Title is way too generic, but I had no idea how to better put it.
I read just yesterday an NPC backstory/campaign role in the Wrath of the Righteous AP, and it got me wondering.
LITTLE WRATH OF THE RIGHTEOUS SPOILER ALERT
She's a Succubus, and the text basically says that even if she didn't want to drain people when kissing them, she couldn't avoid it. Meaning she can't suppress her ability to do so.
Said that of course I'm aware I can do as I please, as a GM, I'd like to hear from everyone.
Till now, I always ruled that, unless specifically stated in an ability description (including class abilities, not just monsters') or if it was real common sense that the ability is always active (like a Ghast's stench... it's not like they can stop smelling), regardless of the creature's will, then the creature can decide if the ability functions or not.
Yet, that NPC mentioned above basically tells me it works the other way around: the abilities always work, no matter what the creature wants.
Or maybe it's a thing that just applies to Succubi, rather than a general rule, but since these things aren't mentioned in any monster's stat block (or, at best, in just an extremely limited few), how are we supposed to know what does or doesn't always work?
Similar example include things like:
- Harpies' singing; can't a harpy sing on a stage without the whole audience trying to get on it?
- Medusa's gaze; can't a Medusa make friends without always carrying a huge stock of Stone to Flesh scrolls?
- Shadows' touch; can't you give a high five to a Shadow without feeling weak?
And so on.
Bringing it to a silly extreme, can't a Dragon blow the candles on his birthday cake without ruining the party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creatures can be unique. It's up to the GM to decide the norm on this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it varies.
Since the Medusa came from a curse origin story, being unable to suppress their gaze was a point of tragedy. That said, I'd allow a set of glasses or goggles to block the effect.
I can't see why a succubus wouldn't be able to be selective, unless she had shown signs of trying to redeem herself, and gained the notice of a spiteful demon lord (who cursed her to be unable to control her ability). Being unable, as a rule, to turn off the drain ability would be very detrimental to a disguised succubus.
I can't check it again and copy the exact wording, but I remember the text about that Succubus saying it in a way that implies all Succubi always drain, no matter what.
LITTLE SPOILER ALERT AGAIN
That one Succubus is indeed on the way of redention, but I remember no reference to any curse or limitation imposed on her. The only thing remotely similar to a "curse" is that she was overwhelmed by regret and stuff by Desna, and at that point her path of redemption began. But there was no stated link between her redemption and the status of her drain ability.
Roleplay-wise, the fact that her drain works automatically has a specific function in the development of that NPC and her realtionship with others, including PCs, and it's a nice thing. But apart from that function for that specific character, it really sounds more silly every single time I think about it, that a Succubus forcibly drains everyone she has sexy time with (including demonic cultist-servants).
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is that she's on the path to redemption, and as part of her redemption, she has to avoid her inner demonic urges to drain life during acts of passion. If she could just "turn it off" and not use it, it wouldn't be a sacrifice to go without passion or love.
Medusa- they rather explicitly can't turn it off. It is a huge liability, on several levels. Even a bee buzzing through a field gets turned to stone if it manages to get a line of sight from a distance. The areas around medusa lairs are devoid of life, not only animal, but plant as well since she is basically poison that kills pollinators.
But that ability is tied to their human eyes. And they have all around vision since they can use their snake eyes instead. So it isn't impossible to go without endangering people as a medusa as long as you have a blindfold (....or a nice dagger and a shot of whiskey, if you are trying to make a...dramatic....change for the safety of those around you)
Shadow's touch- well, it is a touch attack, not a contact thing. Otherwise, there might be some rules about what happens when a tetori tackles it (as you can see in the VERY long thread about grappling a succubi).
|
I think it really is a GM call.
When I look at a creature for my game, I decide how I want a particular ability to 'look' to a player when it is used. Every once in a while, I will alter an ability to do something new or unexpected (like a succubus that is unable to control her draining ability).
However, it is always a good idea to look at how a change affects balance.
The idea is that she's on the path to redemption, and as part of her redemption, she has to avoid her inner demonic urges to drain life during acts of passion. If she could just "turn it off" and not use it, it wouldn't be a sacrifice to go without passion or love.
As I said, roleplay-wise it's a nice thing, for that character.
The silly thing is that it's worded as if it's baseline assumption that all Succubi work that way, and by extension brings doubt about every other special ability of every creature that activates along with physical actions of some sort.I think it would have been better if it was specified that character was cursed or burdened (even by Desna herself), as Scythia suggested, or anyway got that feature applied to herself only due to something unique to her.
(Of course, GM fiat ultimately applies, but you know...)
Shadow's touch- well, it is a touch attack, not a contact thing.
Touch attacks imply contact by definition. Specific contact of a hand (or whatever the creature has) and not of just any part of the body, but still contact. And high-fives are given on hands. The fact that they're called "attacks" is because a target is supposed to not want to be touched, not because they belong to some abstract category of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shadow's touch- well, it is a touch attack, not a contact thing.Touch attacks imply contact by definition. Specific contact of a hand (or whatever the creature has) and not of just any part of the body, but still contact. And high-fives are given on hands. The fact that they're called "attacks" is because a target is supposed to not want to be touched, not because they belong to some abstract category of things.
Yeah, I realize it means contact, but a willfully destructive contact.
Basically, liches have a touch attack, but you can grapple them without any problems (well, other than the fact that they decide to use that touch attack)
If the shadow could touch things (well, as much as an incorporeal creature can) at all, then there would likely be something like the succubus, or perhaps like all those fire creatures that deal damage while grappled or hit with natural attacks/unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Title is way too generic, but I had no idea how to better put it.
I read just yesterday an NPC backstory/campaign role in the Wrath of the Righteous AP, and it got me wondering.
LITTLE WRATH OF THE RIGHTEOUS SPOILER ALERT
** spoiler omitted **
Till now, I always ruled that, unless specifically stated in an ability description (including class abilities, not just monsters') or if it was real common sense that the ability is always active (like a Ghast's stench... it's not like they can stop smelling), regardless of the creature's will, then the creature can decide if the ability functions or not.
Yet, that NPC mentioned above basically tells me it works the other way around: the abilities always work, no matter what the creature wants.
Or maybe it's a thing that just applies to Succubi, rather than a general rule, but since these things aren't mentioned in any monster's stat block (or, at best, in just an extremely limited few), how are we supposed to know what does or doesn't always work?Similar example include things like:
- Harpies' singing; can't a harpy sing on a stage without the whole audience trying to get on it?
- Medusa's gaze; can't a Medusa make friends without always carrying a huge stock of Stone to Flesh scrolls?
- Shadows' touch; can't you give a high five to a Shadow without feeling weak?And so on.
Bringing it to a silly extreme, can't a Dragon blow the candles on his birthday cake without ruining the party?
Does the text state that the ability is constant and uncontrollable?
A Succubus must lure to drain. Is it a lure if it is done freely given? Anyway, withing an anti-magic spell, the (Su) does not work, so "Safe Sex" for a Succubus requires a 6th level spell for a condom.
While the Harpy's song is automatic, it is essentially harmless if the harpy does not attack. Singing at the Met is fine, just expect a lot of people climbing on stage. Easier if she sings while sitting on a hanging perch.
Medusae can keep a non-petrified mate by choice, so it clearly is an attack and not a constant effect.
/cevah
Medusae can keep a non-petrified mate by choice, so it clearly is an attack and not a constant effect.She could do that simply by blindfolding her mate, or wearing a blindfold over her human eyes (as the snake eyes can still see but do not petrify).
And they trick their mates into thinking they are normal humans by saying they are just really into that kind of thing. They give dungeons another meaning....
Anyway, yeah, the bestiary destription says they are 'careful' not to petrify her prisoner. I mean... I don't exactly remember the last time I had to be 'careful' not to instantly murder someone when I had complete control of the situation.
Also, in monsters revisted, it went into detail how they ahve to use bows to hunt from afar because they can't risk the animal they hunt from getting accidentally pertrified.
Overall, it is presented as much more of a hinderance to their lives with the occasional use.