Is Hex worth it at high levels?

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

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

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd say it's not exactly new, it's also known as bag of rats

It isn't the concept that I was happy about, but that specific term. I'll find a way to wedge it into a game sometime soon.

[GeneralVryth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all assumption.

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

[Segev]

This is all assumption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LudicSavant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

[Theodoxus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

Fair enough. I specifically recall reading somewhere that the DM adjudicates whether you can meaningfully help with a given action, but I am far too lazy to go hunting that down, so will conceded the point. I instead draw your attention to the first sentence: "You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task." This actually does specify that you must actually do something that helps; it says "you lend your aid." No, that's not terribly specific, nor should it be. But it certainly draws a different line than the spells you're trying to add "recasting" to.

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

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

Metamagic is easy, it's not an action. It's a modification on an action.

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

So you can default to the requirements of the action in question (in this case spell casting components since you're casting a spell), unless of course those requirements are modified, by something like Subtle Spell.

You can default with hex to the requirements spelled out to transfer the curse, too: nothing except spending the bonus action to do it.

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

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

[notthegiant]

This argument is getting tiresome.

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

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

[Theodoxus]

This argument is getting tiresome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

Thus a ruling was needed for the weird cases where trying to use them subtle mattered (because to do something subtly you first need to know what the something looks like).

Not really. The rules don't specify that you do anything obvious, so you don't have to. Period.

The ruling was the recast options should require something similar to the V,S components of the original spell cast if they had them.

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

In the case of shapeshifted Druids, they can preform some animal version of those components.

No rules state they can prior to level 18.

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

In the same sense that you can agree to disagree with somebody who thinks that stop lights allow you to transit through them when they're red or green, but that you are legally required to stop when they're yellow, I suppose.

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

In summation:

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

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

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

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

[Theodoxus]

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

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

Not really. The rules don't specify that you do anything obvious, so you don't have to. Period.

We've gone over the gamist vs simulationist aspects of the game. Do we need to rehash them again for the folks in the back?

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

repeating the same refrain gets it back in spades. It's odd, you're not using 'maintaining Hex on the same person round over round' as part of your case... seems like that would be the easiest reference. Yet, just like Haste or Fly or DB, we all know that they, like Hex, aren't recast to maintain concentration. Hex only comes up because the curse can change targets.

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

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

[Segev]

This isn't the first time someone has said this, and yet, no where in any of the discussion has anyone implied any of it.

Nobody said anybody was deliberately proposing this. This is the application of the same logic used below to all those other spells, and you have yet to demonstrate, other than, "But I don't want that!" how the proposed reading of the rules that requires hex to have some obvious behavior that at least one person HAS suggested needs to be the same V and S components (except they're different because druids) doesn't also point to these things you say "nobody has proposed."

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

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

Why?

The universe needs some kind of instruction as to who you intend to curse.

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

Dragon's Breath, Haste and Fly have nothing in common with Hex.

Sure they do. They're all spells, and they all permit actions to be taken that you could not take without those spells being active.

You're not targeting a new recipient of either spell.

Irrelevant. Nothing in the RAW suggests that you need special behaviors not specified in the thing that tells you what is required to shift targets in order to shift targets.

Melf's minute meteors isn't recast either "you can expend one or two of the meteors, sending them streaking to a point or points you choose..."

And neither is hex "recast." You cast hex and place a curse. The curse is what you're moving around. You're not creating a new curse; you're moving the existing one that was created when you cast hex.

I suppose here is where someone will state 'choosing a point is purely psychic'; I would content that choosing a point requires something akin to pointing... but I suppose the meteors just listen into on your theta waves or something.

It doesn't say you need to point. If a caster chooses to, that's his choice, just like shouting, "KABONG!" while hitting somebody with a maul is a warrior's choice.

We've gone over the gamist vs simulationist aspects of the game. Do we need to rehash them again for the folks in the back?

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

It's odd, you're not using 'maintaining Hex on the same person round over round' as part of your case... seems like that would be the easiest reference. Yet, just like Haste or Fly or DB, we all know that they, like Hex, aren't recast to maintain concentration. Hex only comes up because the curse can change targets.

Actually, that's a very good point: why don't you have to "recast" hex every round? Why is that part of the spell specially exempt from your simulation that requires the universe to be directed as to who is to be cursed?

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

[notthegiant]

When cursing a new target with Hex, with an eye towards the simulation, that curse must needs be something other that 'I simply will it'. The universe needs some kind of instruction as to who you intend to curse.

And how do you know that? Are you a Warlock in real life? Please cite why exactly this would be needed in-universe. It's not that hard to imagine a curse leaping from corpse to living target without you waving your hands and saying magic words. The same logic could be applied to concentration: "How does the universe know you're concentrating on the spell without components? Does it just read your mind?"
This also doesn't apply to RAW, just because something sounds kinda unintuitive doesn't mean it's not obeying the rules.

I suppose here is where someone will state 'choosing a point is purely psychic'; I would content that choosing a point requires something akin to pointing... but I suppose the meteors just listen into on your theta waves or something.

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

repeating the same refrain gets it back in spades. It's odd, you're not using 'maintaining Hex on the same person round over round' as part of your case... seems like that would be the easiest reference. Yet, just like Haste or Fly or DB, we all know that they, like Hex, aren't recast to maintain concentration. Hex only comes up because the curse can change targets.

This isn't about concentration, it's about actions granted by spells. Haste gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (your haste action). Dragon's Breath gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (breathing fire). Hex gives you the ability to take a unique type of bonus action (changing the target). If one of these actions requires components, all of them do.

[KorvinStarmast]

This isn't about concentration, it's about actions granted by spells.
Haste gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (your haste action).
Dragon's Breath gives you the ability to take a unique type of action (breathing fire).
Hex gives you the ability to take a unique type of bonus action (changing the target).
If one of these actions requires components, all of them do.

Without taking sides - as I noted above, I'll be discussing this with my groups - your position has the virtue of being internally consistent.