So the description is very open ended.  There is no class of spells called curses so I’m left wondering what a curse actually is.  Of course the description says hex, Hexblades curse and bestow curse through sign of ill omen, but that is not the whole list since the feature describes what triggers it as abilities “Such as theses”, not “limited to these”.

so how do you define curse in this circumstance?  Does thief of five fates work?  Bane is the opposite of bless and it does appear to debuff enemies, but does this mean that any debuff works? It says curses are hex, Hexblades curse or warlock features so is the rule then any debuff granted by a warlock feature?  If so does this mean that mire of the mind or dreadful word would work?  How about chains of Carceri? 

mystic arcanums are a feature and not just a spell so would Eyebite, mental prison, mass suggestion, power word pain, feeblemind, etc trigger it?

what about patron features like dark delirium? Hexblades curse is a patron feature.

what about when you get bestow curse from something else like orzhov guild spell, or a multi class spell or feature?

I typically dm with a more generous approach to interpretation especially if their is an rp element as to why I should allow it, but at the same time I wonder about balance issues.  Kiting enemies with mire of the mind and maddening hex could be fun. Hex a critter and hit it with contagion, so it fails all its saves then keeping permanent stunned with maddening hex is interesting.  Using compulsion to get a bunch of baddies to huddle together then spamming maddening hex could be interesting as well. 

beyond the rules,I guess I’m just looking for interesting uses and interpretations as to what actually does trigger maddening hex.

It's pretty straightforward. Just go with the general rule that, if the flavor text for the spell/feature/effect literally says it's a "curse," or the name of the spell/feature/effect includes the specific word "curse," then it's a curse. Otherwise it is not. (This is the same criteria I use to determine if an effect can be affected by Greater Restoration or Remove Curse.)

For now, I believe that limits it to Hex, Hexblade's Curse, Bestow Curse, and Accursed Specter (although I'd imagine there's little point in attacking your own specter.) But there may be future spells or features that will also be curses.

That is a really narrow interpretation given the “such as these” definition vs “limited to these” comment, nevertheless, I appreciate understanding how other people use it.  

Maddening hex is in my mind a very interesting, potentially overpowered feature.  It does 5 dmg a round guaranteed to the target plus the area.  To dish 500 dmg to a single target, it would only take 10min.

consider some features that would work with this by your definition: create thrall from great old one patron, or geas which could be obtained via multi class or orzhov guild as a profession.  Each of these, or bestow curse at 5th level are concentration free.  maddening hex requires only sight, so use of arcane eye, scrying, gaze of two minds invocation, or a chain masters pet could grant this sight.

Even with a narrow interpretation of maddening hex plus two spell slots, you could deliver an auto kill to just about anything without being present.

you could use geas to restrict someone more than just as the spell dictates as an example.  It lasts 30 days so for 30 days, do anything I say without exception because I can see you and it will only take a few minutes to kill you. Anyway, lots of possibilities.

Maddening Hex requires line of sight, AND requires the target to be within 30 feet of you, so don't get too excited.

@soulstryfe -

Just consider: for consistency's sake, whatever you let work with Maddening Hex, should also (pretty much by definition) be vulnerable to Greater Restoration and Remove Curse.

So if Maddening Hex works with Geas in your world, then Remove Curse should be able to shut down even a 9th-level Geas. If Maddening Hex also works with Mental Prison, then Remove Curse should be able to shut that down too. If Maddening Hex also works with Compulsion, then Remove Curse should be able...

I think you can see where that leads.

Under that measure, geas and create thrall from goo lock would both work. There could be a case for feeblemind since it requires greater restoration.  Flesh to stone petrifies so possibly that one too.  

i like the idea of using greater restoration and remove curse as the rubric for it since the definition for maddening hex is so open ended.

line of sight issues are easy to overcome through many means, 30 ft range is more difficult, but the ability is still abusable.  Stealth, invisibility, disguising yourself with alter self and changing frequently, meld into stone, etc.

Quote from soulstryfe001 >>

Under that measure, geas and create thrall from goo lock would both work. There could be a case for feeblemind since it requires greater restoration.  Flesh to stone petrifies so possibly that one too.  

 Feeblemind and flesh to stone aren't vulnerable to remove curse.  Anything that can trigger maddening hex should be vulnerable to both.

This doesn't seem that open ended to me. In fact I think the description of the Maddening Hex Invocation is pretty clear that it is Hex or a feature from Warlock that would apply a curse, such as Hexblade's Curse or Sign of Ill Omen (I didn't see any other features that "curse"), not just any spell you choose to take because it shares some loose similarity with a description elsewhere. You don't have to have Bestow Curse on your spells known/prepared in order to cast it with the Warlock Feature Sign of Ill Omen. I also don't think that because something can be removed with Remove Curse or Greater Restoration, or whatever, it automatically qualifies as applicable for Maddening Hex.

I will, however, concede that the language isn't as clear and/or specific as some other applications for class-specific features elsewhere in the game. If spells or features were to be tagged somehow, or given a snippet, to let you know if X applies to Y that would be great.

You say it is not open ended, then conclude that it is vague.  There are other features and spells that apply curse like abilities and require remove curse to counter.  Two easy examples are ones I have stated before like geas or create thrall.  The problem is in the definition of “curse”.  Define it.  An example I bring up here then is that words like “curse” are synonyms with words like “bane”, “scourge”, “geas” (geas is easier since, as a spell  in game, it requires remove curse to counter) and many others.  In absence of a real in-game definition, you have to make up your own definition or perhaps look for similarities in other spells, abilities and features that would maintain a certain ill-defined spirit-of-the-law.

So if I’m trying to actually define it, the interpretation could be very broad since “curse” in the game is not defined with a rule. Thief of Five Fates is an example of a feature that grants a spell called “bane” that is the exact opposite of bless, means the same thing as curse, but is not removed by remove curse.  So is it a “curse”?  If you look at what the spell does and it’s features then a whole host of other spells or features could be interpreted the same way.  Although they don’t require remove curse, dreadful word, bewitching whispers, feeblemind all grant spells that are from enchantment school similar to thief of five fates or hex.  Create thrall requires remove curse.  Geas requires remove curse and can be added to the warlock spell list which is a warlock feature. 

is a curse a debuff? Is it a spell countered by remove curse? Is it a charm? Is it an enchantment? Is it a patron feature? Is it other invocations? Is it other spells?

a loose definition would define a “curse” as a debuff in which case many warlock features would qualify. A strict interpretation would change “such as” to “limited to”. I think most people would find a definition somewhere in between.

strict interpretation- hex, hex blades curse, sign of ill omen (only what is mentioned in maddening hex)

less strict - same as above plus geas, create thrall. (Warlock spells and features that require remove curse)

less strict still - same as above plus, thief of five fates, dreadful word, bewitching whispers, synaptic static, enemies abound, feeblemind etc, (other enchantment spells like hex, that don’t necessarily require removal by remove curse, but debuff a target)

loose interpretation - same as above plus, mire of the mind, or other debuffing spells like fear, blindness/deafness, eye bite, flesh to stone, etc (spells not limited to enchantment school, can be obtained through warlock features, and debuff a target).

Of course there are other ways to group spells and features aside from how I just suggested.

i think I’m somewhere in middle where ‘remove curse’ is a counter, but I might make exception for some abilities like thief of five fates, but I don’t think I’d go as far as opening up all debuffing mechanisms that are enchantment spells/abilities.

my point in all of this is just to provoke thought.  I am curious how others interpret and or abuse the rule to see where balance issues may be.  For such a potentially abusable ability, the vagueness is a concern so I’m curious how others interpret.  From the responses, it seems most lend to a more strict interpretation that at least requires remove curse.  

Wait, what? I didn't conclude that Maddening Hex was vague. O.o

Its context is just as strong as other features but, rather than omission, the inclusion of "such as" gives it a false opening, and I iterated that there is an easy way to further define the existing specificity. That doesn't mean there is a completely open ended interpretation of it like you would suggest since there are specifics regarding its use. It is simplest to accept it as more strict because of its specificity regarding not only having to be a feature from a warlock, but also the fact that those warlock features apply a curse. When you consider that context you can reasonably infer that those three sources are what is meant to activate Maddening Hex. I've had this discussion with my DM and also players that I DM for, and we've all agreed on that much, much to my chagrin because I am guilty of having assumed any condition applied via spell would allow me use of Maddening Hex (I love debuff spells the most, they're fantastic!). For flavor, or for your own game, it may be different but the ruling does hold more weight in the RAW more than RAI the way I am reading it. Thought provokingly, it comes down to being reasonable and not trying to overthink a feature/ability/description.

Quote from StylesStriker >>

This doesn't seem that open ended to me. In fact I think the description of the Maddening Hex Invocation is pretty clear that it is Hex or a feature from Warlock that would apply a curse, such as Hexblade's Curse or Sign of Ill Omen (I didn't see any other features that "curse"), not just any spell you choose to take because it shares some loose similarity with a description elsewhere.

Good point! The actual text of Maddening Hex isn't just for "a curse," it's a lot more specific.

That's a pretty clear limitation to (currently) Hex, Hexblade's Curse, and Sign of Ill Omen (and, technically, Accursed Specter as well, but that one will likely never be used with the invocation.)

I slightly disagree here. There are many ways to get Bestow Curse, such as multiclassing, or adding it in as a homebrew.

But, you're saying that any sources that grant the spell, outside of Signs of Ill Omen, are banned from use with Maddening Hex?

Quote from ShadoUrufu >>

I slightly disagree here. There are many ways to get Bestow Curse, such as multiclassing, or adding it in as a homebrew.

But, you're saying that any sources that grant the spell, outside of Signs of Ill Omen, are banned from use with Maddening Hex?

 No, I wasn't saying that in the slightest. I was pretty clear on my stance at the time; Hex or a Warlock feature that applies a curse.

EDIT: This thread is old. I am unsubscribing to it because there's not much else to discuss on the subject from my end.