggesting” something, does not mean thats how every instance in the game needs be run that way, RAW.



The last sentence is straw-manning, and shifting the goalposts. Nobody's been arguing that HM is strictly better. People have been arguing that there are other cases where HM is better. If you don't have a free hand (because you're restrained or because you're wielding S&B) or if you're trying to track someone or if you're attacking something that has resistance/immunity to necrotic damage (which is a lot of monsters) then HM is better.

...

You're imposing a false choice here. "HM isn't better, therefore, Hex is!" Everyone else here is just declining from saying that either spell is strictly better. Both spells are better depending on the situation. You might be able to argue that the stuff that Hex is better at comes up more often because you can force it to come up (hex STR checks to help the fighter shield bash) but that's about as far as I think you can take this line of argument.

So what you’re referring to was based off of this:



when is Hex ever going to be better than Hunter's Mark?

So I’m not sure why you think my statement was out of place: it literally answered this question (apologies to Man_Over_Game; this isn’t meant to draw them into this debate; just answering Strangebloke on why I made the statement I did).

Moreover, I fully stated HM is better at tracking someone so I’m not sure why you’re ignoring that. However, even in that situation, Hex isn’t useless; whereas, there are a lot more situations where HM is useless but Hex is very effective.

Hex is the better overall spell. You can argue there are situations where not having spell attacks matters, but it’s still a fact that Hex works with every attack HM does, and then a whole lot more.

You can argue that sometimes the out of combat use of Hex is difficult to pull off, but it still has that potential, while HM does not.

You want to take the stance that “spell attacks and Disadvantage on ability checks, in and out of combat situations, are inconsequential, therefore the difference between Hex and HM doesn’t matter,” go for it, but I’m at least going to disagree with you, even if no one else does, regardless of you trying to claim “moving the goal posts.”

The mere number of spell attacks available in the game, or skill checks made by opponents, means it isn’t an inconsequential difference.

Hex and HM have similar effects (they both add damage to attacks and can effect skill checks), yet Hex has many more in-game uses, therefore it’s a better spell.

[RSP]

As humorous and flavorful as this is, it is rather a niche case.

Why? Combat ends and you’re still concentrating on your 8-hour duration of Hex. Why is this a “niche” case?

[Chronos]

I can see someone going "Man, why am I so clumsy all of a sudden?", or the like. But that still wouldn't tell them that a spell was cast on them-- They could just as well explain it as "Guess I must not have had enough sleep last night", or maybe just "Ugh, I hate it when that happens".

Now, if they're hit with some other attack, and in addition to the regular damage, their wounds start rotting away, that's pretty clearly a spell.

[strangebloke]

Why? Combat ends and you’re still concentrating on your 8-hour duration of Hex. Why is this a “niche” case?
I suppose. Social Encounter closely following on the heels of a combat where you did use hex and didn't lose concentration. It isn't common, but it does come up.

I can see someone going "Man, why am I so clumsy all of a sudden?", or the like. But that still wouldn't tell them that a spell was cast on them-- They could just as well explain it as "Guess I must not have had enough sleep last night", or maybe just "Ugh, I hate it when that happens".

Now, if they're hit with some other attack, and in addition to the regular damage, their wounds start rotting away, that's pretty clearly a spell.

Yeah, I'd require a perception check to notice someone giving you the evil eye. A pretty hard one, given that it's just someone looking at you funny.

Failing that, the person would probably first assume poison.