10
\$\begingroup\$

It is very clear that it takes all 3 hags from a coven to create a new Hag Eye but if afterwards one of them dies, ending the coven, are the other 2 hags still "linked" to the previously created Hag Eye? That is to say:

  1. Can the 2 remaining hags still use an action to see through the Hag Eye?
  2. If the eye is destroyed are they blinded for 24 hours?

I think it is unlikely to influence answers but in my case the coven had 3 night hags.

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

RAW, they are not still linked once one is dead.

Here's the relevant passage describing the rules for Hag Eyes:

Hag Eye. A hag coven can craft a magic item called a hag eye, which is made from a real eye coated in varnish and often fitted to a pendant or other wearable item. The hag eye is usually entrusted to a minion for safekeeping and transport. A hag in the coven can take an action to see what the hag eye sees if the hag eye is on the same plane of existence. A hag eye has AC 10, 1 hit point, and darkvision with a radius of 60 feet. If it is destroyed, each coven member takes 3d10 psychic damage and is blinded for 24 hours. A hag coven can have only one hag eye at a time, and creating a new one requires all three members of the coven to perform a ritual. The ritual takes 1 hour, and the hags can't perform it while blinded. During the ritual, if the hags take any action other than performing the ritual, they must start over. (MM p. 176)

So this question can be answered by answering whether the two remaining hags are still in a coven after one dies. It's clear from the text that neither of the effects you asked about applies if there is no coven.

Here's the text describing covens:

A coven consists of three hags so that any arguments between two hags can be settled by the third. If more than three hags ever come together, as might happen if two covens come into conflict, the result is usually chaos. (MM p. 176)

So a coven is three hags. Once one is killed, they are no longer a coven, and the Hag Eye can no longer be seen through by the hags or destroyed to hurt the hags.

Further RAW support

Volo's Guide to Monsters describes the situation you're describing where one of the hags in a coven is killed:

If a member of a coven is killed and the surviving members intend to keep the group from dissolving, they immediately attempt to recruit a replacement. This process involves each prospective member committing cruel acts with the aim of impressing the remaining coven members. Adventurers who slay only one member of a coven might deal a blow to it in the short term, but later on the surrounding region is wracked with plaguest curses, and other disasters as the applicants attempt to outdo one another. (VGTM p. 57-58)

So the surviving two hags try to find a third as soon as possible if they intend to continue the coven - since they cannot do so with just the two of them.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure the Volo's addition is a counterpoint. I could see that as further support in that the surviving members need a 3rd in order not to dissolve (as the two remaining may immediately fall into infighting?) \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jun 20 '18 at 13:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ To further @NautArch 's point, if one person in a family survives a plane crash (as an example), one of the things that might be said is "the last surviving member of the family" even though a singular person would no longer qualify as a family in the colloquial sense. The same logic could be applied to the VGtM section jsutifying the use of the word "members" even though they are no longer a coven. \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Jun 20 '18 at 17:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Fair points, I've edited so that's now supporting evidence. \$\endgroup\$ – Vigil Jun 20 '18 at 17:44
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ To me "If a member of a coven is killed and the surviving members intend to keep the group from dissolving, they immediately attempt to recruit a replacement." indicates that in the timeframe between the death of a hag and the recruitment of a new one, the coven still exists because it is kept from disolving. In other words, if the death of a hag instantly destroys the coven, then it's impossible to keep the coven from disolving by definition. \$\endgroup\$ – Ruse Jun 21 '18 at 9:31
3
\$\begingroup\$

The other two can still use it

(if "a hag in the coven" is still true of a dissolved coven)

The text describing the hag eye only mentions that the ritual needed to create one requires all 3 coven members. It also mentions that any one of the hags in the coven can use it, so I interpret this as the remaining hags still being able to do so, even if one of the coven has died since the Hag Eye's creation.

From MM pg. 176 (emphasis mine):

A hag in the coven can take an action to see what the hag eye sees if the hag eye is on the same plane of existence. [...] A hag coven can have only one hag eye at a time, and creating a new one requires all three members of the coven to perform the ritual.

This, however, depends on your definition of "a hag in the coven". My interpretation implies that a hag that was part of the coven during the eye's creation still counts as a hag in the coven regarding the eye's use, even after the coven is dissolved due to one of them being dead. Therefore, if you interpret "a hag in the coven" as requiring that the coven still be active (i.e. all three members need to be alive), then there are no hags in that coven since that coven no longer exists, so therefore no-one can use the eye.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ It also mentions that a coven must be 3 (not 2, not 4, the number of thy counting is 3.) How does that factor into it? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jun 20 '18 at 13:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Ah, I think I see what you mean. If one of the hags is dead, they are no longer a coven, thus "a hag in the coven" no longer exists. I suppose therefore I'm choosing to read it as "a hag that was part of the coven that originally created the eye, that coven that no longer exists since one died", which is an interpretation rather than strict RAW. Is that what you meant? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Jun 20 '18 at 13:16
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ That was my thinking. Especially considering the issue of "A coven consists of three hags so that any arguments between two hags can be settled by the third. " it seems like they need that third hag (and no more) in order to function without fighting. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jun 20 '18 at 13:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure your headline reflects the last paragraph well. \$\endgroup\$ – A Very Large Bear Jun 20 '18 at 13:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.