Is Hex worth it at high levels?

[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. 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


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


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 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 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 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.

[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.

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.