combos for hex

[Quoxis]

At the risk of stoking the flames: targets don't notice the hex's effect itself, for the simple reason that the spell doesn't say so. "Charm person" has noticing being magically influenced in its description, for example, while hex doesn't. Iirc it's even stated at the beginning of the section of the phb that explains magic: if it's not in the description, it goes unnoticed.

Whether v,s,m means jumping out in front of a foe screaming ooga booga and dancing with a newt's eye (those things are ridiculously small btw) or whispering "hex" with your hands in your pockets is a DM thing, but if you use the subtle spell metamagic nobody notices, no discussion.

As to good uses: there are lots of spells and class features requiring certain checks, so ask your party which ones they plan to target and curse accordingly.
Enemy casters usually dump str, so if you(r party barbarian) plan on grappling one, hex their dex.

[Saggo]

I didn't see the tweet from JC saying he agreed with you (on this or any occasion). Do you have that tweet by JC (I'm interested in the tweets from "Literally every time" as well, but let's start with this)? Either way, the RAW states:

I linked it on the second page. You can still haggle over the whens and whys, whether it's bad luck of physiology, but by RAI the end result is the same: Hex can be noticed.

It's a case a badly written RAW. I'd always assumed Hex could go unnoticed, and a DM can still decide it does, but then there's this.

[Rebonack]

I linked it on the second page. You can still haggle over the whens and whys, whether it's bad luck of physiology, but by RAI the end result is the same: Hex can be noticed.

Problem is the Tweet doesn't actually answer the question. Someone will notice Hex when they experience the spell's effect. Okay. So are we talking here about necrotic damage (something that can be experienced) or the first time they make an ability check (which is a bit more abstract) or are we talking both? Because ability checks are only rolled when an activity has a reasonable chance of failure and a roll is required to resolve it. I've noticed that quite a few of these rules answers are worded in the most vague, obtuse fashion possible. 'Both the necrotic damage and disadvantage are noticeable.' instead of 'The target notices the spell when the spell's effects occur.' would have cleared the question up completely.

But instead here we are, still grappling with it (at disadvantage no less).

I dont care what school it is; it has a noticable effect.

The school makes a world of difference. Compare a ghoul's paralyzing touch with hold person. The former is a necromantic effect that assault's the target's physiology (Constitution save), they physically can't move because their muscles are seizing up tetanus-style. The latter is a mental effect that makes the target believe they don't WANT to move (Wisdom save) and shaking it off represents the character realizing that no, they do in fact want to move because if they don't then that angry barbarian is going to cause them a great deal of harm.

Some enchantments become known to the target when they end (charm person, target realizes 'Wait a minute, I hate that guy!') while others like Suggestion make no mention of the target ever realizing that the coarse of action they took was the result of magical coercion, they just thought it was a good idea at the time. As an enchantment, Hex falls into the same category. It effects the behavior and motivations of the target like all enchantment spells. Even if it's noticeable, the noticeable effect is the target just not 'feeling it' today. Maybe they don't believe it's worth the effort. Maybe they just chalk it up to bad luck.

"Okay. Vilgax is going to arm wrestle Kojak in the tavern. Is anyone else going to do anything?"
"Yeah, I want to Hex Kojak's Strength checks so Vilgax will win. He called me limp-wanded loser."
"Sure. Maelef hexes Kojack. Kojak, you're suddenly feeling really unmotivated. There's a few silver on the line, but you just can't muster the will to give it your all. Roll athletics at disadvantage."

So Kojack TOTALLY felt that. There's an effect, but it is subtle like all enchantments. He chalked it up to just not being in the game today. Because when an Enchantment does stuff, unless the spell specifically states otherwise (Charm Person) they're going to rationalize it as being their own idea/motivation/shortcoming/whatever.

[Malifice]

I didn't see the tweet from JC saying he agreed with you (on this or any occasion). Do you have that tweet by JC (I'm interested in the tweets from "Literally every time" as well, but let's start with this)? Either way, the RAW states:

The link is in this thread. It says Hex is noticeable by the target (and it triggers initiative).

"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."

Hexing isnt a subtle effect, any more than giving someone a level of exhaustion, poisoning them, restraining them, knocking them prone or blinding them is.

Oh, and you're wrong.

[Saggo]

Problem is the Tweet doesn't actually answer the question. Someone will notice Hex when they experience the spell's effect. Okay. So are we talking here about necrotic damage (something that can be experienced) or the first time they make an ability check (which is a bit more abstract) or are we talking both? Because ability checks are only rolled when an activity has a reasonable chance of failure and a roll is required to resolve it. I've noticed that quite a few of these rules answers are worded in the most vague, obtuse fashion possible. 'Both the necrotic damage and disadvantage are noticeable.' instead of 'The target notices the spell when the spell's effects occur.' would have cleared the question up completely.

That's why I said you can haggle over the when, but the implication is fairly obviously both effects. That much isn't vague. We know, per RAI, at a minimum the spell effect is noticed when the spell effect occurs and the spell effect includes disadvantaged checks.

So the tweet may not, for instance, specifically prevent a Subtled Hex on Wisdom going unoticed. But it will at a minimum go notice as soon as they make an Insight check against your Deception.

[RSP]

That's why I said you can haggle over the when, but the implication is fairly obviously both effects. That much isn't vague. We know, per RAI, at a minimum the spell effect is noticed when the spell effect occurs and the spell effect includes disadvantaged checks.

So the tweet may not, for instance, specifically prevent a Subtled Hex on Wisdom going unoticed. But it will at a minimum go notice as soon as they make an Insight check against your Deception.

I disagree: Whether JC meant the damaging effect or the Disadvantage effect or both is up to discussion for RAI.

I'd agree the necrotic damage is usually noticeable (again, if the initiating attack is already necrotic damage, I wouldn't lean towards the target going "oh no, two separate instances of necrotic damage just hit me on one attack!").

However, the RAW is "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."

As noted above, Charm Person gives us an example of the spell stating otherwise: "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you."

Nothing similar is included in the wording of Hex, therefore it stands to reason, it's not noticed.

Now we can also reasonable conclude that prior to Charm Person ending, the target doesn't know they are effected by the spell.

Interestingly enough, both Hex and Charm Person deal with game mechanics (Adv/Disadvantage) in their effect. Though Charm Person gives Advantage to the Caster (via the Charmed Condition), the spell isn't effecting the Caster; the effect is still on the target. If the Caster tries to Persuade three characters of a course of action, two will perceive the plea as normal (a single d20 ability check) whereas the charmed individual will possibly perceive it as enhanced (if the second d20 roll is greater than the first).

If characters are aware in-game of out of game game mechanics, like Advantage or Disadvantage, the the target of Charm Person would be aware that they're perceiving the casters words differently than everyone else.

But as we know the target doesn't become aware of the spell until after the spell ends (because it literally states it), it can't be true that characters are aware of game mechanics like Advantage or Disadvantage.

[RSP]

The link is in this thread. It says Hex is noticeable by the target (and it triggers initiative).

Un, no. The tweet says: "Hex, like most spells, can be cast outside combat."

The RAW states: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order."

So rolling initiative=combat. Out of combat, therefore, means no initiative has been rolled.

If you were correct in that as soon as you try to cast Hex you roll initiative and then cast it on your first turn, then all castings of Hex would be in combat.

JC specifically says here that you are wrong: Hex, like most spells, can be cast outside combat.

[Spiritchaser]

For my part, I’d read the tweet this as meaning that RAI, hex would be noticed if you took damage, or suffered disadvantage on a check.

This is close to what I have done, but not quite.

For the record I rule that a passive check hexed to disadvantage does not make the victim aware of the hex.

This would not appear to be RAI, but it’s fun, supports warlock spy shenanigans (with risk) which I feel should be supported, and, for whatever little it’s worth, would still appear to be within the wide bounds of RAW, given the lack of clarity on RAW.

[Saggo]

I disagree: Whether JC meant the damaging effect or the Disadvantage effect or both is up to discussion for RAI.

Of course. What evidence do you see in the Twitter exchange that either person changed the original subject of the spell effect for disadvantage to a new subject, that of the spell effect for damage? It seems obvious to me that JC's intent for the rule is in reference to Hex's disadvantage.

Unless there's justification that neither one of the particpiants was referring to disadvantage following the initial query, we can conclude that by RAI Hex is perceptible at some point by the disadvantage it gives.

[RSP]

Of course. What evidence do you see in the Twitter exchange that either person changed the original subject of the spell effect for disadvantage to a new subject, that of the spell effect for damage? It seems obvious to me that JC's intent for the rule is in reference to Hex's disadvantage.

Unless there's justification that neither one of the particpiants was referring to disadvantage following the initial query, we can conclude that by RAI Hex is perceptible at some point by the disadvantage it gives.

RAI - I believe the spell was intended (by the devs) to have a use out of combat for such things as giving Disadvantage on Wis (Insight) or Wis (Perception) checks. Knowing that Passive Perception is used as a floor for Perception checks (Mearls and Crawford have both indicated this), if you know you're Hexed as soon as the Disadvantage kicks in, you know you're Hexed at the instant Hex is cast as PP is "always on", which completely defeats the purpose of avoiding notice.

Moreover, as I've stated in detail previously, such a thing would go completely against RAW (per the rules on targets typically being unaware) and to the very fabric of the game: I can't believe the intent is that character's are aware of the game mechanics of die rolls (as stated above). Yes, the die rolls reflect in-game effects like hitting or missing, but the characters would never be aware of things like "I would have picked this lock with a roll of 14, if I didn't have Disadvantage and also rolled a 2." Whether or not Advantage/Disadvantage applies, characters are only aware of the effect of the roll that counts.

The spell specifically called out in the RAW as the example of a spell the target wouldn't notice, Detect Thoughts, has a save attached to it. The save and the d20 associated with that save are both game mechanics, just like Advantage/Disadvantage. I see no reason why game mechanics would be noticeable to the in-game characters without something more attached to them (like Disadvantage associated with being Blinded - the Condition would be noticeable, but the character would have zero awareness that without the second die roll, they would have hit with their attack: the character only knows they didn't hit when they blindly swung. The Player would be aware of the Disadvantage but not the character.).

So just like earlier in this thread, when I was only thinking of the Disadvantage aspect of Hex when posting, Crawford could very well have only been thinking of the damage aspect of Hex. Let's be real, JC does make mistakes (like when he tweeted Cutting Words can remove a natural 20 critical on an attack roll, then two months later, reviewed his tweet, admitted he errred, and did a 180 to "Cutting Words can't nullify a critical hit—no bonus or penalty can (PH, 194). [Overrides a deleted 12/3 tweet]").

The extent of difference between what you're saying is RAI with the RAW is in such direct contrast, I'd think an errata is in order if that's what they originally intended and some reason other than the game mechanic of Disadvantage should be noted as the "obvious effect." I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's such a divergence, I'd need something more than the previous tweet to convince me that's what their intent was.

[Malifice]

Un, no. The tweet says: "Hex, like most spells, can be cast outside combat."

Wrong tweet bro. Have another look.

JC expressly says Hex is noticeable by its target, AND that casting it generally triggers initiative.

And I agree it can be cast outside of combat. 'Combat' only occurs when the DM says it does.

If my 20th level Wizard lightning bolts a commoner in the forest, I dont anticipate the DM asking for initiative, or even bothering with a saving throw for the commoner, or making me roll damage.

'He dies. Now what?'

[Rebonack]

Question 1: if initiative is dex check, can hex give dis on initiative if cast B4 first round?

Answer 1: Hex, like most spells, can be cast outside combat.

Question 2: Also do people know they are hexed? Thx!

Answer 2: The target notices the spell when the spell's effects occur.


So... Hex pretty clearly can be cast outside of combat for the purpose of nerfing someone's Initiative check so when combat does start they roll at disadvantage as that's the question that was asked.

The target also notices the spell's effect when the spell effect (necrotic damage and/or disadvantage on a roll) happens. People are still divided on whether the 'effect' is referring to the necrotic damage only or both the necrotic damage and the disadvantage. But we'll assume here the disadvantage is also noticed. How noticing that effect is described is going to be up to the DM narrating. So if you ding someone's Dex with Hex without them noticing you casting the spell, then when you initiate combat they're going to roll Initiative at disadvantage.

Given how the Enchantment school works, this will likely be noticed in the sense of 'Eh, I'm suddenly feeling really unmotivated about these guys. No real reason to give it my all.' Why? Because Enchantments mess with what a creature believes they think or want. Suggestion makes them think whatever you said is the best idea ever. Charm Person makes them think you're their chum. Hold Person makes them think they want to hold perfectly still. Making the Wisdom saves means they realize, 'Wait, I don't want/believe those things at all!' Following that line of thought, Hex makes the target believe they shouldn't put as much effort into a check as they normally would. However, they don't know the source of that belief. And they don't know where it came from when it ends, either, since Hex includes no clause about the target realizing that they were enchanted unlike Charm Person and Friends.

With those things in mind, the ruling that Hex can be cast outside of combat even though the target notices that something is off when they make a check aligns perfectly. They notice that they don't feel the motivation they normally do to accomplish a task, but this feeling gets internally rationalized rather than singled out as a hostile action.

[RSP]

The link is in this thread. It says Hex is noticeable by the target (and it triggers initiative).



Hexing isnt a subtle effect, any more than giving someone a level of exhaustion, poisoning them, restraining them, knocking them prone or blinding them is.

Oh, and you're wrong.

Wrong tweet bro. Have another look.

JC expressly says Hex is noticeable by its target, AND that casting it generally triggers initiative.

And I agree it can be cast outside of combat. 'Combat' only occurs when the DM says it does.

If my 20th level Wizard lightning bolts a commoner in the forest, I dont anticipate the DM asking for initiative, or even bothering with a saving throw for the commoner, or making me roll damage.

'He dies. Now what?'

Please post the tweet he provided you then.

[Malifice]

Please post the tweet he provided you then.

It's already in this thread. Twice

[RSP]

People are still divided on whether the 'effect' is referring to the necrotic damage only or both the necrotic damage and the disadvantage. But we'll assume here the disadvantage is also noticed.

Making the Wisdom saves means they realize, 'Wait, I don't want/believe those things at all!'

I disagree, making the Wis Save means they're completely unaffected by the spell. It's not that they were starting to be held by Hold Person and fought off the effects, or that they were about to believe they should follow the Suggestion and realize they shouldn't.

It's that passing the save means the spell has no effect on them. They might see someone cast a spell, but they have no idea it was Hold Person and they were the target because no obvious effect occurred, that is, you were never held.

From the PHB:

"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects."

Avoiding all of the effects, means it has no effect, not "you start feeling the effects and then waive them off."

[Malifice]

I disagree, making the Wis Save means they're completely unaffected by the spell. It's not that they were starting to be held by Hold Person and fought off the effects, or that they were about to believe they should follow the Suggestion and realize they shouldn't.

It's that passing the save means the spell has no effect on them. They might see someone cast a spell, but they have no idea it was Hold Person and they were the target because no obvious effect occurred, that is, you were never held.

From the PHB:

"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects."

Avoiding all of the effects, means it has no effect, not "you start feeling the effects and then waive them off."

Are you honestly saying that if someone cast flesh to stone on someone else and they made their saving throw they wouldn't notice it?

Wisdom saving throws are effectively you resisting Magic using your willpower. You fighting off the effect using your will or intellect or what have you.

[RSP]

Are you honestly saying that if someone cast flesh to stone on someone else and they made their saving throw they wouldn't notice it?

Wisdom saving throws are effectively you resisting Magic using your willpower. You fighting off the effect using your will or intellect or what have you.

Well, first, I think it's a Con Save for Flesh to Stone.

Second, it doesn't matter what kind of save it is. What matters is what the spell says, per the RAW:

"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure."

It's not an instance of starting to be affected by something and then making the Save and resisting it. It's a seemless flow of being targeted and the Save to see if the spell does anything or not.

Per the spell, "On a successful save, the creature isn't affected."

What part of that line makes you think there's any effect, much less a noticible one? Because the RAW tells us "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all."

No effect = no perceptible effect = RAW its typically unnoticed.

So yeah, I'm honestly saying that, since it's what the RAW says.

Do you really play that spells like Flesh to Stone or Hold Person start taking effect on someone during a period of in-game time between the casting and the Save? If so, what if the Rogue holds his attack with the trigger being "when the creature is effected by the Wizard's spell."

Is the creature targeted by the spell effected when it's cast and they haven't made their Save yet? What is that effect? Are they briefly Paralyzed until the Save roll is made, and therefore the Rogue gets Advantage on their attack and get Sneak Attack damage?

If so, that's a pretty cheap free way for your players to exploit when a spell fails.

RAW, as shown here with the rules, states if you pass the Save you're unaffected. If unaffected, there's no noticeable effect. If no noticeable effect, then the spell typically goes unnoticed.

It's not very complicated.

[Rebonack]

Are you honestly saying that if someone cast flesh to stone on someone else and they made their saving throw they wouldn't notice it?

Wisdom saving throws are effectively you resisting Magic using your willpower. You fighting off the effect using your will or intellect or what have you.

They used to be. But with the saves getting divided up things have changed a bit from older editions.

A Wisdom saving throw is someone noticing an effect and realizing that this isn't how they wish to behave (Charm person). An Intelligence saving throw is finding contradictions in something or managing to comprehend an assault (Phantasmal Force and Mind Blast). A Charisma save is shrugging off an effect through sheer force of will (Planeshift).

But otherwise I agree with you. If someone resists a spell they totally know something just happened. A guy getting hit with Frostbite still gets caked in frost, but because of their heartiness they push through the cold unharmed.

[RSP]

They used to be. But with the saves getting divided up things have changed a bit from older editions.

A Wisdom saving throw is someone noticing an effect and realizing that this isn't how they wish to behave (Charm person). An Intelligence saving throw is finding contradictions in something or managing to comprehend an assault (Phantasmal Force and Mind Blast). A Charisma save is shrugging off an effect through sheer force of will (Planeshift).

But otherwise I agree with you. If someone resists a spell they totally know something just happened. A guy getting hit with Frostbite still gets caked in frost, but because of their heartiness they push through the cold unharmed.

Not sure if you're talking just about Frostbite or spells in general, but the RAW is pretty clear: if there's no noticeable effect, it typically goes unnoticed.

Now, Frostbite doesn't say that. It says the target has numbing Frost form on them and follows that with passing the save equals no damage (rather than no effect as with Hold Person or Flesh to Stone).

But RAW is pretty clear that Saves aren't a noticeable effect. It can be a cool thing to houserule that way at a table, but Saves, like spells in general, aren't noticed unless there's a noticeable effect.

Is there RAW you're pulling your save definitions from or are just going with what the attribute definitions are?

[Easy_Lee]

Wrong tweet bro. Have another look.

JC expressly says Hex is noticeable by its target, AND that casting it generally triggers initiative.

As a reminder to you and everyone else, tweets are not RAW. The tweets are RAI clarifications and rulings, not rules. Rven AL DMs are free to disregard them, especially when the tweets state something that isn't in the text.

Regardless, the tweets certainly aren't intended to be used as weapons in forum arguments.

[RSP]

From Crawford 12/11/15 tweet:

"A spell doesn't do anything to a target on a successful save unless its description says it does. #DnD"

For RAI on failed saves from Mearls:

"@JeremyECrawford @mikemearls If one cast a spell on you and fail when you make a Saving Throw, do you know? Ex: Charm Person, Scrying

Mike Mearls @mikemearls
DM's call, based on nature of spell. As default, no unless there is an obvious effect #wotcstaff"

So JC states on a successful save there's no effect (the spell "doesn't do anything") and we can go with RAI from Mearls who says on a failed save you don't notice "unless there is an obvious effect."

These both also line up with the RAW I posted previously.

I don't see a reason, RAW, to interpret spells differently.

[Danielqueue1]

I am not familiar with the BBCode to mark who gave what quote. these are not all from the same person.

'Combat' is a nebulous term. Basically whenever the DM determines hostilities are about to occur or there is a need to switch from narrative to turn based action.

hostilities need not occur when hex is cast. this is up to DM arbitration. the person could hex a target, take any number of non-hostile actions and dismiss the spell without a single hostile effect taking place. once again DM arbitration.

That would also trigger Combat starting. Presuming the target notices he's been Hexed (in my game he generally does).

that's in your game (emphasis mine)

Source? Just because it removes V, S and M from the spell doesn't mean that it is not noticable, and the Warlock's intent cant be discerned.

there is no RAW reason for it to be discerned. you can add a relevant skill check as a DM if you feel it fits the circumstance but there are no RAW notable effects at the casting of the spell and so there is no reason for combat to start unless the DM arbitrates otherwise (like a different guard having detect magic up would be a totally reasonable thing)

Consider handing a poisoned apple to someone. They get an insight check to determine if you mean them harm. Same deal with possibly noticing the guy in the corner of the tavern casting a subtle spell at you. I'd certainly allow a PC a check of some kind to notice it, or at a minimum to tell him there is something shady about this fellow.

this is no longer in the realm of the rules about hex. and we should get back to the point of the thread. this is about whether people get to make a check to see if someone is looking at you funny. further, even if a person did notice the "there is something shady about this fellow." that tells you nothing about whether they are casting a spell.

I can certainly narratively see how such a thing could be noticed (or some clue being present) to both PCs and NPCs.

yes but at DM arbitration to the Narrative and situation, not the rules of the spell. please treat it as such

it's the same garbage you constantly spew while not understanding that other people...

calm down dude. calm down.

No; you are. You're ruling that it is impossible to detect that someone wishes you harm and/or is casting a silent + stilled spell. The DC in your games is infinite.

that is not what is the general consensus of this thread, the consensus is that there are plenty of ways to make hex go unnoticed. your previous posts make it sound like it is automatically noticed. setting a DC to 0. people are trying to counter that idea whether that was your original intent or not. further there are situations where it is impossible to tell that someone wishes you harm. if you do not notice that said person exists (passed an earlier stealth check for example.) then you have no reason to insight their intent.

The caster could have a 'tell' that a skilled...

(emphasis mine) Read "might" and there for up to DM arbitration. not that it MUST exist.

How about you take your own advice mate and let us continue without being so salty.

the less salt in the forums, the better we can actually discuss things.

Call me crazy, but if it takes VSM to curse someone, is it too unreasonable to hold subsequent cursing to VSM, or VS, or at the least VS.

crazy? that depends on whether you are the DM of your own game and have discussed it with your players. if you have, go ahead. If you have not, then it is not RAW and should be handled with care.

{Fred the Commoner example}

this is no longer about the ruling of the casting of hex this is about whether people notice malicious intent. just because you know that guy hates your guts does not mean you know he cast hex on you.

Arbitrary dice rolls, imposed only for some form of "challenge" or "realism," are a punishment to players.

arbitrary, is the key word. but the above example need not be entirely arbitrary. the fact that it will not be necessary in all cases is the issue at hand. further why mention realism? most checks are made to the extent of the realism level of the campaign.

I recall another Tweet on the same subject that clarified when the target experiences the Hex in the form of taking necrotic damage (their wounds mysteriously fester! Something bad is happening!) then they know that something unpleasant is afoot.

necrotic damage is not taken at the time of casting. necrotic damage is taken when the target is hit by an attack from the caster of the spell. If you are making an attack against a person you intend to take a hostile action and combat would have started anyway. hex need not be hostile, but an attack roll generally is.

Notice this thing is a Wisdom save

read again. hex has no save,

I'm not 'invalidating any class features'. Im simply stating that an absence of verbal and somatic components to a spell does not make it suddenly [DC Infinty] for nearby creatures to detect that spellcasting, nor to detect the hostile intent behind it.

but there are circumstances where such a check would be impossible. (hidden caster being an easy one.) don't imply that because there are reasonable circumstances where a check would be available means that people always get one. example a human at night doesn't get to make an insight check on a person standing 90 feet away in total darkness that he doesn't know is there. just because there are circumstances where a person might have an notable tell, does not mean that everyone must be allowed a check every time.

Youre cursed. Body and Soul (you're taking extra necrotic damage)

nothing RAW states anything about your soul being affected. you are only taking necrotic damage if you are also being attacked

You're suddenly MUCH weaker (Str), feel Much more frail (Con), start fumbling things and tripping over (Dex) cant think straight (Wis and Int) or start blarting out farts uncontrollablly (Charisma). You are literally cursed. One of your fundamental inherent abilities is weakened to the same level as being poisoned, exhausted, restrained in dim light etc etc (Disadvantage).

you are no more or less strong. you can still lift drag and carry just as much. you are encumbered at the same point (if using encumbrance rules). you swing your hammer just as well, you hit just as hard, your finesse weapons swing with just as much finesse. you dodge fireballs and lightning bolts with just as much dexterity. You do not feel any more or less frail. you are neither sick nor more likely to become sick. you can take just as many hits. poisons affect you the same way they have before hex. you can go just as long without food and water. you get exhausted at the same rate. you can march just as far without getting tired (forced march is a saving throw) you resist charms just as well. you resist being possessed just as effectively. you can remember and prepare the same number of spells. You cast your spells and maintain concentration on them just as effectively. the power of your spells (with a few exceptions for telekinesis et al.) are completely unaffected. the bard can be just as inspirational (bardic inspiration) your vision isn't dimmed, bright light is still bright light, dim light is still dim, darkness is still darkness, you can see just as far with darkvision. your attacks are just as accurate. you have the same highest possible roll and lowest possible roll on any ability check. the spell does not have any specified noticeable aspects. no haze no beam of light, no crackling energy, no feelings of weakness, no dullness of mind no stumbling etc. Consider that ability checks do not need to be made unless there is a chance of failure. and if there is a chance of failure to begin with, then a character would likely not consider it any more odd that they failed. (any more so than rolling a nat 1 would)
this statement is completely unfounded based on RAW. please add "in my game" before making such statements.

or start blarting out farts uncontrollablly

what?

It's you restating you same, tired opinion on how things work and insisting that it is fact until you choke the life out of a thread.

dude, calm down.

If I told my players: 'You have disadvantage on [x] ability checks' I presume they would want to know what they percieve the effect causing this mechanical penalty to be.

that is the players. Characters are generally considered to be unaware of the game mechanics and would have no RAW reason to be. the spell does not have any listed sensory effects so anything you add is not RAW. further even if they did feel "off" they wouldn't necessarily have reason to know why. (and especially not who cast it on them.)

Its no different if a PC lost hit points, suffered ability drain, a level of exhaustion, was poisoned or copped a different condition etc. Id explain to them [how it feels, what their character experiences].

it is very different than if a PC lost hitpoints. losing hitpoints involves taking damage. and even if you did as a DM flavor text it to include other effects (which are not RAW.) there would be no RAW way of telling (barring detect magic, identify or similar) that it was in-fact being hexed and not some other condition. you can rule that everyone everywhere knows all the sources of advantage and disadvantage they have at all times forever. fine. keep it at your table. unless there is some sensory reason for someone to notice that they've been having bad luck, the same type of luck that comes from rolling poorly on a given roll. then RAW there is no reason for them to notice. the DM can arbitrate what is and is not reasonable at their own table, but not at other DM's tables. please keep it to RAW and suggestions marked as such.

In my games [disadvantage to an ability score] is an effect that is almost always noticable.

that's fine for your table. but that is a ruling that you make as a DM not RAW.

Rubbish.

insufficient information please show RAW why it is rubbish.

Not houserules. Once again, you're wrong.

please cite your sources.

When you cast Hex, you choose a saving throw and the target have disadvantage on it while the Hex is active.

it's ability checks not saving throws they are different.

Hexing isnt a subtle effect, any more than giving someone a level of exhaustion, poisoning them, restraining them, knocking them prone or blinding them is.

Characters are not aware of levels of exhaustion any more than they know what they rolled on a D20. they just know that they are tired. poison can go hours without being noticed. restraining someone restricts their physical movement, knocking them prone physically changes their body's position. On PHB pg 173 it says "the DM can also decide that the circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." there are uncountable reasons for people to have advantage or disadvantage on a check. that does not mean that all characters know all of the reasons.

Oh, and you're wrong.

there really is no need to include this type of phrase in any form of reasonable discussion. and really just makes you look worse.

Wisdom saving throws are effectively you resisting Magic using your willpower. You fighting off the effect using your will or intellect or what have you.

the section on saving throws does not include this. neither in Chapter 7 nor in chapter 10. this is flavor text you chose to include or something from a source other than 5th edition core rules.

A Wisdom saving throw is someone noticing an effect and realizing that this isn't how they wish to behave (Charm person). An Intelligence saving throw is finding contradictions in something or managing to comprehend an assault (Phantasmal Force and Mind Blast). A Charisma save is shrugging off an effect through sheer force of will (Planeshift).

also not RAW, but I like the flavor text here better.

As a reminder to you and everyone else, tweets are not RAW. The tweets are RAI clarifications and rulings, not rules.

THANK YOU way too many people don't seem to make this connection.


I believe that a lot of this discussion could be brought to a close if people accepted that there are times when it is reasonable to require X and a time where it is not. what is considered noticeable depends on the DM and the table. further, ability checks can be rather arbitrary at certain tables and very precise at others. so the mileage that one can get out of the hex spell depends on the DM and the players at the table. if your DM makes the decision that Hex is noticeable, then it does not matter what the book says. please let us keep these forums civil. and everyone please mark the distinctions between what you rule at your own table, and what is actually found in the books. (tweets receive consideration for RAI but are still not RAW)