Is Hex worth it at high levels?

[notthegiant]

I was wondering about Hex. It's a great spell for low-level Warlocks, but upcasting it only affects the duration, which won't matter too much in combat. Is burning a 5th level slot for a 1st level effect worth it when you could cast something like Summon Aberration or Hold Monster instead?

[KorvinStarmast]

I was wondering about Hex. It's a great spell for low-level Warlocks, but upcasting it only affects the duration, which won't matter too much in combat. Is burning a 5th level slot for a 1st level effect worth it when you could cast something like Summon Aberration or Hold Monster instead? It really depends on the campaign that you are in and how many fights per day you tend to have. That's my experience.

[Skrum]

After trying to use it over several different characters, I've concluded that hex is not worth it - especially on a warlock. Basically, the only time it's viable both for the spell slot and the concentration it takes, the fight is easy enough that you doing an extra d6 doesn't matter.

The theoretical use of "cast it in the morning and rest to get slots back" never actually happens. Either it gets dropped due to damage, or you voluntarily drop it to cast something way better.

Niche use of the disadvantage on an ability check is the only time I use it. Like maybe I really have to grapple something. That's it. I would not recommend using it.

[Unoriginal]

I was wondering about Hex. It's a great spell for low-level Warlocks, but upcasting it only affects the duration, which won't matter too much in combat. Is burning a 5th level slot for a 1st level effect worth it when you could cast something like Summon Aberration or Hold Monster instead?

It's not worth it the overwhelming majority of the time, but there are a few cases where it can be more useful than the other options.

[Witty Username]

3rd-5th level spells are real good, and warlock doesn't get lower level slots,
This means hex is pretty niche. I wouldn't say useless, as it can come up over multiple fights pretty regularly,* but most of the time you will have something better to do from hypnotic pattern to a summon to counterspelling to fireball spam. Hex is when you have a slot to use and not much better stuff to use it for. Kinda like bless in all honesty, it is not big but it is something, and something is better than nothing.



*hot take, if you are taking fire to break concentration on hex, your winning.

[Chronos]

If the party tank is taking fire, they're winning. You're one of the squishies. You don't want to be the one taking fire.

And yeah, there are some niche situations where it's the best spell. But you have a limited number of spells known. Are those situations common enough to be worth spending one of your spells known on it? Because if not, then the number of situations where it's useful goes from few to none.

Now, if you're, say, a fighter with Magic Initiate, then it might be appealing. You don't have much else to use your concentration on, you're likely to make the concentration saves, you want to be drawing fire anyway, and you're always going to be attacking anyway. And maybe for a multiclassed warlock, so you have the option of using first-level slots on it, and have more spells known to choose from. But not on a straight warlock.

[Witty Username]

If the party tank is taking fire, they're winning. You're one of the squishies. You don't want to be the one taking fire.


Tanking is contextual, and who is doing what is an important part of this question.

For example, take a barbarian and a warlock. The raging barbarian definitely has more HP than the warlock, but AC won't be all that different and damage will usually be in the barbarian's corner. In this case the barbarian might be the one to draw fire from rather than towards.
Also other casters, summons, spirit guardians, battlefield control spells. A warlock isn't the only party member. Generally a warlock concentating on hex is efficient but low impact, if a smuck runs through a spirt guardians to hit you, they should question every life decision that brought them to this point.

This also touches on positioning, generally enemies won't be just picking targets from a buffet, they will be repositioning, either losing actions to dash, absorbing opportunity attacks, etc. If an enemy is taking this stuff over a hex, you are gaining more than losing.

And the last thing, in any combat that goes pear shaped, pivoting is important, a full health wizard is better a tanking than a fighter that has eaten several rounds of combat and is hitting the single digits HP, take your beats and make your short rest dice actually do something. Hex is a decent spell choice here where health pools are probably getting low to make the d6 worth, and concentration works like a threat tool. Other things can still be better but its something.

[Kane0]

Hex is alright, neither a complete waste nor a gamechanger. As you level your precious concentration will face more and more competition, especially so on a warlock which can very realistically end up spending only one slot for an entire combat encounter.

[Unoriginal]

Tanking is contextual, and who is doing what is an important part of this question.

For example, take a barbarian and a warlock. The raging barbarian definitely has more HP than the warlock, but AC won't be all that different and damage will usually be in the barbarian's corner. In this case the barbarian might be the one to draw fire from rather than towards.
Also other casters, summons, spirit guardians, battlefield control spells. A warlock isn't the only party member. Generally a warlock concentating on hex is efficient but low impact, if a smuck runs through a spirt guardians to hit you, they should question every life decision that brought them to this point.

This also touches on positioning, generally enemies won't be just picking targets from a buffet, they will be repositioning, either losing actions to dash, absorbing opportunity attacks, etc. If an enemy is taking this stuff over a hex, you are gaining more than losing.

And the last thing, in any combat that goes pear shaped, pivoting is important, a full health wizard is better a tanking than a fighter that has eaten several rounds of combat and is hitting the single digits HP, take your beats and make your short rest dice actually do something. Hex is a decent spell choice here where health pools are probably getting low to make the d6 worth, and concentration works like a threat tool. Other things can still be better but its something.

I once played in an one-shot where I had the Barbarian and the other player had the Warlock. IIRC we were 3rd level.

Long story short, the Warlock keeping Hex on the boss was key to our victory, but so was the Barbarian keeping the boss grappled and away from the Warlock.

Was great teamwork.

[JackPhoenix]

It's not worth it in combat. Now, the no-save disadvantage on certain type of ability checks (most likely Wis, for both Perception and Insight)? That's a different matter.

[RedMage125]

I once played in an one-shot where I had the Barbarian and the other player had the Warlock. IIRC we were 3rd level.

Long story short, the Warlock keeping Hex on the boss was key to our victory, but so was the Barbarian keeping the boss grappled and away from the Warlock.

Was great teamwork.

I pulled the same trick when 5e was new. Warlock Hexed the largest opponent on the field, and my dragonborn Valor Bard Grappled him while the rest of the team took out all the mooks. Then we stomped the big guy.

[notthegiant]

It's not worth it in combat. Now, the no-save disadvantage on certain type of ability checks (most likely Wis, for both Perception and Insight)? That's a different matter.

I'm laughing imagining someone casting Charisma-Hex on a noble or politician on the day of a big speech or debate and watching them stumble over their words. You could probably get some good money out of that if you're hired by a rival of theirs.

[Unoriginal]

I'm laughing imagining someone casting Charisma-Hex on a noble or politician on the day of a big speech or debate and watching them stumble over their words. You could probably get some good money out of that if you're hired by a rival of theirs.

If you can do it without the Hex being detected, and/or identified as yours.

[JackPhoenix]

If you can do it without the Hex being detected, and/or identified as yours.

Step 1: Hex a chicken in private.
Step 2: Sacrifice the chicken.
Step 3: Keep concentrating
Step 4: Move the curse on the intended target without having to cast a spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not worth it in combat. Now, the no-save disadvantage on certain type of ability checks (most likely Wis, for both Perception and Insight)? That's a different matter. The damage boost is OK if one has extra attack. But I agree with you that the disadvantage on ability checks can be very useful.

Athletics is a good one to pull this on. Either the Lock or the allied fighter can push/shove/grapple ETC with more chances for success.

There's another way to get a lot out of hex.

If we include the Tasha's material, there's an invocation that gives advantage on Con saves for concentration. (Eldritch Mind)
If we take a feat to Ret resilient Con, you warlock has proficiency and advantage on con saves.

Toss in Skill Expert (later in life) to get expertise in Athletics.

The above idea is probably most useful on a Pact of the Blade build ... but if you put this all together the chances for keeping concentration up are substantially increased so that Hex lasts for a long time in most cases.

If you've got a MC Warlock/Fighter, and get the extra attack from fighter, you can occasionally do a little nova with 2 or 3 attacks on your action surge flurry if you have hex up.

I've used Hex from a feat in that regard on a paladin, and I very good success with knocking enemies down and then smiting them.

I am getting more utility out of it now. Fighter 12 (at the moment) Warlock 3 (Genie) with a Fey Touched feat. (While I can now get Hex as a warlock spell, at the moment I am using other spells. When my rune knight gets to large size, he's got advantage on Atheltics checks. He's got good strength. Even with a lot of the foes having decent strength, me having advantage and them having disadvantage usually results in me knocking the prone or shoving them out of the way. And if I need to "nova" the knock prone, two attacks, then three attacks with the action surge all have the damage rider on them.

What spell is usually up for concentration at this point? Currently, protection from Evil and Good. I have natural proficiency in Con saves, and I took the invocation for advantage, and we've been facing a substantial number of aberrations, fey, fiends, elementals, undead. Keeping that concentration up is handy when I am trying to take versus those kinds of enemies.

For a pure warlock? the extra D6 added to their attacks is nice, but not earth shaking.

Step 1: Hex a chicken in private.
Step 2: Sacrifice the chicken.
Step 3: Keep concentrating
Step 4: Move the curse on the intended target without having to cast a spell.
Brilliant plan (though the rat from one's usual bag of rats may be good enough, or one's familiar ...)
With the chicken, you also get a nice dinner out of it... :smallbiggrin:

[JackPhoenix]

Brilliant plan (though the rat from one's usual bag of rats may be good enough, or one's familiar ...)
With the chicken, you also get a nice dinner out of it... :smallbiggrin:

It's true bag of rats is the traditional answer in D&D, but black roosters also have a long history in being used that way. And you can buy chickens for 2cp, you have to catch rats on your own. Unless you use your own familiar. You monster.

[Sigreid]

Whether it's worth it depends on whether your group has a way to take advantage of the disadvantage via grappling, traps or speech checks or whatever.

[Theodoxus]

It's true bag of rats is the traditional answer in D&D, but black roosters also have a long history in being used that way. And you can buy chickens for 2cp, you have to catch rats on your own. Unless you use your own familiar. You monster.

"Charlie Combover, you know the plan. We're gonna get rich if Duke Machinations gets elected, and the best way to do that is if I Hex Lord Proudpants. So, I promise, I'll use some of the funds the Duke is providing to summon you back, mmkay?"

I suppose it's a little better than convincing the beastmaster to sacrifice his donkey, or whatever.

[Sigreid]

"Charlie Combover, you know the plan. We're gonna get rich if Duke Machinations gets elected, and the best way to do that is if I Hex Lord Proudpants. So, I promise, I'll use some of the funds the Duke is providing to summon you back, mmkay?"

I suppose it's a little better than convincing the beastmaster to sacrifice his donkey, or whatever.
Orphanages are full of people that won't be missed...

[KorvinStarmast]

Unless you use your own familiar. You monster. In this edition, the celestial spirit goes back to its dimension until you call it again. It can be an eagle or an owl next time...

(Good point on the black roosters)

[LudicSavant]

I was wondering about Hex. It's a great spell for low-level Warlocks, but upcasting it only affects the duration, which won't matter too much in combat. Is burning a 5th level slot for a 1st level effect worth it when you could cast something like Summon Aberration or Hold Monster instead?

The benefit of upcasting Hex as a Warlock is that it lasts longer than the short rest needed to refresh the slot, and thus can essentially become a "free" pre-cast, in which case yes, it can be worth it. Also, the ability to inflict Disadvantage on ability checks with no save is a relevant combo tool.

Summon Aberration, by contrast, you need to cast after your short rest, and thus is not a free pre-cast. It's a good spell that I use on Warlocks, but it's used for a different thing, in a different situation.

Hold Monster is a single target, all-or-nothing save or lose. Oh sure, if it lands on a lone big enemy, they basically lose the fight outright, but a lot of spells are like that without being quite as hit-or-miss. Also, big single targets at high levels often have legendary saves, magic resistance, or the like. I usually prefer solutions that shred them without having to go through their saves first (or, if it does go through their save, does something I want even if they succeed).

[RSP]

The best use of Hex is on a EB+RB/GoH+AB Warlock. It gets you additional damage on your most likely action. Add in Synaptic Static, Fireball, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Dimension Door, or any other non-Concentration spell.

EB+RB is such a A) fun playstyle, and B) effective way to control a battlefield.

You certainly could do other Concentration spells, but when your gameplay is EB anyway, adding to your damage, while still having full slots, ain’t bad.

[Bardon]

It's a decent pick for the Fey-Touched feat. Doesn't use up a spell slot and can work pretty nicely with non-Warlock builds. The damage isn't game-changing especially at high levels but the ability check hit is pretty nice for a grappler or a few other circumstances.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's a decent pick for the Fey-Touched feat. Doesn't use up a spell slot and can work pretty nicely with non-Warlock builds. The damage isn't game-changing especially at high levels but the ability check hit is pretty nice for a grappler or a few other circumstances.
That is where my Rune Knight got it: Fey Touched. Also, the misty step once per LR is good for certain pursuit and escape situations.

[Chronos]

Quoth Sigreid:

Orphanages are full of people that won't be missed...
Well, unless you roll a 1.

[Theodoxus]

Friday early afternoon, a coworker was leaving, and someone shouted out "we miss you!" and I replied "But our aim is getting better!" - unfortunately, they heard it as "but our anus getting better"... and were VERY confused for a bit.

Don't roll a 1 in social interactions :smallwink:

[Hiro Quester]

And maybe for a multiclassed warlock, so you have the option of using first-level slots on it, and have more spells known to choose from. But not on a straight warlock.

Im playing a multi-classed Swords Bard 6/Warlock 5, so I have first level slots with which to case Hex.

But usually I'm starting off combat with Slow or Hypnotic Pattern to take out or debuff enemies, then moving into melee to start stabbing enemies. If the enemies save against those kinds of spells, and I'm in melee combat, it's usually prudent to keep hitting the bad guys than to try another big concentration spell.

In cases like that, bonus action Hex (with disadvantage on strength checks to help my grappler friend) then keep hitting things is sometimes worth it. Especially since I'm using a 1st level bard slot for it.

It's the fact that I can cast Hex as a bonus action is the only thing that keeps it in rotation. If I have a turn to set up, then using an action to cast Spirit Shroud for an extra d8 is better, or there are much better things I can do with my concentration (I will soon have access to Greater Invisibility, for elven accuracy advantage, for instance).

But Hex being a bonus action and the fact that I can use a 1st level spell slot for it, occasionally still makes it worthwhile.

However, it won't be for long. Because Shadow Blade is also a bonus action concentration spell, and upcasting that does even more damage per hit. And we have a Twilight cleric in our group who is always throwing shade (twilight sanctuary) to make Shadowblade have advantage.

Shadow Blade with a 3rd level spell slot granting advantage and an extra 2d8 damage per hit over a rapier or longsword, is better than using the 3rd level slot for Eldritch Smite, even.

And now I have extra attack from Bard 6, the restriction on thirsting blade only working for your Pact weapon is moot.

So when I take Warlock 6, I'm switching out Hex for Shadow Blade.

[Psyren]

As a free damage boost (i.e. you're a Warlock who's able to rest and get the slot back you spent on it while keeping it active) it's fine. But at high levels, most casters including them will usually have something better to concentrate on.

[Yakk]

A level 11 warlock wakes up. They capture or spot a small creature. They hex it, and then they kill it.

Then they take a short rest.

They are now concentrating on Hex and have all of their spell slots back. This hex concentration lasts 24 hours.

Their at-will damage goes from 31.5 to 42, a 33% boost. This lasts until they need their concentration for something else, or lose concentration.

You can also impose disadvantage on either strength/dex (if the target is likely to be grappled) or spellcasting attribute (if they have counterspell) checks.

If you spot a foe before combat starts, you can impose dex disadvantage to give them disadvantage on their initiative check.

[Theodoxus]

i made a ruling that you can cast Hex just like any other readied spell. You're concentrating on it anyway, so there's no real need to cast it on a critter to then kill. The real breaking from RAW is that I allow the casting onto a creature to still be a BA, instead of a reaction like readying a spell normally would be, and when initially readying the spell, I don't require a trigger - or at best, the trigger is generic like "I wait to cast the spell on the next creature I want to kill."

[JackPhoenix]

i made a ruling that you can cast Hex just like any other readied spell. You're concentrating on it anyway, so there's no real need to cast it on a critter to then kill. The real breaking from RAW is that I allow the casting onto a creature to still be a BA, instead of a reaction like readying a spell normally would be, and when initially readying the spell, I don't require a trigger - or at best, the trigger is generic like "I wait to cast the spell on the next creature I want to kill."

The point of casting it on a critter and then transferring the curse is that you DON'T have to obviously cast a spell in a situation where it would be noticed.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you spot a foe before combat starts, you can impose dex disadvantage to give them disadvantage on their initiative check. Heh, given the stealthiness of my Rune Knight, I may start trying to do that if I can get the rest of the party to quit making so much noise. :smallannoyed:

[Theodoxus]

The point of casting it on a critter and then transferring the curse is that you DON'T have to obviously cast a spell in a situation where it would be noticed.

Not obviously cast it when you move it? That's a ruling too. Nothing in the spell states that the curse is subtly cast when it's moved.


If you spot a foe before combat starts, you can impose dex disadvantage to give them disadvantage on their initiative check.

Didn't we have a massive thread recently regarding just this? Can you cast a spell/attack someone before initiative is rolled?

[JackPhoenix]

Not obviously cast it when you move it? That's a ruling too. Nothing in the spell states that the curse is subtly cast when it's moved.

It's not a ruling. You aren't casting anything, subtly or otherwise, when you're moving the curse.

[Theodoxus]

It's not a ruling. You aren't casting anything, subtly or otherwise, when you're moving the curse.

"...you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of your to curse a new creature."

You're cursing the new creature, just as you did the first. Technically, it requires VSM to do it. Or, do you think it's purely psychic in nature? To state otherwise is a ruling. It's fine. It's not, however, how the spell is written.

[JackPhoenix]

"...you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of your to curse a new creature."

You're cursing the new creature, just as you did the first. Technically, it requires VSM to do it. Or, do you think it's purely psychic in nature? To state otherwise is a ruling. It's fine. It's not, however, how the spell is written.

No, it's not like the first time. You are not casting the spell again. To state otherwise is a houserule.

[Psyren]

As written I don't think reassigning it has components like casting does. But I agree that it probably should, if only to prevent "Hex a squirrel, stab it, and then become a psion for the rest of the day" shenanigans.

[Theodoxus]

If it's not like casting it the first time, what is the action your bonus action is taking?

I'll reiterate it this way. If your warlock casts Hex on a rat, kills the rat, is concentrating on the spell, then gets caught in a Silence trap, but sees the Cleric who cast it within 40 feet of them, you're saying they can Hex the Cleric with no issues? Change Silence to Hold Person. Same question.

Again, WHAT is the action your bonus action is taking to "move" (your word, not the spells) the curse to another creature?

[JackPhoenix]

If it's not like casting it the first time, what is the action your bonus action is taking?
Cursing a new creature. Just like the spell's description says. Just like the bonus action mentioned in Animate Dead allows you to give new orders to your undead, the bonus action mentioned in Melf's Minute Meteors allows you to launch another meteor, the bonus action mentioned in Flame Blade allows you to recreate the blade again if you've dropped it before or the bonus action mentioned in Heat Metal allows you to damage anyone touching the targetted object, all without having to cast the spell again.


I'll reiterate it this way. If your warlock casts Hex on a rat, kills the rat, is concentrating on the spell, then gets caught in a Silence trap, but sees the Cleric who cast it within 40 feet of them, you're saying they can Hex the Cleric with no issues?
Depends. Does "Hex the cleric" mean casting the spell again, or using a bonus action to curse a new creature with the original Hex? If the former, than no, casting Hex requires verbal component, which you can't provide while silenced. If the later, yes, because you aren't casting a spell and there's no requirement to be able to speak to curse a new creature.


Change Silence to Hold Person. Same question.
No, because you can't take a bonus action while incapacitated. How is that even a question?


Again, WHAT is the action your bonus action is taking to "move" (your word, not the spells) the curse to another creature?
Again, cursing a new creature. And YOUR word, not mine, I was merely repeating it after you.

[Theodoxus]

The spell actually uses the word 'curse' I didn't pull it out of thin air like you did with 'move.'

How many threads have we had where we use common English when taking about the words used in the various rule sets. Yet here, in this ONE instance, Cursing something doesn't actually require words. Amazing. It's called Hex. It's a Curse. It has a verbal component. Yet once it's up and running, your can just will something to be cursed provided you have the ability to take a bonus action and the Hex isn't sitting on a living creature already. (I'm shocked I have to be so clinical in the explanation, but you're trying to misconstrue what I'm putting down, so explicit it is.) In no fairy tale I know of, does a witch (or warlock) just glare at someone and put a Hex on them. Or even just give a side eye. Or really just hope their intended target is within range.

You do you, boo. But that psychic voodoo isn't flying at my table. Sorry.

[JackPhoenix]

How many threads have we had where we use common English when taking about the words used in the various rule sets. Yet here, in this ONE instance, Cursing something doesn't actually require words. Amazing. It's called Hex. It's a Curse. It has a verbal component. Yet once it's up and running, your can just will something to be cursed provided you have the ability to take a bonus action and the Hex isn't sitting on a living creature already. (I'm shocked I have to be so clinical in the explanation, but you're trying to misconstrue what I'm putting down, so explicit it is.)
So you finally understand how the spell works. Glad to be of service!


In no fairy tale I know of, does a witch (or warlock) just glare at someone and put a Hex on them. Or even just give a side eye. Or really just hope their intended target is within range.
Ok, and? You're the only one who cares about fairy tales. Weird you've never heard about evil eye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_eye), though, considering how widespread belief it is.


You do you, boo. But that psychic voodoo isn't flying at my table. Sorry.
Alright. Thanks for sharing your houserule with the rest of us.

[RSP]

"...you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of your to curse a new creature."

You're cursing the new creature, just as you did the first. Technically, it requires VSM to do it. Or, do you think it's purely psychic in nature? To state otherwise is a ruling. It's fine. It's not, however, how the spell is written.

Do you require a new slot be used when you transfer, because if you’re considering cursing a new target casting the spell again, then you need a new slot to be used:

“When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher”

[Chronos]

Or if you're asking what the character is physically doing when they transfer the curse, well, we don't even know what they were doing when they cast it the first time. We know they said something, because of the verbal component, but that's clearly not all they were doing, because the other party members can't just say the same word and get their own Hex. They're also tapping into their emotions, or remembering the bond they made with their patron, or doing something that only a spellcaster can do, and that's something aside from the outward, physical manifestation of the components.

Well, whatever extra thing it was that they did to cast the spell, they're doing that same thing again to transfer it. But without the magic words this time, because it didn't say you need those.

[Psyren]

I mean if you're going with the reading that the verbal component is excluded then you might as well do the same for the somatic, so they don't even need to repeat the physical motion (whatever it was) either.

Personally though, I think componentless Hexing is intended to be a specific benefit of the new GOOlock so I would want some indication of an active Hex being reassigned. And yes, I know it'd be a houserule.

[RSP]

I mean if you're going with the reading that the verbal component is excluded then you might as well do the same for the somatic, so they don't even need to repeat the physical motion (whatever it was) either.

Personally though, I think componentless Hexing is intended to be a specific benefit of the new GOOlock so I would want some indication of an active Hex being reassigned. And yes, I know it'd be a houserule.

For clarity: you’re stating this as a response to the unreleased rules, correct? Or is there a Goolock feature that does this in the current 5e ruleset?

[Psyren]

For clarity: you’re stating this as a response to the unreleased rules, correct? Or is there a Goolock feature that does this in the current 5e ruleset?

Yes - when I said "new GOOlock," I did in fact mean the new one :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[GeneralVryth]

I am also in the camp, that the Hex recasting should have some component(s), the what is the question as usual. Though, I have to admit the idea of making a sacrifice in order to use it quietly later does have a certain narrative appeal.

As for whether or not that's RAW? That's not a useful question in the first place, especially in a case like this where they don't speak on the issue one way or another.

[RSP]

Yes - when I said "new GOOlock," I did in fact mean the new one :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

That was my assumption but discussing the currently rule as a means of backwards-compatible, hypothetical new rule made me want to double check.

But I think it’s a moot point as if they change specific rules, there will be changes to how rules interact seems inevitable. However, I prefer to wait to see the actual rule changes first. For example, if the new Goolock doesn’t have that feature, it wouldn’t affect the current Hex at all, unless of course, they change Hex in the update.

[Psyren]

I am also in the camp, that the Hex recasting should have some component(s), the what is the question as usual. Though, I have to admit the idea of making a sacrifice in order to use it quietly later does have a certain narrative appeal.

As for whether or not that's RAW? That's not a useful question in the first place, especially in a case like this where they don't speak on the issue one way or another.

I think it's useful to know what expectation to set with your players (or what to ask your DM for.)


That was my assumption but discussing the currently rule as a means of backwards-compatible, hypothetical new rule made me want to double check.

But I think it’s a moot point as if they change specific rules, there will be changes to how rules interact seems inevitable. However, I prefer to wait to see the actual rule changes first. For example, if the new Goolock doesn’t have that feature, it wouldn’t affect the current Hex at all, unless of course, they change Hex in the update.

Fair enough - but while the fine details might change, the broad strokes of being able to cast enchantments psionically (i.e. without components) seems to me to be a pretty bankable "killer app" to distinguish the updated Great Old One patron both from its predecessor and from all the others.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair enough - but while the fine details might change, the broad strokes of being able to cast enchantments psionically (i.e. without components) seems to me to be a pretty bankable "killer app" to distinguish the updated Great Old One patron both from its predecessor and from all the others. But what do we do with all of those dead squirrels? (I suspect that the Swedish Chef could make a stew from them (Muppets reference))

[diplomancer]

Whether shifting Hex should require components is a different question of whether it does require components.

It doesn't. Components are only required when you CAST the spell.


A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.

And:


When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher, effectively "filling" a slot with the spell.

You're not spending a slot, because you're not casting the spell. Likewise, you don't need any components either.

Bonus: Hexblade's curse is another feature that curses and that does not require any verbal component.

[Psyren]

Can Rangers reassign Hunter's Mark by thinking about it?


But what do we do with all of those dead squirrels? (I suspect that the Swedish Chef could make a stew from them (Muppets reference))

This went over my head.

[GeneralVryth]

Whether shifting Hex should require components is a different question of whether it does require components.

It doesn't. Components are only required when you CAST the spell.


The book doesn't say anything, one way or the other. Here is the entirety of what the book says on bonus action re-application, "If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell
ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature. A remove curse cast on the target ends this spell early."

There is no description at all on what it means to curse someone. As a player its nice to assume it's entirely mental because it opens room for a subtle application (of course I wonder how a player would feel about it in the reverse). But there is no evidence it means that any more than it means needing to repeat the casting V, S, M components without spending a spell slot. It also, doesn't say if the target knows where they are cursed, whether they glow in some odd light, does the outline of a skull and crossbones appear over their head? Or is there no indication at, all and you have to guess about the need to remove the curse? Hex is a great example of a spell without enough general description.

And ultimately this is another example of why what the book says is more guideline than some all encompassing truth to be hurled at people.

So what should it do?
Does the re-application have a verbal component? This makes sense more than anything else, cursing some someone traditionally isn't silent (though I could easily see ways to try and make it subtle).
Does the re-application have a somatic component? I could take or leave this, but since the spell does, it makes sense to need it as well.
Does the re-application have a material component? You're not really casting a spell, so I would rule no.
Does the spell have a visual component indicating its presence? I would say no, that feels too video gamey.
Does the target know they have been cursed? This is tough, I would say they know something is off, especially after they first need to roll with disadvantage, or take extra damage due to the curse.

[Chronos]

The rules also don't say that a fighter doesn't need to shout every time they hit someone with a sword, or that the rogue doesn't need to quote a witty quip whenever they sneak attack. In fact, there are a lot of things the rules don't say you don't need to do. You can't make a list of all of the things characters don't need to do, because that list would be literally infinite. The only sane approach, here, is to assume that the rules list the things you do need to do, and that anything they don't list, isn't needed.

Oh, and you do not want to cook squirrels without knowing exactly what you're doing. I think there's some gland you need to remove first, or something... I don't know. But I do know that if you don't do it, the stench is intolerable from a block away.

[diplomancer]

The book doesn't say anything, one way or the other. Here is the entirety of what the book says on bonus action re-application, "If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell
ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature. A remove curse cast on the target ends this spell early."

There is no description at all on what it means to curse someone. As a player its nice to assume it's entirely mental because it opens room for a subtle application (of course I wonder how a player would feel about it in the reverse). But there is no evidence it means that any more than it means needing to repeat the casting V, S, M components without spending a spell slot. It also, doesn't say if the target knows where they are cursed, whether they glow in some odd light, does the outline of a skull and crossbones appear over their head? Or is there no indication at, all and you have to guess about the need to remove the curse? Hex is a great example of a spell without enough general description.

And ultimately this is another example of why what the book says is more guideline than some all encompassing truth to be hurled at people.

So what should it do?
Does the re-application have a verbal component? This makes sense more than anything else, cursing some someone traditionally isn't silent (though I could easily see ways to try and make it subtle).
Does the re-application have a somatic component? I could take or leave this, but since the spell does, it makes sense to need it as well.
Does the re-application have a material component? You're not really casting a spell, so I would rule no.
Does the spell have a visual component indicating its presence? I would say no, that feels too video gamey.
Does the target know they have been cursed? This is tough, I would say they know something is off, especially after they first need to roll with disadvantage, or take extra damage due to the curse.

You are free to add requirements that are not in the rules. But then you're following your houserule. You need components when you're casting the spell, that's all the book says,.not when you're using bonus actions or actions the spell gives you.

The book also doesn't say that you have to loudly shout whatever spell you're casting- not as its verbal component, just an extra requirement- so would you say that if a DM required that he would just be "making a ruling" and not creating a houserule?

[GeneralVryth]

You are free to add requirements that are not in the rules. But then you're following your houserule. You need components when you're casting the spell, that's all the book says,.not when you're using bonus actions or actions the spell gives you.

Actually I am following the basic rule of the game, that a DM makes rulings on things, especially where the books are silent. Calling something a houserule just because you don't agree with an interpretation doesn't make it one.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can Rangers reassign Hunter's Mark by thinking about it? Yes. (That's how it has always played out at our tables; Ranger PC tells DM where it moves).

This went over my head. Here ya go (https://youtu.be/VCxpQ5sjo8s). And I think that ref is maybe 40 years old. But it sure stuck in my head, since it became a running gag in our gaming group for silly reasons.

Actually I am following the basic rule of the game, that a DM makes rulings on things, especially where the books are silent. Calling something a houserule just because you don't agree with an interpretation doesn't make it one. Indeed. Not sure if it was in this thread or the other, but the use of house rule in a pejorative sense has been commented upon

[diplomancer]

Indeed. Not sure if it was in this thread or the other, but the use of house rule in a pejorative sense has been commented upon

I don't use it as a pejorative, but as a neutral description. I'm all for houserules. I'm against people saying their houserules are the rules of the game. Specially in a thread discussing the pros and cons of a game feature. If we're on a thread debating whether Subtle Spell is a good metamagic and someone says "well, my DM requires the names of the spells to be shouted when they are cast, so Subtle Metamagic is useless", I'd say "ok, it's useless at your table", but would also point out that their DM has a houserule that, in fact, makes Subtle Spell useless, and would caution that this evaluation should not be carried to other tables.

A DM creating new requirements that are not in the rules is not "a ruling", or there is no such thing as a houserule. A ruling is the DM evaluating different rules and how they fit together and apply to different situations not covered by the rules.

I will use here as an example a common (and, in my opinion, bad) houserule. The Critical Fail on an attack when you roll a 1. The rules say that it's an automatic miss, but not that something bad happens in addition. But they also don't say that nothing bad happens in addition. So is a DM who decides that something bad happens in addition making a ruling or applying a houserule? I would definitely say "applying a houserule". And if the "something bad" was particularly bad, halflings would probably be the best race in the game. If someone said "halflings are the best race in the game, soecially for Fighters, because when you roll a natural 1 on an attack something horribly bad happens", I'd point out that his opinion, though true for his table, is based on a houserule of his DM, and should not be considered general advice when selecting races.

[Theodoxus]

Then I guess there should be a discussion on what is a homebrew, what is a houserule and what is a ruling.

These are 100% just my opinion. Feel free to agree, disagree, or agree to disagree...

A Homebrew is anything that doesn't appear anywhere in any book that creates something new out of whole cloth. A new spell, a new class, a new subclass... It's not a modification to an existing rule; it's not changing Fireball to deal d8s, or only 5d6 damage. It's not changing stipulations or requirements to an existing rule; it's not removing the need for the Warcaster feat to cast spells while wielding a weapon and shield. Homebrew tends to be DM specific and difficult to port into someone else's game. As such, I would say something like critical fumbles would be homebrew.

A Houserule is a modification to a current rule, not something wholly new. Basically, all the things I said weren't Homebrew, are houserules. They're fundamental changes to how the existing rules as written state how they work. These also include all the optional rules in the DMG - so, gritty realism, proficiency dice, even the Death Domain and Oathbreaker subclasses - all houserules. They are things you could generally request at any table and get buy-in, all things being equal.

A Ruling is an interpretation by a single DM to a specific interaction that isn't expressly covered in the rules. Hopefully the ruling is consistent within a specific campaign, but doesn't need to be across different campaigns with the same DM. Things like spell interactions (the famous Wall of Fire vs Tidal Wave), or what is required to curse or mark another creature with Hex or Hunter's Mark.

Rulings can get very close to Houserule territory; I would probably differentiate edge cases by whether they are persistent across campaigns or not. For instance, if my homebrew world had magic being concrete, where interactions between spells acted exactly like their realworld mundane counterparts (if such a thing were even possible), then that would be a Houserule and would override any other potential rulings I might make. However, if one campaign I was running had concrete magic, and another had no magic interactions beyond what is expressed in the spells themselves (basically magic ignores other magic except for Dispel Magic, Antimagic, Counterspell, etc.) then whatever rulings I come up with in regards to such interactions would remain as rulings, not houserules.

[RSP]

Then I guess there should be a discussion on what is a homebrew, what is a houserule and what is a ruling

“You need to recast Hex whenever you change targets”, is, 100%, a house rule. Nothing in any existing part of the RAW even hints at this.

Further, it specifically goes against the duration and RAI of the spell: that you can Concentrate on it over multiple encounters throughout the day, when upcast.

And even further, if you aren’t also using a new spell slot for these new castings (RAW a requirement of casting a non-cantrip spell), you’re additionally creating an additional house rule that “casting a leveled spell doesn’t necessarily require a spell slot anymore.”

[GeneralVryth]

I don't use it as a pejorative, but as a neutral description.


Maybe not by you, but it certainly was being used antagonistically earlier in this thread.


“You need to recast Hex whenever you change targets”, is, 100%, a house rule. Nothing in any existing part of the RAW even hints at this.


I haven't said it was a re-cast, some have. But just because it's not a recast doesn't mean "cursing" someone doesn't have requirements.



A DM creating new requirements that are not in the rules is not "a ruling", or there is no such thing as a houserule. A ruling is the DM evaluating different rules and how they fit together and apply to different situations not covered by the rules.


Adjudicating something that isn't clear is a ruling, see below.


Then I guess there should be a discussion on what is a homebrew, what is a houserule and what is a ruling.

These are 100% just my opinion. Feel free to agree, disagree, or agree to disagree...

A Homebrew is anything that doesn't appear anywhere in any book that creates something new out of whole cloth. A new spell, a new class, a new subclass... It's not a modification to an existing rule; it's not changing Fireball to deal d8s, or only 5d6 damage. It's not changing stipulations or requirements to an existing rule; it's not removing the need for the Warcaster feat to cast spells while wielding a weapon and shield. Homebrew tends to be DM specific and difficult to port into someone else's game. As such, I would say something like critical fumbles would be homebrew.

A Houserule is a modification to a current rule, not something wholly new. Basically, all the things I said weren't Homebrew, are houserules. They're fundamental changes to how the existing rules as written state how they work. These also include all the optional rules in the DMG - so, gritty realism, proficiency dice, even the Death Domain and Oathbreaker subclasses - all houserules. They are things you could generally request at any table and get buy-in, all things being equal.

A Ruling is an interpretation by a single DM to a specific interaction that isn't expressly covered in the rules. Hopefully the ruling is consistent within a specific campaign, but doesn't need to be across different campaigns with the same DM. Things like spell interactions (the famous Wall of Fire vs Tidal Wave), or what is required to curse or mark another creature with Hex or Hunter's Mark.


I agree on the homebrew front. Here is how I would define houserules versus rulings (though they do drift close together).

A ruling is an adjudication of something (usually an interaction between things) in the rules that is unclear or not spelled out. Defining what it means to curse someone in the case of Hex, is a ruling. So is the Flame Wall versus Tidal Wave (or Tsunami) debate, and just about anything that was being discussed near the end of that thread. As a general rule if you are in the territory of trying to infer what something means from other parts of the text because it's not spelled out, it's a ruling.

A houserule, is clear modification of an existing rule. A favorite of mine banning/significantly changing Simulacrum. Removing the concentration requirement of Hex when up-cast past a certain point is another (and one I may allow, same with Hunter's Mark).

[Psyren]

Here ya go (https://youtu.be/VCxpQ5sjo8s). And I think that ref is maybe 40 years old. But it sure stuck in my head, since it became a running gag in our gaming group for silly reasons.

Ohhh I get you now. If you had quoted my "stab the squirrel" post instead of the one talking about 2024 GOOlock I would have made the connection much faster :smallsmile:


Regarding the "houserule" discussion - for the record, I do believe requiring Hex/Mark transfer to have the same components as the original casting is a houserule. But it's a houserule I fully support, because I think the squirrel loophole is neither intended nor sensible.

[diplomancer]

Ohhh I get you now. If you had quoted my "stab the squirrel" post instead of the one talking about 2024 GOOlock I would have made the connection much faster :smallsmile:


Regarding the "houserule" discussion - for the record, I do believe requiring Hex/Mark transfer to have the same components as the original casting is a houserule. But it's a houserule I fully support, because I think the squirrel loophole is neither intended nor sensible.

The "squirrel loophole" gives you 3 advantages:

1- you can get the slot back on a Short Rest... which many people say, and I agree with them, that this is possibly what could keep Hex relevant over higher level, if it does.
2- you can apply Hex later and still cast a leveled spell in the same turn
3- you can subtly apply Hex to your foes afterwards.

Of these 3 advantages, I'd say the first will usually be the most relevant, the second will be relevant frequently but not make much difference either way, and the third will usually not make any difference- but when it DOES make any difference, it can be pivotal. And requiring components would only deal with advantage 3, not advantages 1 or 2, so the "squirrel loophole" would carry on nevertheless.

[GeneralVryth]

The "squirrel loophole" gives you 3 advantages:

1- you can get the slot back on a Short Rest... which many people say, and I agree with them, that this is possibly what could keep Hex relevant over higher level, if it does.
2- you can apply Hex later and still cast a leveled spell in the same turn
3- you can subtly apply Hex to your foes afterwards.

Of these 3 advantages, I'd say the first will usually be the most relevant, the second will be relevant frequently but not make much difference either way, and the third will usually not make any difference- but when it DOES make any difference, it can be pivotal. And requiring components would only deal with advantage 3, not advantages 1 or 2, so the "squirrel loophole" would carry on nevertheless.

My components ruling is only trying to address part 3. 1 and 2 I am fine with. 3 is potentially the problematic one. It may not have a lot use in combat (which is why the spell is likely silent on it), but it can be quite powerful outside of it. Too powerful for a level 1 spell.

[Psyren]

The "squirrel loophole" gives you 3 advantages:

1- you can get the slot back on a Short Rest... which many people say, and I agree with them, that this is possibly what could keep Hex relevant over higher level, if it does.
2- you can apply Hex later and still cast a leveled spell in the same turn
3- you can subtly apply Hex to your foes afterwards.

Of these 3 advantages, I'd say the first will usually be the most relevant, the second will be relevant frequently but not make much difference either way, and the third will usually not make any difference- but when it DOES make any difference, it can be pivotal. And requiring components would only deal with advantage 3, not advantages 1 or 2, so the "squirrel loophole" would carry on nevertheless.

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I have zero problem with the first two. Being able to short-rest the Hex slot back is clearly intended by the designers - there's no way they'd have expected most groups to go 8 hours without a short rest, let alone 24. And being able to direct/activate an ongoing leveled spell and still cast another leveled spell is also intended, e.g. Flaming Sphere or Bigby's Hand or Crown of Stars.

What I have a problem with is #3, i.e. the reassignment being completely impossible to detect or counterplay in any way. That's the one I'm not convinced has designer intent behind it, especially when it encourages such unintuitive behavior to reliably trigger.

[diplomancer]

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I have zero problem with the first two. Being able to short-rest the Hex slot back is clearly intended by the designers - there's no way they'd have expected most groups to go 8 hours without a short rest, let alone 24. And being able to direct/activate an ongoing leveled spell and still cast another leveled spell is also intended, e.g. Flaming Sphere or Bigby's Hand or Crown of Stars.

What I have a problem with is #3, i.e. the reassignment being completely impossible to detect or counterplay in any way. That's the one I'm not convinced has designer intent behind it, especially when it encourages such unintuitive behavior to reliably trigger.

But 1 and 2 also rely on the "unintuitive behaviour" of killing a squirrel in the morning. 1, 2, and 3 are in fact all dependent on the same behavior. You think 3 is too powerful, and are willing to create some houserules to nerf it. Which is fine, as long as you are aware of perhaps unintended side effects of this houserule which make the spell worse (like, you can't curse new targets anymore in a zone of Silence, for instance).

And, tying it back to the thread's title question, other unintended side effects, like your players deciding that Hex is simply not worth it at higher levels. For myself, I think it's elegant spell design that an iconic spell that had some good uses at lower levels still keep their worth on higher levels, perhaps through different uses.

[Psyren]

But 1 and 2 also rely on the "unintuitive behaviour" of killing a squirrel in the morning.

No they don't :smallconfused: You can extend a Hex through a short rest without killing anyone, and reassigning a Hex to a new target is the entire point of it lasting as long as it does; if it wasn't reassignable, you might as well change the duration to "Concentration, up to 1 minute." Neither #1 nor #2 rely on unintuitive behavior to function.

[GeneralVryth]

No they don't :smallconfused: You can extend a Hex through a short rest without killing anyone, and reassigning a Hex to a new target is the entire point of it lasting as long as it does; if it wasn't reassignable, you might as well change the duration to "Concentration, up to 1 minute." Neither #1 nor #2 rely on unintuitive behavior to function.

I second Pysern here. Also, Hex really isn't that elegant. It's half spell and half class ability, and the fact it always has a concentration requirement reduces its effectiveness as a class ability. And it probably is too front loaded power wise for a class ability (Eldritch and Agonizing Blast have the same problem, by Warlock 2 you have all of the power you are going to get and spend the next 18 levels wherever).

And yeah, it not working in a silence field is fine for me for the re-application.

[RSP]

What I have a problem with is #3, i.e. the reassignment being completely impossible to detect or counterplay in any way. That's the one I'm not convinced has designer intent behind it, especially when it encourages such unintuitive behavior to reliably trigger.

I’m not sure Hex is detectable at all in the game world, other than noticing the casting.

To me, it’s always been a “bad luck” kind of curse. I don’t ever play that things like Disadvantage mechanic is known by the characters (they may realize it’s harder to hit a target when they’re restrained, by they have idea about dice rolls or rolling two and using the lower roll). So with someone who is the target of Hex, they don’t instinctively know that they unsuccessfully petitioned the King because they’re Hexed, they just know the meeting went badly as they were less persuasive than they hoped or thought they would be.

I also don’t see why this isn’t 100% intended. I can’t imagine the designers were thinking switching it could be counterspelled or that characters would know the Disadvantage mechanic.

The damage is noticeable of course, but that doesn’t mean its source is. If hit with a sword, even if there’s a “this isn’t just slashing damage” it’s not like they auto-know “oh I’m under the effects of Hex”: it’s certainly not the only time an attack has other-than-B/S/P damage.

[diplomancer]

No they don't :smallconfused: You can extend a Hex through a short rest without killing anyone, and reassigning a Hex to a new target is the entire point of it lasting as long as it does; if it wasn't reassignable, you might as well change the duration to "Concentration, up to 1 minute." Neither #1 nor #2 rely on unintuitive behavior to function.

You can extend the Hex through a Short Rest without killing anyone, but you can't apply it to anyone else unless the original creature you applied it to has reached 0 hit points. And if you're getting them to 0 hit points but not killing them just so you can apply it to others later, I'd argue that this is even less intuitive than sacrificing small animals to your Patron when you wake up (and if you're worried about all the poor dead little squirrels, I'd point out you don't NEED to kill them, just drop them to 0 hit points :D)

To have both the spell slot back after the short rest, but also the spell being useful after it, the creature you Hexed will almost always have to first be killed.

[RSP]

Also, it seems odd to go from “this spell isn’t worth it” to “this spell is overpowered” based on the cursing a new target not being detectable or not.

I’ve never thought of that before this thread brought it up, but I’d say the spell loses a lot of what it has going for it if you add in a noticeable cue that says “you’ve been Hexed!”

[GeneralVryth]

Also, it seems odd to go from “this spell isn’t worth it” to “this spell is overpowered” based on the cursing a new target not being detectable or not.

I’ve never thought of that before this thread brought it up, but I’d say the spell loses a lot of what it has going for it if you add in a noticeable cue that says “you’ve been Hexed!”

While I can't speak for others, but hex is a great spell, especially at earlier levels when its concentration requirement causes fewer conflict. The recasting being subtle just takes it a step too far. I also don't think the recast was ever intended to be subtle (the spell casting isn't, and the recast description and action cost mostly invoke the original casting, just without the spell slot cost).

As for whether the target knows, I am in the camp that they know something is off, and aware there is a problem, but more information is needed to figure out specifics. Also, never really thinking about it before now, shows how the developers could have done the same with how subtle the recast is meant to be. In the vast majority of situations Hex is used in, it doesn't matter. It's when you are trying to get clever it does, I imagine that is less likely to come up a lot in play tests.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, never really thinking about it before now, shows how the developers could have done the same with how subtle the recast is meant to be. In the vast majority of situations Hex is used in, it doesn't matter. It's when you are trying to get clever it does, I imagine that is less likely to come up a lot in play tests. Well put.

I now have a new term to toy with: the squirrel loophole. That's an unexpected bonus from this thread. :smallsmile:

[Chronos]

My group has houseruled (and yes, it is a houserule) that you get the benefits of the squirrel loophole without actually needing the squirrel: That is, you can cast Hex on nothing in particular, and then transfer it as if the target was dead. Sacrificing a critter every morning is thematic for some warlocks (say, fiendish ones), but not so much for others, and if your group decides that that's a reasonable level of power for warlocks to have, it should be available to all of them.

[diplomancer]

I believe trying to divine what the devs intended, absent their actual words, be it officially on the SAC or even unofficially on Twitter, is something of a fool's game, and we end up believing that the devs intended exactly what we think should be the rule.

[Psyren]

I now have a new term to toy with: the squirrel loophole. That's an unexpected bonus from this thread. :smallsmile:

I'd say it's not exactly new, it's also known as bag of rats or boil an anthill or sacrificial lamb/sheep. Basically, any game mechanic that triggers on death, the designers should test what happens if you use that mechanic on a critter or insect (and/or multitudes). If the players get power or utility out of doing so, then the mechanic needs to be revised because they absolutely will try that in game. Unfortunately that wasn't the case here.


I believe trying to divine what the devs intended, absent their actual words, be it officially on the SAC or even unofficially on Twitter, is something of a fool's game, and we end up believing that the devs intended exactly what we think should be the rule.


Also, it seems odd to go from “this spell isn’t worth it” to “this spell is overpowered” based on the cursing a new target not being detectable or not.

I’ve never thought of that before this thread brought it up, but I’d say the spell loses a lot of what it has going for it if you add in a noticeable cue that says “you’ve been Hexed!”

It's not that it's "overpowered" - but clearly if they meant for Hex to be undetectable they wouldn't have given it a verbal component in the first place. Compare Hex to something like, say, the Friends cantrip, which is much more clearly intended to be subtly usable mid-conversation and not noticed when cast (though afterward is a different matter.)

[Witty Username]

But 1 and 2 also rely on the "unintuitive behaviour" of killing a squirrel in the morning.

Not nessasarily, usually how this comes up for my group is hexing for a early combat in the day, and then it happens to persist, which isn't all that unintuitive.

3 kinda does, since it is predicated on non-combat and so would nessitate forcing a hex senario to get the full effect of unless your day happens to match up with what you need.

[diplomancer]

I'd say it's not exactly new, it's also known as bag of rats or boil an anthill or sacrificial lamb/sheep. Basically, any game mechanic that triggers on death, the designers should test what happens if you use that mechanic on a critter or insect (and/or multitudes). If the players get power or utility out of doing so, then the mechanic needs to be revised because they absolutely will try that in game. Unfortunately that wasn't the case here.





It's not that it's "overpowered" - but clearly if they meant for Hex to be undetectable they wouldn't have given it a verbal component in the first place. Compare Hex to something like, say, the Friends cantrip, which is much more clearly intended to be subtly usable mid-conversation and not noticed when cast (though afterward is a different matter.)

A good example of the point I was making. "The devs clearly intended for moving the Hex to be noticeable, otherwise they wouldn't have added verbal components to the spell when you were casting it several hours before. Compare it to this spell, that requires you to do the very noticeable action of applying makeup to your face, this is a good example of a spell that they don't want people to notice that you're casting."


Not nessasarily, usually how this comes up for my group is hexing for a early combat in the day, and then it happens to persist, which isn't all that unintuitive.

3 kinda does, since it is predicated on non-combat and so would nessitate forcing a hex senario to get the full effect of unless your day happens to match up with what you need.

3 can be used out of combat, but can also be very effective for combats, like Hexing the initiative roll of the BBEG while he's monologuing.

Also: would you allow 3 if it happened "naturally"? I.e, there was a combat, the player used Hex, later there was a non-combat situation where he could use the debuff on an antagonist? Honestly, I don't like the "squirrel loophole", never used it, and would ask my players not to use it either (which I believe to be the correct way of dealing with all such loopholes the DM dislikes, a simple "please, don't"). But if they had used Hex earlier in the day for a combat, kept it throughout the day (at the opportunity cost of not casting any spells that take longer than an action, including ritual spells, as well as not casting any concentration spells) and then wanted to use it to Hex an antagonist at dinner unnoticed, I'd say more power to them.

[Psyren]

when you were casting it several hours before.

If it was only intended to be used "hours before" it wouldn't be a bonus action. Action/BA spells are balanced for combat use.

But to be honest, I'm not really interested in continued back-and-forth. I've given my opinion on the houserule (favorable) and will be using it, we'll never have to play together, all is well.

[diplomancer]

If it was only intended to be used "hours before" it wouldn't be a bonus action. Action/BA spells are balanced for combat use.

But to be honest, I'm not really interested in continued back-and-forth. I've given my opinion on the houserule (favorable) and will be using it, we'll never have to play together, all is well.

Increasing the duration of the spell to several hours when it's cast at a higher level is, indeed, evidence of intent that the spell can be cast several hours before, and used several hours later, when cast at a higher level.

[Segev]

Perhaps an Invocation?

Evil Eye
Prerequisite: Must know hex.
When you cast hex, you may choose to have your left eye take on a supernatural appearance denoting its vile power. It may have its sclera turn black or crimson, continually drip tears of blood, glow with power, or any other mark of its supernatural charge. If you do, then you do not need to concentrate on this casting of hex. If you cast hex again for any reason, any casting maintained by your evil eye ends.

[Psyren]

Perhaps an Invocation?

Evil Eye
Prerequisite: Must know hex.
When you cast hex, you may choose to have your left eye take on a supernatural appearance denoting its vile power. It may have its sclera turn black or crimson, continually drip tears of blood, glow with power, or any other mark of its supernatural charge. If you do, then you do not need to concentrate on this casting of hex. If you cast hex again for any reason, any casting maintained by your evil eye ends.

I like it but would tweak it slightly; "your concentration on this casting of Hex does not prevent you from concentrating on another spell or effect." Similar functionality (you can have Hex and another concentration effect active simultaneously) but it would still be possible to lose concentration on it due to damage or incapacitation. I'd also add the Subtle mechanic into this invocation since the eye's appearance itself would be enough to enable counterplay.

[Segev]

I like it but would tweak it slightly; "your concentration on this casting of Hex does not prevent you from concentrating on another spell or effect." Similar functionality (you can have Hex and another concentration effect active simultaneously) but it would still be possible to lose concentration on it due to damage or incapacitation. I'd also add the Subtle mechanic into this invocation since the eye's appearance itself would be enough to enable counterplay.

Evil Eye
Prerequisite: must know hex.
When you cast hex, you may choose to have your left eye take on a supernatural appearance denoting its vile power. It may have its sclera turn black or crimson, continually drip tears of blood, glow with power, or any other mark of its supernatural charge. If you do, you may cast it without components (though the eye's transformation makes it obvious you're casting a spell) and as if cast from a spell slot one level higher. As long as your evil eye is showing, you may concentrate on other spells or effects while maintaining concentration on hex. If your concentration is broken, it is broken for all things you are concentrating on at once.



Also added +1 spell slot level, basically allowing somebody investing in an invocation for hex to get 8 hours out of it at level 3. I consider the further upgrade at a higher level to 24 hours to be a much less significant jump, even though it definitely has utility.

[JackPhoenix]

It's not that it's "overpowered" - but clearly if they meant for Hex to be undetectable they wouldn't have given it a verbal component in the first place. Compare Hex to something like, say, the Friends cantrip, which is much more clearly intended to be subtly usable mid-conversation and not noticed when cast (though afterward is a different matter.)

Every spell in the game, no matter how (un)detectable is it supposed to be, has a components that make it perceivable when it is cast, unless you're a sorcerer with Subtle spell metamagic (or get around them in some other way). Because that's how 5e spells work. If a subsequent action granted by the spell is supposed to be detectable, it must be somehow indicated in the spell's description.

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.
There's nothing in Hex's description that placing of the curse is noticeable in any way. Suggestion and Command, in contrast, require you to speak to the target, making them noticeable even if you manage to hide the casting itself.

[Psyren]

Evil Eye
Prerequisite: must know hex.
When you cast hex, you may choose to have your left eye take on a supernatural appearance denoting its vile power. It may have its sclera turn black or crimson, continually drip tears of blood, glow with power, or any other mark of its supernatural charge. If you do, you may cast it without components (though the eye's transformation makes it obvious you're casting a spell) and as if cast from a spell slot one level higher. As long as your evil eye is showing, you may concentrate on other spells or effects while maintaining concentration on hex. If your concentration is broken, it is broken for all things you are concentrating on at once.



Also added +1 spell slot level, basically allowing somebody investing in an invocation for hex to get 8 hours out of it at level 3. I consider the further upgrade at a higher level to 24 hours to be a much less significant jump, even though it definitely has utility.

Works for me.

I'd argue you don't even need the parenthetical; as long as the eye is obviously weird/supernatural, anyone who can see it has a chance to figure out what it means (likely an Arcana check, or automatic for other Warlocks etc.)


Every spell in the game, no matter how (un)detectable is it supposed to be, has a components that make it perceivable when it is cast, unless you're a sorcerer with Subtle spell metamagic (or get around them in some other way). Because that's how 5e spells work. If a subsequent action granted by the spell is supposed to be detectable, it must be somehow indicated in the spell's description.

There's nothing in Hex's description that placing of the curse is noticeable in any way. Suggestion and Command, in contrast, require you to speak to the target, making them noticeable even if you manage to hide the casting itself.

I know/agree that any spell with components is perceptible, but verbal components are a different level of that. Sage Advice actually covers both examples you just listed:



Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?

Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.

To a layperson, suddenly spouting "mystic words" mid-conversation is bound to be not just noticeable but suspicious, even if they don't know exactly what you did.

[Segev]

Works for me.

I'd argue you don't even need the parenthetical; as long as the eye is obviously weird/supernatural, anyone who can see it has a chance to figure out what it means (likely an Arcana check, or automatic for other Warlocks etc.)Probably not, but being clear about intent in initial drafts feels like a good idea, where I can.

This invocation should carry hex to higher levels, if it was useful at lower ones.


To a layperson, suddenly spouting "mystic words" mid-conversation is bound to be not just noticeable but suspicious, even if they don't know exactly what you did.

"Hocus pocus in the name of Hal, I suggest it would be wise to surrender, pal."

[GeneralVryth]

Evil Eye
Prerequisite: must know hex.
When you cast hex, you may choose to have your left eye take on a supernatural appearance denoting its vile power. It may have its sclera turn black or crimson, continually drip tears of blood, glow with power, or any other mark of its supernatural charge. If you do, you may cast it without components (though the eye's transformation makes it obvious you're casting a spell) and as if cast from a spell slot one level higher. As long as your evil eye is showing, you may concentrate on other spells or effects while maintaining concentration on hex. If your concentration is broken, it is broken for all things you are concentrating on at once.



Also added +1 spell slot level, basically allowing somebody investing in an invocation for hex to get 8 hours out of it at level 3. I consider the further upgrade at a higher level to 24 hours to be a much less significant jump, even though it definitely has utility.

I probably wouldn't increase the spell level by 1, and I probably would add a level requirement of Warlock 5, but overall I think the concept is fine (the level requirement helps deter multiclass shenanigans).


Because that's how 5e spells work. If a subsequent action granted by the spell is supposed to be detectable, it must be somehow indicated in the spell's description.

There's nothing in Hex's description that placing of the curse is noticeable in any way.

The is an awful argument. Here's why:
"Because that's how 5e spells work. If a subsequent action granted by the spell is supposed to be undetectable, it must be somehow indicated in the spell's description."
"There's nothing in Hex's description that placing of the curse is not-noticeable in any way."

2 letters for the first argument, 3 letters and a dash for the second, and they make the opposite case you are trying to make. And what really sucks is all 4 sentences are technically accurate. The spell description doesn't say anything one way or the other. So it's down to ruling and making inferences.

[diplomancer]

" you've got to pay me 10 dollars to shift the curse. It doesn't say otherwise, and this is how I rule it. Let's call it the material component for shifting the curse"

If you're going to add requirements, hey, why not? (And would it be any different if the requirement was paying 10 gold pieces in game?... it's all the DM deciding to add requirements that are not in the text of the spell)

[GeneralVryth]

" you've got to pay me 10 dollars to shift the curse. It doesn't say otherwise, and this is how I rule it. Let's call it the material component for shifting the curse"

If you're going to add requirements, hey, why not? (And would it be any different if the requirement was paying 10 gold pieces in game?... it's all the DM deciding to add requirements that are not in the text of the spell)

Do you actually think this will convince anyone? Or are you just trying to annoy people? If the former, may I suggest restating your argument into something more neutral. If the latter than I am happy to take the route of Psyern and ignore your posts.

[diplomancer]

Do you actually think this will convince anyone? Or are you just trying to annoy people? If the former, may I suggest restating your argument into something more neutral. If the latter than I am happy to take the route of Psyern and ignore your posts.

I can see how highlighting the absurdity of the application of your principles can be annoying, but in fact, once you say "DM can totally add requirements that are not in the text", the only limit to the application of that principle is how much players are willing to put up with.


In actual fact, a wild-shaped Druid can curse a new target with Hex. A Warlock polymorphed into a Great Ape can curse a new target with Hex. A Warlock hit by Feeblemind can curse a new target with Hex. Nothing in the actual text of the spell (or the features mentioned) says that any of these actions are impossible...

Unless, of course, the DM decides to make a houserule about it, creating the new rule of "components required to use the action granted by a spell", when the game only had the rule of "components required to cast a spell"... but then you have to go to every spell that grants new actions, make new rules about what components are required, if any, to use the actions granted by the spell, and make that new rule clear to your players, preferably before they make decisions like keeping Concentration on an underpowered spell for an entire day just so they can have a good use of it later on.

Or you can just not make this new and needlessly complicated and arbitrary rule (because I'm pretty sure it will only apply to some spells and not others... which means creating new imbalances between classes) and let players have fun with their spells.

[JackPhoenix]

The is an awful argument. Here's why:
"Because that's how 5e spells work. If a subsequent action granted by the spell is supposed to be undetectable, it must be somehow indicated in the spell's description."
"There's nothing in Hex's description that placing of the curse is not-noticeable in any way."

2 letters for the first argument, 3 letters and a dash for the second, and they make the opposite case you are trying to make. And what really sucks is all 4 sentences are technically accurate. The spell description doesn't say anything one way or the other. So it's down to ruling and making inferences.

Yes, if you ignore the text in the book and invent your own stuff, you can make the opposite case.

[GeneralVryth]

I can see how highlighting the absurdity of the application of your principles can be annoying, but in fact, once you say "DM can totally add requirements that are not in the text", the only limit to the application of that principle is how much players are willing to put up with.


In actual fact, a wild-shaped Druid can curse a new target with Hex. A Warlock polymorphed into a Great Ape can curse a new target with Hex. A Warlock hit by Feeblemind can curse a new target with Hex. Nothing in the actual text of the spell (or the features mentioned) says that any of these actions are impossible...

Unless, of course, the DM decides to make a houserule about it, creating the new rule of "components required to use the action granted by a spell", when the game only had the rule of "components required to cast a spell"... but then you have to go to every spell that grants new actions, make new rules about what components are required, if any, to use the actions granted by the spell, and make that new rule clear to your players, preferably before they make decisions like keeping Concentration on an underpowered spell for an entire day just so they can have a good use of it later on.

Or you can just not make this new and needlessly complicated and arbitrary rule (because I'm pretty sure it will only apply to some spells and not others... which means creating new imbalances between classes) and let players have fun with their spells.

No, completely mischaracterizing an argument to make the original seem absurd is what's annoying. And suggests someone not discussing in good faith. You can keep imagining the book is somehow clear on what it means that doesn't make it true. The very fact there is disagreement is at least some evidence that it isn't clear. And since you seem curious about an elegant solution there is one. Any spell with a re-cast option should be assumed to require a V or S component if the original casting had that component, unless the spell specifies otherwise. That's pretty straightforward. And actually that sentence or some other similar sentence in the books (perhaps saying they are assumed to need no components) would remove the need for this kind of discussion or DM rulings.


Yes, if you ignore the text in the book and invent your own stuff, you can make the opposite case.

I am no more ignoring the text of the book than you are. Agree to disagree time.

[diplomancer]

No, completely mischaracterizing an argument to make the original seem absurd is what's annoying. And suggests someone not discussing in good faith. You can keep imagining the book is somehow clear on what it means that doesn't make it true. The very fact there is disagreement is at least some evidence that it isn't clear. And since you seem curious about an elegant solution there is one. Any spell with a re-cast option should be assumed to require a V or S component if the original casting had that component, unless the spell specifies otherwise. That's pretty straightforward. And actually that sentence or some other similar sentence in the books (perhaps saying they are assumed to need no components) would remove the need for this kind of discussion or DM rulings.

There is no spell in the book with a re-cast option. You never re-cast spells as part of the effect of the spell. Feel free to show spells that have that wording.

If there WERE a spell with that option, unless it otherwise specified in its text, yes, it would have to follow all the rules about casting spells, including slot expenditure, bonus action casting restriction, components, etc, so there would be no need for extra rules about requiring components.

And that you recognize that there is no such sentence in the book (why would there be, if there are no spells with a re-cast effect?) is an admission that your decision of adding such requirements has no standing in the actual rules of the game as written in the book.

[GeneralVryth]

There is no spell in the book with a re-cast option. You never re-cast spells as part of the effect of the spell. Feel free to show spells that have that wording.

If there WERE a spell with that option, unless it otherwise specified in its text, yes, it would have to follow all the rules about casting spells, including slot expenditure, bonus action casting restriction, components, etc, so there would be no need for extra rules about requiring components.

I thought it was obvious, I was using the phrase re-cast as a short hand for spells that grant the ability to take an action (or bonus action) to repeat the original effect or take a related action. There are lots of spells like that for example, Moonbeam, Call Lightning, Sunbeam, The Investures, Hex, Hinter's Mark, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Blade, and plenty more.

The idea that all of those action options in all of those spells are purely mental (especially when every spell listed above has a V and S component and few pretty much say you doing the same thing you did when you cast the spell), is more illogical than the idea that you are repeating the V and S components when taking the action in question.

On a more general note, the vast majority of actions in the game have components that are Verbal and/or Somatic they just aren't spelled out. In fact the actions don't have any visual or audible tells tend to be more explicit on that fact. So assuming all actions granted by spells fall into the latter category is also pretty incongruous with the larger rule set.

[JackPhoenix]

I am no more ignoring the text of the book than you are. Agree to disagree time.
So the text about spell effects being unnoticeable unless the spell says otherwise doesn't exist, according to you?


On a more general note, the vast majority of actions in the game have components that are Verbal and/or Somatic they just aren't spelled out. In fact the actions don't have any visual or audible tells tend to be more explicit on that fact. So assuming all actions granted by spells fall into the latter category is also pretty incongruous with the larger rule set.

No, they don't. Components exist ONLY with spells, and even then, not in all cases.

[diplomancer]

I thought it was obvious, I was using the phrase re-cast as a short hand for spells that grant the ability to take an action (or bonus action) to repeat the original effect or take a related action. There are lots of spells like that for example, Moonbeam, Call Lightning, Sunbeam, The Investures, Hex, Hinter's Mark, Flaming Sphere, Flaming Blade, and plenty more.

The idea that all of those action options in all of those spells are purely mental (especially when every spell listed above has a V and S component and few pretty much say you doing the same thing you did when you cast the spell), is more illogical than the idea that you are repeating the V and S components when taking the action in question.

On a more general note, the vast majority of actions in the game have components that are Verbal and/or Somatic they just aren't spelled out. In fact the actions don't have any visual or audible tells tend to be more explicit on that fact. So assuming all actions granted by spells fall into the latter category is also pretty incongruous with the larger rule set.

Congratulations, you've just invalidated a commmon- and obviously intended- Druid tactic. I dislike Druids, but you apparently hate them and don't want them at your table.

I'm not saying this to be mean here. I want to point out that tinkering with a system with as many moving parts as 5e is not to be done without considering other consequences. You wanted to stop what you consider to be an abusive use of Hex, and just killed the Druid (or at least made him far, far worse).

[GeneralVryth]

Congratulations, you've just invalidated a commmon- and obviously intended- Druid tactic. I dislike Druids, but you apparently hate them and don't want them at your table.

Want to know something interesting? Both major video game implementations of 5e (BG3 and Solasta), don't allow it either. It's actually something I am fine with from a GM perspective, but supporting it may be a ruling or houserule.


So the text about spell effects being unnoticeable unless the spell says otherwise doesn't exist, according to you?


Can you please re-post or point to the page of the text in question? I tried glancing through this thread to find it a couple times and it didn't stand out.



No, they don't. Components exist ONLY with spells, and even then, not in all cases.

So a Fighter taking the attack action just appears as an armored dude standing around and suddenly a foe within 5 feet having a wound appear on them? Spell components at their root are a way to codify what visual and audible indicators there are for casting a spell (something with no real world comparison). That way we can apply a certain in world logic on how to identify and/or counter them. Most other actions don't need that level of explicitness because they have real world counterparts with can work from. The various re-cast options aren't clear on what visual and audible indicators they have (another way of saying V and S components), but considering the vast majority of actions (and spells) have visual and audible tells, it's reasonable to infer the re-cast options have them as well (or at least as much as their parent spell does).

[Segev]

5e is actually quite clear that the CASTING of the spell is what requires components. Using actions granted by the spell - including shifting the effects to a new target - only require whatever behaviors and actions the spell says they do.

Call lightning does not require verbal nor somatic components after the initial casting. It is used explicitly by Wild Shape as an example of an ongoing spell you can continue to use the action granted by, when Wild Shape also explicitly forbids casting of spells (and, when you later gain the ability to cast spells in Wild Shape, it goes out of its way to describe how wild-shaped Druids substitute animal motions and sounds for the usual components).

The only requirement to call down lightning on subsequent turns is that the spell still be active and that you use an action to do so. No V or S components required.

The same is true of shifting hex or hunter's mark to new targets: you just use the bonus action they require to perform the shift. You do not need to obviously cast anything, because you are not casting the spell. You are taking a bonus action the spell allows you to take.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd say it's not exactly new, it's also known as bag of rats It isn't the concept that I was happy about, but that specific term. I'll find a way to wedge it into a game sometime soon. :smallcool:

[GeneralVryth]

5e is actually quite clear that the CASTING of the spell is what requires components.


Yes the book is clear that casting spells requires components, no has disputed that.



Using actions granted by the spell - including shifting the effects to a new target - only require whatever behaviors and actions the spell says they do.


True in a sense, the thing in question has always been an interpretation of what they say. What does the action in question look/sound like? By extension is it impacted by things that affect them.



Call lightning does not require verbal nor somatic components after the initial casting. It is used explicitly by Wild Shape as an example of an ongoing spell you can continue to use the action granted by, when Wild Shape also explicitly forbids casting of spells (and, when you later gain the ability to cast spells in Wild Shape, it goes out of its way to describe how wild-shaped Druids substitute animal motions and sounds for the usual components).


The Druid text is the first interesting piece in all of this. The not casting spells piece doesn't apply because we weren't talking about that in the first place. The easy resolution is they can preform the necessary pieces of the action in beast form, just like the Beast Spells ability grants them that exact ability for the initial casting.



The only requirement to call down lightning on subsequent turns is that the spell still be active and that you use an action to do so. No V or S components required.

The same is true of shifting hex or hunter's mark to new targets: you just use the bonus action they require to perform the shift. You do not need to obviously cast anything, because you are not casting the spell. You are taking a bonus action the spell allows you to take.

This is all assumption.

Let me add another variation on this. What does taking the Help action look like? Does a character stand around doing and saying nothing and an adjacent character suddenly gains advantage? The book doesn't say you do something anymore than Hex does ("lending aid" versus "cursing"). But, that leads to a pretty silly game world if you follow that thought.

[Segev]

This is all assumption.
It really isn't. The rules do what they say they do.

Let me add another variation on this. What does taking the Help action look like? Does a character stand around doing and saying nothing and an adjacent character suddenly gains advantage? The book doesn't say you do something anymore than Hex does ("lending aid" versus "cursing"). But, that leads to a pretty silly game world if you follow that thought.
The Help action calls out that the DM has to decide if help can be meaningfully given, and the player has to describe what his PC is doing to provide the help.

At no point does call lightning nor hex make any comments about what the PC must do to enact the action.

You may as well declare that, because it doesn't specify what the action looks like, a sorcerer applying metamagic must shout the name of the metamagic at the top of his lungs to use it. Which has fascinating implications for Subtle Spell, but Subtle Spell doesn't say it removes the need to do whatever you have to do to apply metamagic. And, since metamagic doesn't say it doesn't require any additional behaviors to apply it, well, obviously it is expected that the DM will rule on this ambiguous situation to add an obvious tell to use of metamagic.

If you think this makes your claim look ridiculous, that is not me being disingenuous. If your claim is not ridiculous, but this example is, you will be able to demonstrate where the example does not use the exact same reasoning as your claim regarding added behaviors being required even though the rules do not provide any such requirement.

Nowhere does it say that a wild shaped druid can "perform the words and gestures necessary" to engage the subsequent rounds of call lightning, as it would have to to enable that spell to have its actions used while wild shaped unless the only action required is the act of will to direct it.

Nowhere does the spell say you must say anything nor gesture to redirect a hex to a new target. Binding the hands and arms of a warlock and tossing him gagged into the water will not prevent him from redirecting the hex if he chooses to (unless it breaks his concentration). If it even left leeway for a ruling that you have to speak and gesture and maybe provide powdered newt again, then this would be a consideration. But it isn't, because the spell doesn't say it is.

[GeneralVryth]

It really isn't. The rules do what they say they do.


Yes it is. But we can back and fort on that until the end of time, and neither of us likely has that mcuh.



The Help action calls out that the DM has to decide if help can be meaningfully given, and the player has to describe what his PC is doing to provide the help.


No where in the Help does it say that a DM decides if help can be meaningfully given. Here is the action:
Help
You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.
Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

There is nothing about DM judgement in there at all. Now of course I think DM judgement is given/required but it's not stated.



At no point does call lightning nor hex make any comments about what the PC must do to enact the action.


That is what I have been saying this entire time. The spells don't clarify what if anything is involved in the recast actions. There is no general rule at all either (that I am aware of). So we are left with a DM making a ruling on what those actions entail. And the most logical ruling from my perspective is they entail more or less the same things as the original spell cast because they generate more or less the same effect.



You may as well declare that, because it doesn't specify what the action looks like, a sorcerer applying metamagic must shout the name of the metamagic at the top of his lungs to use it. Which has fascinating implications for Subtle Spell, but Subtle Spell doesn't say it removes the need to do whatever you have to do to apply metamagic. And, since metamagic doesn't say it doesn't require any additional behaviors to apply it, well, obviously it is expected that the DM will rule on this ambiguous situation to add an obvious tell to use of metamagic.


Metamagic is easy, it's not an action. It's a modification on an action. So you can default to the requirements of the action in question (in this case spell casting components since you're casting a spell), unless of course those requirements are modified, by something like Subtle Spell.



Nowhere does it say that a wild shaped druid can "perform the words and gestures necessary" to engage the subsequent rounds of call lightning, as it would have to to enable that spell to have its actions used while wild shaped unless the only action required is the act of will to direct it.

Nowhere does the spell say you must say anything nor gesture to redirect a hex to a new target.


No where does it say those things are actions without any actual "action" either. As for why it doesn't say, it's probably because it wasn't really thought about in the writing of the book. It wouldn't be the first thing that is unclear or inconsistent.



Binding the hands and arms of a warlock and tossing him gagged into the water will not prevent him from redirecting the hex if he chooses to (unless it breaks his concentration). If it even left leeway for a ruling that you have to speak and gesture and maybe provide powdered newt again, then this would be a consideration. But it isn't, because the spell doesn't say it is.

It doesn't say anything though. Which makes your statement on binding the hands either an assumption or a ruling.

[LudicSavant]

Per PHB pg203, here is the definition of what a spell component is.

Components
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.

Spell components are requirements for casting. Casting is a specific action that is frequently referred to as a trigger in 5e. Namely, the one referred to in the 'casting time' section of every spell description.

So, calling down lightning on subsequent actions does not require spell components.

That said, the rules do not appear to tell us one way or the other what the 'call down lightning' or 'change hex target' action involves your character doing in an in-world sense. It does not tell us that it makes noise or involves gestures, but it also does not tell us that it is silent or invisible. It simply does not say one way or the other.

It appears to be left to the reader to assume what they do or do not involve.

This is not uncommon in 5th edition. For instance, on PHB pg151 for putting out a fire, it says "A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames." This presumably involves you actually physically doing something to extinguish the flames, but it doesn't actually tell you that. It just says you can use your action.

[Blatant Beast]

It appears to be left to the reader to assume what they do or do not involve.

But, Spells do what they say they do…so if something isn’t specified in the spell description it does not happen. If this is not true, then the correct answer becomes “ask your DM”, which makes all D&D discussion a matter of talking about homebrew, so there has to be a singular answer, a singular way to rule, and always be correct..because without that all communication becomes pointless…;)

I think that sums up a common response when it is pointed out that 5e, as a base unit of operation, relies upon the participants’ judgement.


This is not uncommon in 5th edition. For instance, on PHB pg151 for putting out a fire, it says "A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames." This presumably involves you actually physically doing something to extinguish the flames, but it doesn't actually tell you that. It just says you can use your action.

Stop, Drop, and Roll being a well taught procedure, it is easy at least to envision a PC trying to at least pat out the flames.

It is also trivial to imagine what a Cunning Action usage looks like…when the Rogue takes off in a mad dash. An anime based game may even add speed lines.

I think it is fair to say a Bonus Action ability such as Second Wind, is harder to visualize, or indeed might be commonly conceived of as having no visible phenomena to denote the ability being used.

A Second Wind Activation could look like a Fighter wiping sweat off their brow, or just be described as the Fighter appearing to be in contemplation for a second, or nothing at all.

It certainly seems reasonable to me, at least thematically, that transferring a Hex spell might involve some small physical action that could be detected by the discerning observer.

Ruling that transferring a Hex spell, requires the caster to glare at the new target, seems appropriate given one common hex described in folklore, is the Evil Eye.

[diplomancer]

We DO know at least one thing about what these actions from spells entail: that it is something that a druid in the form of a bat, a frog, a lion, a spider, a shark, etc. can do. So it's almost certainly a mental and not a physical thing, and definitely not speech or hand gestures. I guess it could be some type of eye movement... maybe the Sabrina thing with the nose, perhaps?

[Theodoxus]

This is cutting quite close to the game vs simulation divide. As a game, stopping ongoing fire damage literally just takes your action (so you can't do anything else on your turn that requires an action) and a saving throw, which is just a die roll. You state you use your action and roll a d20, which either succeeds or fails. That's all that needs to be stated at the table, for the game to run. I know plenty of players who run their characters this way. No roleplay or extrapolation.

On the simulation end, is your 'stop drop and roll'. However, while that should satisfy the requirement to put out the fire, you haven't met the game requirements.

Along with the myriad things that should be spelled out and/or discussed at session zero, is also how gamist vs simulationist is the game going to run.

100% gamist, spells do what they say they do and spells with ongoing effects become psionic in nature, needing nothing more than pure will to retarget or restrike a target.

100% simulationist, and the world runs on whatever physics engine the players decide works, where you might not even need to roll - all spells just work, and can't be resisted unless the casters says they are. But everything also requires detailed descriptions of how they work. Nothing is just 'it's magic', as that robs the simulation of cohesion. A spell with an ongoing effect would require some kind of internally consistent reasoning; it could even be pure will if that's agreed upon - but not as likely, as that robs the roleplay opportunities. Improvisation is super boring when everyone is just thinking at each other.

So, most games are going to be a mixture of the two to some ratio. The question for each table is to determine how much of the game is going to bleed through to the simulation.

[GeneralVryth]

Spell components are requirements for casting. Casting is a specific action that is frequently referred to as a trigger in 5e. Namely, the one referred to in the 'casting time' section of every spell description.

So, calling down lightning on subsequent actions does not require spell components.

That said, the rules do not appear to tell us one way or the other what the 'call down lightning' or 'change hex target' action involves your character doing in an in-world sense. It does not tell us that it makes noise or involves gestures, but it also does not tell us that it is silent or invisible. It simply does not say one way or the other.

It appears to be left to the reader to assume what they do or do not involve.

This is not uncommon in 5th edition. For instance, on PHB pg151 for putting out a fire, it says "A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames." This presumably involves you actually physically doing something to extinguish the flames, but it doesn't actually tell you that. It just says you can use your action.

I agree with all of this. I was using the spell components earlier as shorthand for saying something/making noise, and doing some kind of gesture (because at their core that is what V, and S components are).


We DO know at least one thing about what these actions from spells entail: that it is something that a druid in the form of a bat, a frog, a lion, a spider, a shark, etc. can do. So it's almost certainly a mental and not a physical thing, and definitely not speech or hand gestures. I guess it could be some type of eye movement... maybe the Sabrina thing with the nose, perhaps?

Beast Spells shows Druids can be special when it comes to spell component like things, easy enough to rule that the basic wild shape ability (as opposed to Beast Spells) is enough to modify what is needed to handle recast (assuming they do V,S - esque components).


This is cutting quite close to the game vs simulation divide. As a game, stopping ongoing fire damage literally just takes your action (so you can't do anything else on your turn that requires an action) and a saving throw, which is just a die roll. You state you use your action and roll a d20, which either succeeds or fails. That's all that needs to be stated at the table, for the game to run. I know plenty of players who run their characters this way. No roleplay or extrapolation.

On the simulation end, is your 'stop drop and roll'. However, while that should satisfy the requirement to put out the fire, you haven't met the game requirements.

Along with the myriad things that should be spelled out and/or discussed at session zero, is also how gamist vs simulationist is the game going to run.

100% gamist, spells do what they say they do and spells with ongoing effects become psionic in nature, needing nothing more than pure will to retarget or restrike a target.

100% simulationist, and the world runs on whatever physics engine the players decide works, where you might not even need to roll - all spells just work, and can't be resisted unless the casters says they are. But everything also requires detailed descriptions of how they work. Nothing is just 'it's magic', as that robs the simulation of cohesion. A spell with an ongoing effect would require some kind of internally consistent reasoning; it could even be pure will if that's agreed upon - but not as likely, as that robs the roleplay opportunities. Improvisation is super boring when everyone is just thinking at each other.

So, most games are going to be a mixture of the two to some ratio. The question for each table is to determine how much of the game is going to bleed through to the simulation.

That's another good view on the subject. Ultimately because games are a mixture (and need to be one, because the rules don't cover everything, and very few groups are interested in coming up with their own simulationist rules/explanations for everything), it comes down to a ruling, because the rules leave the question answered. The ruling should work for the DM/group in question.

[diplomancer]

Beast Spells shows Druids can be special when it comes to spell component like things, easy enough to rule that the basic wild shape ability (as opposed to Beast Spells) is enough to modify what is needed to handle recast (assuming they do V,S - esque components).


And now you need another houserule to deal with your previous houserule (as well as modifying your first houserule, since you've previously stated that you need the same V,S components that you needed for the casting). Which is fine, but is yet more evidence that the initial decision is in fact a houserule.

If you add enough epicycles, you can in fact make an accurate model where the sun and planets revolve around the Earth, but it's usually better to go for the simpler model.

[Segev]

No where in the Help does it say that a DM decides if help can be meaningfully given. Here is the action:
Help
You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.
Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

There is nothing about DM judgement in there at all. Now of course I think DM judgement is given/required but it's not stated.Fair enough. I specifically recall reading somewhere that the DM adjudicates whether you can meaningfully help with a given action, but I am far too lazy to go hunting that down, so will conceded the point. I instead draw your attention to the first sentence: "You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task." This actually does specify that you must actually do something that helps; it says "you lend your aid." No, that's not terribly specific, nor should it be. But it certainly draws a different line than the spells you're trying to add "recasting" to.

I reject your terminology of "recast actions," by the way, because it is clearly drawing you to view the action as "casting" in some fashion, when it very much is not. We know it isn't "casting" in any sense because druids cannot cast spells while wild shaped, but can use the actions specified by spells that are already in effect. Note how the rules never call it "recasting" the spell, but refer instead to taking actions the spells permit. You may as well call it "recasting" when somebody who is under the effects of fly lands, spends a round on the ground, and then takes off again, if you call calling down a second, third, fourth, etc. bolt of lightning "recasting" call lightning. You may as well say that the recipient of dragon's breath is "recasting" the spell every time he breathes fire (or whatever energy he breathes), despite the fact that the recipient need not even be the original caster!

There is no "recasting" of hex, and your terming it that makes no sense unless you're presuming your conclusion that it is "casting the spell again." It isn't. It is a function of the spell to allow you to transfer the curse it places to another target. In effect, if you do a fine parsing of hex, casting the spell places a curse, and it is the curse you are moving from target to target. You are not creating a new curse, thus you are not recasting the spell.



Metamagic is easy, it's not an action. It's a modification on an action.Why is that relevant? An action doesn't have to be anything visible. A Subtle Spell quite specifically is meant to be invisible and undetectable (which is why adding things to metamagic would be ridiculous), but it takes an action. Same with transferring the curse created by hex, or directing another bolt of lightning created by call lightning's ongoing effects.


So you can default to the requirements of the action in question (in this case spell casting components since you're casting a spell), unless of course those requirements are modified, by something like Subtle Spell.You can default with hex to the requirements spelled out to transfer the curse, too: nothing except spending the bonus action to do it.


It doesn't say anything though. Which makes your statement on binding the hands either an assumption or a ruling.The problem is that all of the things you're suggesting go into "recasting" would allow me to bind hands or still tongues to prevent "recasting," and you had to make up additional rules permitting wild shaped druids' beast forms to somehow pull off level 18 class features in order to do "recast actions." Which, again, are your invention; they do not exist. You are welcome to define using actions provided by spells as "recast actions," but if you do, you must abandon the idea that they have anything to do with casting components or even any specific behaviors that are not spelled out in the spell. Otherwise, you are not just labeling something, but attempting to redefine it.

[notthegiant]

This argument is getting tiresome.

Spells do what they say they do, and nothing else. If Hex said "this bonus action requires Verbal and Somatic components", it would require Verbal and Somatic components. It doesn't say that, so the bonus action doesn't require components.

Components are a function of casting a spell. When you take a bonus action to move the hex after casting it, you aren't taking the Cast a Spell action. Nobody is claiming that Haste's extra action requires components just because it's an action granted by a spell.

[Theodoxus]

This argument is getting tiresome.

Spells do what they say they do, and nothing else. If Hex said "this bonus action requires Verbal and Somatic components", it would require Verbal and Somatic components. It doesn't say that, so the bonus action doesn't require components.

Components are a function of casting a spell. When you take a bonus action to move the hex after casting it, you aren't taking the Cast a Spell action. Nobody is claiming that Haste's extra action requires components just because it's an action granted by a spell.

No one is claiming that cursing a second target is taking the Cast a Spell action. Though there have been some straw-man [nigh gaslighting] attempts to make it look like it.

Also, no one is claiming that cursing a second target requires anything except psychic will is RAW.

What those of us who are stating that cursing a second target requires something more than psychic will, is a ruling (albeit some would call it a houserule); that the "moving" of the curse from a defeated foe to a new one requires a modicum of effort that is more than just the purely gamist "bonus action". All in an attempt to bypass the 'kill the familiar, curse the king' meme.

Again, agree, disagree, or agree to disagree but the argument over whether something works or not is getting... yes, tiresome.

These are rulings/houserules that some misconstrue as an attempt to qualify as RAW.

[GeneralVryth]

And now you need another houserule to deal with your previous houserule (as well as modifying your first houserule, since you've previously stated that you need the same V,S components that you needed for the casting). Which is fine, but is yet more evidence that the initial decision is in fact a houserule.

If you add enough epicycles, you can in fact make an accurate model where the sun and planets revolve around the Earth, but it's usually better to go for the simpler model.

The entirety of my position is the books aren't clear on what is needed for the spell recast actions (and yes that is what I am calling them). Thus a ruling was needed for the weird cases where trying to use them subtle mattered (because to do something subtly you first need to know what the something looks like).
The ruling was the recast options should require something similar to the V,S components of the original spell cast if they had them.
In the case of shapeshifted Druids, they can preform some animal version of those components.

As far as rulings go that is pretty simple. Nothing is claimed as additional RAW (though going strictly by RAW is stupid anyways), just a ruling to clear up a lack of RAW.

Anyways, since you keep insisting it's a houserule, which implies that you think the rules are somehow clear on this means we are in agree to dissagree land.



Spells do what they say they do, and nothing else.

No it's this argument that is long past tiresome.

[diplomancer]

The entirety of my position is the books aren't clear on what is needed for the spell recast actions (and yes that is what I am calling them).

And here is already where your troubles begin. You give a name that is simply nowhere in the rules, and not only don't stop at the arbitrary nowhere-to-be-found in the rules naming, but start drawing a lot of inferences from this naming, and these inferences are all completely arbitrary "yes, you need components, but not slots, nor the Cast a Spell Action, and you also don't need all components, only V and S, and no, you don't need V and S if you are a wildshaped Druid. And a 2nd level wildshaped Druid can provide those components for recasting the spell, but he has to wait 16 (!) levels to provide the exact same components when casting the spell, it's just that much harder. Because reasons."


Thus a ruling was needed for the weird cases where trying to use them subtle mattered (because to do something subtly you first need to know what the something looks like).
The ruling was the recast options should require something similar to the V,S components of the original spell cast if they had them.
In the case of shapeshifted Druids, they can preform some animal version of those components.

As far as rulings go that is pretty simple. Nothing is claimed as additional RAW (though going strictly by RAW is stupid anyways), just a ruling to clear up a lack of RAW.

"You need V and S components, but not M, unless you are a wild-shaped Druid" is very much additional rules.

Not to mention that there are a lot of ways of becoming creatures incapable of speech which are not just a wild-shaped Druid, and you have to come up with a different rule for all of them, preferably explaining, from the rules as written, why Wild-shaped Druids can do it but those other forms cannot (if your ruling is that they indeed cannot).

And worse of all... you haven't even solved the problem you wanted to solve in the first place! You just made this power of using those spells without anyone noticing you're doing anything out of the ordinary a Druid-exclusive... not even a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell could do it, because you can only apply Subtle Spell when you actually cast the spell, and because it's explicitly about spell components, not about quasi-spell quasi-components.

As an aside, and this is strictly my personal opinion: it strikes me as wrong-headed to identify what you consider to be problematical interactions in the rules and, instead of having a frank conversation with your players about why you'd prefer if they did not use this particular interaction, you believe that the best way to deal with these interactions is coming up with convoluted rulings about why the interactions don't work. You go on that path, and a lot of problems start appearing, as this thread shows.

As to how to deal with subtle Hex, assuming it bothers you for some reason? It's trivial. If the problem is the squirrel loophole, ask your players not to use it. If the problem is disrupting social situations, let the players enjoy their small successes on not that important social situations... until they try it on someone really important, that would naturally have counterplays available, like someone constantly checking the king whether he's under some new sort of spell... and then have all the PCs arrested until they confess that they Hex'ed the king...

[Segev]

The entirety of my position is the books aren't clear on what is needed for the spell recast actions (and yes that is what I am calling them).You will have to pick and choose what is and is not a "recast action," then, because otherwise haste is recast every time somebody takes the extra action it grants, and fly is recast every time somebody lands and takes off again, and Melf's minute meteors is "recast" every time you spend the bonus action to send another meteor, and basically any spell that is ever used for more than one round and isn't a 100% passive effect is "recast" every time. Which is incredibly misleading terminology. Especially since the person using the action may not even have cast it in the first place, nor even be a spellcaster, as is the case when a wizard casts dragon's breath on their hireling!


Thus a ruling was needed for the weird cases where trying to use them subtle mattered (because to do something subtly you first need to know what the something looks like).Not really. The rules don't specify that you do anything obvious, so you don't have to. Period.

The ruling was the recast options should require something similar to the V,S components of the original spell cast if they had them.That's not a ruling; that's a house rule. In the same sense that it would be a house rule to require the same components used to cast fly every time you land and take off again, or to use the breath weapon granted by dragon's breath, or to launch a minute meteor, or to take the extra action granted by haste, or to attack on subsequent rounds with a shadow blade. None of which are in the rules as written. Hence it would be a house rule: a change made to the rules as they stand by the DM for his game.

In the case of shapeshifted Druids, they can preform some animal version of those components.No rules state they can prior to level 18.


Anyways, since you keep insisting it's a houserule, which implies that you think the rules are somehow clear on this means we are in agree to dissagree land.In the same sense that you can agree to disagree with somebody who thinks that stop lights allow you to transit through them when they're red or green, but that you are legally required to stop when they're yellow, I suppose.


No it's this argument that is long past tiresome.I ... must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you find the argument that the rules of the game tell you how to play the game to be tiresome? :smallconfused:

[GeneralVryth]

@Segev and @diplomancer I am getting tired of this back and forth as well. So I am going to stop quote replying to you guys. Agree to disagree time.

In summation:

My position is the books aren't clear on what is needed for the spell recast actions (someone wants to come up with a better name be my guest). Enough other people in this thread appear to support this assertion, so it seems reasonable.

Thus a ruling is needed for the weird cases where trying to use the recast options in a subtle matter (because to do something subtly you first need to know what the something looks like).

My suggested ruling is the recast options should require something similar to the V,S components of the original spell cast if they had them.
In the case of shapeshifted Druids, they can preform some animal version of those components.

People are perfectly free to come up with their own rulings at their own tables. This is the heart of D&D and TTRPGs in general. Good luck.

[Theodoxus]

You will have to pick and choose what is and is not a "recast action," then, because otherwise haste is recast every time somebody takes the extra action it grants, and fly is recast every time somebody lands and takes off again, and Melf's minute meteors is "recast" every time you spend the bonus action to send another meteor, and basically any spell that is ever used for more than one round and isn't a 100% passive effect is "recast" every time. Which is incredibly misleading terminology. Especially since the person using the action may not even have cast it in the first place, nor even be a spellcaster, as is the case when a wizard casts dragon's breath on their hireling!

This isn't the first time someone has said this, and yet, no where in any of the discussion has anyone implied any of it. When cursing a new target with Hex, with an eye towards the simulation, that curse must needs be something other that 'I simply will it'. The universe needs some kind of instruction as to who you intend to curse. Dragon's Breath, Haste and Fly have nothing in common with Hex. You're not targeting a new recipient of either spell. Melf's minute meteors isn't recast either "you can expend one or two of the meteors, sending them streaking to a point or points you choose..." I suppose here is where someone will state 'choosing a point is purely psychic'; I would content that choosing a point requires something akin to pointing... but I suppose the meteors just listen into on your theta waves or something.


Not really. The rules don't specify that you do anything obvious, so you don't have to. Period. We've gone over the gamist vs simulationist aspects of the game. Do we need to rehash them again for the folks in the back?


That's not a ruling; that's a house rule. In the same sense that it would be a house rule to require the same components used to cast fly every time you land and take off again, or to use the breath weapon granted by dragon's breath, or to launch a minute meteor, or to take the extra action granted by haste, or to attack on subsequent rounds with a shadow blade. None of which are in the rules as written. Hence it would be a house rule: a change made to the rules as they stand by the DM for his game. repeating the same refrain gets it back in spades. It's odd, you're not using 'maintaining Hex on the same person round over round' as part of your case... seems like that would be the easiest reference. Yet, just like Haste or Fly or DB, we all know that they, like Hex, aren't recast to maintain concentration. Hex only comes up because the curse can change targets.


I ... must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you find the argument that the rules of the game tell you how to play the game to be tiresome? :smallconfused:

No, it's a call back to the discussion on RAW vs RAI vs RAG - RAW isn't the holy text some folks believe it is.

[Segev]

This isn't the first time someone has said this, and yet, no where in any of the discussion has anyone implied any of it.Nobody said anybody was deliberately proposing this. This is the application of the same logic used below to all those other spells, and you have yet to demonstrate, other than, "But I don't want that!" how the proposed reading of the rules that requires hex to have some obvious behavior that at least one person HAS suggested needs to be the same V and S components (except they're different because druids) doesn't also point to these things you say "nobody has proposed."

The point is not that you nor anybody else have proposed them as desirable. The point is that the same logic used to say what is being claimed about hex applies to them in this fashion. Since you and I both agree that this is ridiculous to apply to them, we should theoretically agree it is ridiculous to apply it to hex, since the RAW are basically the same level of silence about the actions required to do these things the spells permit you to do.


When cursing a new target with Hex, with an eye towards the simulation, that curse must needs be something other that 'I simply will it'.Why?

The universe needs some kind of instruction as to who you intend to curse.Why? It doesn't need some sort of instruction aside from your act of will to determine what direction in which to fly you with fly. You agreed that no such thing is being suggested seriously as something the rules do or should say.


Dragon's Breath, Haste and Fly have nothing in common with Hex.Sure they do. They're all spells, and they all permit actions to be taken that you could not take without those spells being active.


You're not targeting a new recipient of either spell.Irrelevant. Nothing in the RAW suggests that you need special behaviors not specified in the thing that tells you what is required to shift targets in order to shift targets.


Melf's minute meteors isn't recast either "you can expend one or two of the meteors, sending them streaking to a point or points you choose..."And neither is hex "recast." You cast hex and place a curse. The curse is what you're moving around. You're not creating a new curse; you're moving the existing one that was created when you cast hex.


I suppose here is where someone will state 'choosing a point is purely psychic'; I would content that choosing a point requires something akin to pointing... but I suppose the meteors just listen into on your theta waves or something. It doesn't say you need to point. If a caster chooses to, that's his choice, just like shouting, "KABONG!" while hitting somebody with a maul is a warrior's choice.


We've gone over the gamist vs simulationist aspects of the game. Do we need to rehash them again for the folks in the back?This is irrelevant; you're the one inventing the "simulation problem" in order to claim that the rules REQUIRE the DM to add more rules, even though the rules function just fine without a DM ruling, here, and the simulation doesn't break down nor seem ridiculous unless you design it to run counter to the RAW. Yes, in a simulation where there is no astral plane, rules that reference the astral plane will need to be modified, but that's because you've changed the simulation from the default one. The default simulation has no requirement that hex be "recast" with V and S components when using hex's own granted feature to move its curse to a new target.


It's odd, you're not using 'maintaining Hex on the same person round over round' as part of your case... seems like that would be the easiest reference. Yet, just like Haste or Fly or DB, we all know that they, like Hex, aren't recast to maintain concentration. Hex only comes up because the curse can change targets.Actually, that's a very good point: why don't you have to "recast" hex every round? Why is that part of the spell specially exempt from your simulation that requires the universe to be directed as to who is to be cursed?

[diplomancer]

No, it's a call back to the discussion on RAW vs RAI vs RAG - RAW isn't the holy text some folks believe it is.

Funny... I would think that those that absolutely insist that their houserules are not houserules but are in fact rulings would be the ones who think RAW is a holy text. What's so bad with saying "I don't like that the Hex curse can be shifted silently, so I'm going to add a rule that says you need to speak some words to do it?"

It also has the advantage of keeping it contained. If it's a houserule, it applies ad hoc to Hex (and we can then debate the merits of the houserule, whether Warlocks need the nerf, etc.) If it's a ruling with systemic consequences, you have to deal with it through all spells, all transformations that might hinder your ability to speak, etc...

[notthegiant]

When cursing a new target with Hex, with an eye towards the simulation, that curse must needs be something other that 'I simply will it'. The universe needs some kind of instruction as to who you intend to curse.
And how do you know that? Are you a Warlock in real life? Please cite why exactly this would be needed in-universe. It's not that hard to imagine a curse leaping from corpse to living target without you waving your hands and saying magic words. The same logic could be applied to concentration: "How does the universe know you're concentrating on the spell without components? Does it just read your mind?"
This also doesn't apply to RAW, just because something sounds kinda unintuitive doesn't mean it's not obeying the rules.


I suppose here is where someone will state 'choosing a point is purely psychic'; I would content that choosing a point requires something akin to pointing... but I suppose the meteors just listen into on your theta waves or something.
See my above argument. Why does a magic meteor need you to point? It's magic, why shouldn't it be mental?


repeating the same refrain gets it back in spades. It's odd, you're not using 'maintaining Hex on the same person round over round' as part of your case... seems like that would be the easiest reference. Yet, just like Haste or Fly or DB, we all know that they, like Hex, aren't recast to maintain concentration. Hex only comes up because the curse can change targets.
This isn't about concentration, it's about actions granted by spells. Haste gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (your haste action). Dragon's Breath gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (breathing fire). Hex gives you the ability to take a unique type of bonus action (changing the target). If one of these actions requires components, all of them do.

[KorvinStarmast]

This isn't about concentration, it's about actions granted by spells.
Haste gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (your haste action).
Dragon's Breath gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (breathing fire).
Hex gives you the ability to take a unique type of bonus action (changing the target).
If one of these actions requires components, all of them do. Without taking sides - as I noted above, I'll be discussing this with my groups - your position has the virtue of being internally consistent.

[diplomancer]

See my above argument. Why does a magic meteor need you to point? It's magic, why shouldn't it be mental?

Good point. It's in fact even odder to think that you should point, or say something... like meteors have eyes and ears, and the intelligence to understand speech and signs... and the same goes for curses, lightning bolts, etc...

[Segev]

Back on the original subject, I think hex having one or more invocations dedicated to improving it the same way eldritch blast does would not be remiss.

From earlier:
Evil Eye
Prerequisite: must know hex.
When you cast hex, you may choose to have your left eye take on a supernatural appearance denoting its vile power. It may have its sclera turn black or crimson, continually drip tears of blood, glow with power, or any other mark of its supernatural charge. If you do, you may cast it without components (though the eye's transformation makes it obvious you're casting a spell) and as if cast from a spell slot one level higher. As long as your evil eye is showing, you may concentrate on other spells or effects while maintaining concentration on hex. If your concentration is broken, it is broken for all things you are concentrating on at once.
There is room for debate over whether it should have a prerequisite level, and/or shouldn't have the +1 slot level. The slot level increase basically moves the 8 hour duration from level 5 to level 3, and the 24 hour duration from level 9 down to level 7. I don't actually see the 24 duration as that big of an upgrade over the 8 hour duration, though I do see the upgrade to 8 hours as pretty big.

Other ideas:

Hexagram
Prerequisite: must know hex.
When you cast hex from a level 1 spell slot, you may target one additional creature. For each spell slot above level 1, you may target one more creature with the spell, to a maximum of six (when cast from a fifth level spell slot). Each creature has the same curse and therefore the same affected ability.

Cursed Blade's Hex
Prerequisite: must know hex; must have Pact of the Blade
Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with your Pact Blade, you may cast hex on that creature without spending an action. If you are already concentrating on a casting of hex, you may transfer the curse to the creature stricken by your blade without an action, even if the previous victim of the curse is not yet reduced to 0 hp. In either case, the curse is inflicted before damage is rolled for the attack that triggered it.

Bottomless Spite
Prerequisite: must know hex; must be at least 9th level
When you cast hex, you may choose to do so without expending a spell slot. It is not upcast if cast in this fashion.

[diplomancer]

Back on the original subject, I think hex having one or more invocations dedicated to improving it the same way eldritch blast does would not be remiss.

From earlier:
There is room for debate over whether it should have a prerequisite level, and/or shouldn't have the +1 slot level. The slot level increase basically moves the 8 hour duration from level 5 to level 3, and the 24 hour duration from level 9 down to level 7. I don't actually see the 24 duration as that big of an upgrade over the 8 hour duration, though I do see the upgrade to 8 hours as pretty big.

Other ideas:

Hexagram
Prerequisite: must know hex.
When you cast hex from a level 1 spell slot, you may target one additional creature. For each spell slot above level 1, you may target one more creature with the spell, to a maximum of six (when cast from a fifth level spell slot). Each creature has the same curse and therefore the same affected ability.

Cursed Blade's Hex
Prerequisite: must know hex; must have Pact of the Blade
Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with your Pact Blade, you may cast hex on that creature without spending an action. If you are already concentrating on a casting of hex, you may transfer the curse to the creature stricken by your blade without an action, even if the previous victim of the curse is not yet reduced to 0 hp. In either case, the curse is inflicted before damage is rolled for the attack that triggered it.

Bottomless Spite
Prerequisite: must know hex; must be at least 9th level
When you cast hex, you may choose to do so without expending a spell slot. It is not upcast if cast in this fashion.

When considering new invocations, one must be careful not to make it basically a tax. I believe the Evil Eye invocation falls in this category, even without the upcasting. The next two (Hexagram and Cursed Blade's Hex) are fine. As to the Bottomless Spite, do you mean allowing Hex to be cast At Will? Sounds a bit strong, specially when combined with the Evil Eye invocation.

Also, don't forget munchkins and eye patches, sunglasses, etc...:p probably also best to make it clear that the eye transformation cannot be hid by a Disguise Self spell.

[Segev]

When considering new invocations, one must be careful not to make it basically a tax. I believe the Evil Eye invocation falls in this category, even without the upcasting. The next two (Hexagram and Cursed Blade's Hex) are fine. As to the Bottomless Spite, do you mean allowing Hex to be cast At Will? Sounds a bit strong, specially when combined with the Evil Eye invocation.

I am not sure you and I use "tax" the same way. I am going to explain my understanding of it, and ask you to either give me yours and how it's different, or explain how these qualify as a "tax" by the definition I'm going to give, as I am not sure I see it. Thus, I am not sure I see the problem you mean to highlight with that term.

To me, a "tax" is a thing that every member of a particular class or subclass is required to take to actually function the way it's supposed to function. One could make an argument that Hexblade Patron is a tax on Pact of the Blade, if one believes that Pact of the Blade was underpowered enough that it couldn't function properly before Hexblade existed, and needs Hexblade now in order to work.

I have seen arguments that eldritch blast is essentially a tax on all Warlocks, since no Warlock should be without it and it is inherent to functioning "properly." I am not sure I agree, since it is nice, but not that much nicer than firebolt without its invocations enhancing it. Perhaps one might argue that eldritch blast is a tax on those invocations, and the invocations should give them.

So the only way that I think these could be a "tax" is if hex is, like Pact of the Blade, so underpowered that it is probably not worth taking on its own. Even then, these become a tax on hex, itself.

I have seen people argue for picking up hex with Shadow Touched or Fey Touched, so I am not sure it is entirely that weak. Thus, I am unsure how these qualify as a "tax."

I may, again, not be using "tax" the same way you are, and am interested in hearing what you do mean, though.

[diplomancer]

I am not sure you and I use "tax" the same way. I am going to explain my understanding of it, and ask you to either give me yours and how it's different, or explain how these qualify as a "tax" by the definition I'm going to give, as I am not sure I see it. Thus, I am not sure I see the problem you mean to highlight with that term.

To me, a "tax" is a thing that every member of a particular class or subclass is required to take to actually function the way it's supposed to function. One could make an argument that Hexblade Patron is a tax on Pact of the Blade, if one believes that Pact of the Blade was underpowered enough that it couldn't function properly before Hexblade existed, and needs Hexblade now in order to work.

I have seen arguments that eldritch blast is essentially a tax on all Warlocks, since no Warlock should be without it and it is inherent to functioning "properly." I am not sure I agree, since it is nice, but not that much nicer than firebolt without its invocations enhancing it. Perhaps one might argue that eldritch blast is a tax on those invocations, and the invocations should give them.

So the only way that I think these could be a "tax" is if hex is, like Pact of the Blade, so underpowered that it is probably not worth taking on its own. Even then, these become a tax on hex, itself.

I have seen people argue for picking up hex with Shadow Touched or Fey Touched, so I am not sure it is entirely that weak. Thus, I am unsure how these qualify as a "tax."

I may, again, not be using "tax" the same way you are, and am interested in hearing what you do mean, though.

I mean that almost every Warlock will feel the need to take it, by level 5 at the latest (by level 3 if it has the upcast feature). It's a straight- and significant- damage increase, kinda like Agonizing Blast (which is also considered by many a tax on Eldritch Blast builds, except this one applies both to Eldritch Blast Warlocks and Pact of the Blade Warlocks equally).

It's like the new Warlock they tried to sell, where Mystic Arcanums became invocations... but what invocation is going to compete with a 6th level- let alone a 9th level- spell?

[Segev]

I mean that almost every Warlock will feel the need to take it, by level 5 at the latest (by level 3 if it has the upcast feature). It's a straight- and significant- damage increase, kinda like Agonizing Blast (which is also considered by many a tax on Eldritch Blast builds, except this one applies both to Eldritch Blast Warlocks and Pact of the Blade Warlocks equally).

It's like the new Warlock they tried to sell, where Mystic Arcanums became invocations... but what invocation is going to compete with a 6th level- let alone a 9th level- spell?

If they're taxes, then, does that mean hex is just not worth taking as it is? Or are you just saying they're too strong?

[diplomancer]

If they're taxes, then, does that mean hex is just not worth taking as it is? Or are you just saying they're too strong?

Hex on a fullcaster at higher levels is niche. Even more so for a Warlock, considering how Pact Magic works. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's not worth taking or a trap, but its uses are limited. It's still a good option for a Martial who takes Fey-Touched, be the martial a half-caster or, even more so, not a caster at all... but this is because all classes are encouraged to use their "Concentration slot" on something (by the way, and I've just realized this, there's unused design space for martials there).

With this invocation, Hex becomes quite powerful even on a single-classed Warlock... a straight, almost cost-free, damage buff. It's comparable to Agonizing Blast. Slightly less powerful damage-wise but applicable to more damage sources than just Eldritch Blast. And Agonizing Blast is pretty much considered an invocation tax on any Eldritch Blast-based Warlock build.

[Segev]

Hex on a fullcaster at higher levels is niche. Even more so for a Warlock, considering how Pact Magic works. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's not worth taking or a trap, but its uses are limited. It's still a good option for a Martial who takes Fey-Touched, be the martial a half-caster or, even more so, not a caster at all... but this is because all classes are encouraged to use their "Concentration slot" on something (by the way, and I've just realized this there's unused design space for martials there).

With this invocation, Hex becomes quite powerful even on a single-classed Warlock... a straight, almost cost-free, damage buff. It's comparable to Agonizing Blast. Slightly less powerful damage-wise but applicable to more damage sources than just Eldritch Blast. And Agonizing Blast is pretty much considered an invocation tax on any Eldritch Blast-based Warlock build.

I do not see "enables the build" to be "a build tax" if the build is not the only viable build, or the only viable way to use the thing that the build centers around. If hex is useful without building around it, then a thing that enables a build around it isn't a tax, because it's not a tax to use hex. Does that reasoning make sense?

[Frozenstep]

I do not see "enables the build" to be "a build tax" if the build is not the only viable build, or the only viable way to use the thing that the build centers around. If hex is useful without building around it, then a thing that enables a build around it isn't a tax, because it's not a tax to use hex. Does that reasoning make sense?

You can still use eldritch blast without agonizing blast, it still has plenty of value as a d10 long range damaging cantrip with a very good damage type. But Agonizing blast is such a low cost, high reward improvement that even if you're not building towards that kind of caster, it's hard not to pick it up anyway.

That hex feat isn't quite in the same territory...but it's getting there. One of the main reasons you might not pick to use Hex (or at least trade it out later) is that getting the full value out of longer versions of Hex means holding back on other concentration spells. But removing that cost means those other builds suddenly are only a invocation away from getting the value out of hex on top of the stuff they were already doing. OF course, the spell slot cost (depending on how the group does rests, may or may not be an issue) and concentration dropping issues are also things to consider, so it's not quite an auto-pick, but still.

[Segev]

You can still use eldritch blast without agonizing blast, it still has plenty of value as a d10 long range damaging cantrip with a very good damage type. But Agonizing blast is such a low cost, high reward improvement that even if you're not building towards that kind of caster, it's hard not to pick it up anyway.

That hex feat isn't quite in the same territory...but it's getting there. One of the main reasons you might not pick to use Hex (or at least trade it out later) is that getting the full value out of longer versions of Hex means holding back on other concentration spells. But removing that cost means those other builds suddenly are only a invocation away from getting the value out of hex on top of the stuff they were already doing. OF course, the spell slot cost (depending on how the group does rests, may or may not be an issue) and concentration dropping issues are also things to consider, so it's not quite an auto-pick, but still.

I think that probably puts this where it should be. "One invocation pick away" is not "nothing," and other invocations will compete for it. Just as you can play without Agonizing Blast if you're not trying to center your build around eldritch blast, even if you have that as your damage cantrip of choice. Sure, it's "one invocation pick away," but you might have more important things than damage to your build. I know that's weird in white room discussion, but even with combat being the most-developed pillar in 5e, it isn't the only thing people do.

[Chronos]

When I played a warlock, I didn't, in fact, take Agonizing Blast. I probably would have eventually, if I got high enough level, but there were enough other good invocations competing with it that I couldn't justify spending one on just "more damage".

An invocation that lets you use Hex where you couldn't otherwise is worth about the same amount as one that lets you add Cha-mod extra damage where you couldn't otherwise. So it's no more nor less of a tax.

[diplomancer]

When I played a warlock, I didn't, in fact, take Agonizing Blast. I probably would have eventually, if I got high enough level, but there were enough other good invocations competing with it that I couldn't justify spending one on just "more damage".

An invocation that lets you use Hex where you couldn't otherwise is worth about the same amount as one that lets you add Cha-mod extra damage where you couldn't otherwise. So it's no more nor less of a tax.

But there's another functionality to Hex besides damage, that, without concentration and paired with some particular spells, can be very powerful. For instance, shifting a Hex into someone, targeting their Intelligence, while simultaneously casting Phantasmal Force, can easily take someone out of a fight completely. Fail the first save, and now you need to make a check with disadvantage to get out.

[Chronos]

Sure, Hex has other applications besides damage, but damage is the primary one. And Agonizing Blast is more damage than Hex, in most situations (usually 4 or 5, vs. Hex's 3.5), it doesn't take any actions, and even without the invocation you can still use Hex sometimes if you want. I think all of that more than balances out the check-disadvantage rider on Hex, to mean that this Evil Eye invocation would be less of a "must-have" than Agonizing Blast.