Is Hex worth it at high levels?

[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.

[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, 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

[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

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. 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.”