Succubus In Another Grapple


General Discussion

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I was running a game this one time, in which I had a succubus to mess around with, and one of the PCs ran up and grappled her.
On her turn I said: "Alright, we are grappled. We both have the grappled condition, with you being the grappler, so I-"

"No actually, there's only one character with the grappled condition in this edition"

"Hmm... lets go back to Pathfinder one for this okay?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ahh, the thing I thought I was going to miss the most - the Succubus in a Grapple thread.

I was going to save the lack of such a thread for my Histrionics thread post...guess that's one less thing for that post I need to put in now...

But, shouldn't we be calling this the Lust Demon now? Succubus is so 1st edition...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So ends an era...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Looked at their list of abilities and the 'Constant tongues' entry made me wonder if that was a deliberate joke from the designers. Cold as the primary weakness of Lust Demons was another one. :)

Single action Embrace to grapple as a Diplomacy check, which will have them on top in most situations!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no 'grappled' condition in PF2.

Grapple is a single attack action: Athletics versus the opponents Fortitude DC.

Success with a grapple (attack action) creates the grabbed condition on the target for 1 turn.

Critical success with a grapple grants the restrained condition on the target for 1 turn.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just hopping in to say I don't like replacing CMB and CMD with Athletics and Fortitude DCs.

People who run track and field or who rock climb or swim are not necessarily good at grappling or disarming.

People who can hold their breaths a long time or who have a good immune system aren't necessarily good at resisting being grappled.

Just because it's 'simpler' to combine multiple options into a single stat doesn't make it good for a role-playing game.

That said, I do love the idea of being able to 'grapple' with Diplomacy. That's inspired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:

I'm just hopping in to say I don't like replacing CMB and CMD with Athletics and Fortitude DCs.

People who run track and field or who rock climb or swim are not necessarily good at grappling or disarming.

People who can hold their breaths a long time or who have a good immune system aren't necessarily good at resisting being grappled.

Just because it's 'simpler' to combine multiple options into a single stat doesn't make it good for a role-playing game.

That said, I do love the idea of being able to 'grapple' with Diplomacy. That's inspired.

That would be a really shocking concept


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is grappling a skill check, and not simply a special type of unarmed attack roll? Same goes for tripping, pushing, disarming, etc.

That way, if I want to trip someone with my bo staff or disarm someone with my rapier, I can make an attack roll using my proficiency in the chosen weapon. More elegant from a rules perspective, just as good from a game balance perspective, better from a verisimilitude perspective (wait, the rules don't let me use my halberd to knock his sword aside?), and better from a true-to-class-fantasy perspective (monks and fighters will be the best at combat maneuvers, rather than rogues).

If you make combat maneuvers skill checks, then you're going to wind up having skill feats with direct combat application. A few splat books down the line, my fighter's skill feat choices will look like "would I rather take super mega bullrush of doom or really intricate needlework master? Hmmm...". Seems a regression to the PF1 problem of "why would I 'waste' my precious feat slots on non-combat options?".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dracovar wrote:
Ahh, the thing I thought I was going to miss the most - the Succubus in a Grapple thread.

I'm a helper!

(And it will always live on in our hearts.)

Dracovar wrote:
But, shouldn't we be calling this the Lust Demon now? Succubus is so 1st edition...

Hah!

... I don't know, I haven't actually looked at anything 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:

Why is grappling a skill check, and not simply a special type of unarmed attack roll? Same goes for tripping, pushing, disarming, etc.

It basically is a special type of attack roll. The only real difference is you need to invest skill increases instead of weapon proficiency. But if you are an expert with whips and an expert in athletics, it's gonna be the same attack roll.

Quote:
That way, if I want to trip someone with my bo staff or disarm someone with my rapier, I can make an attack roll using my proficiency in the chosen weapon. More elegant from a rules perspective, just as good from a game balance perspective, better from a verisimilitude perspective

You already apply your weapon's item bonus if you use it to make an athletics check, and your dex mod if you are using a finesse weapon.

The difference is that if you use weapon proficiency instead of athletics proficiency it becomes much harder for a character to choose to be good at them, as it is harder to improve the former instead of the latter outside of natural class progression.

Quote:
(wait, the rules don't let me use my halberd to knock his sword aside?)

I think this is a legitimate grievance, but it doesn't really have anything to do with athletics roll vs weapon roll. That just calls for changing the prerequisites on the performing these actions. What modifier you add to the roll doesn't matter.

Quote:
and better from a true-to-class-fantasy perspective (monks and fighters will be the best at combat maneuvers, rather than rogues).

I wouldn't say rogues are better now. They run into the TEML caps at the same level fighters do. The rogue has more skill increases to invest, but they also probably have more skills competing with athletics for said proficiency.

Quote:
If you make combat maneuvers skill checks, then you're going to wind up having skill feats with direct combat application. A few splat books down the line, my fighter's skill feat choices will look like "would I rather take super mega bullrush of doom or really intricate needlework master? Hmmm...". Seems a regression to the PF1 problem of "why would I 'waste' my precious feat slots on non-combat options?".

We already have skill feats with direct combat applications. Every Demoralize feat. Every Climb feat. Kip Up. Assurance athletics. Anything that lowers the action economy of recognizing spells or recalling knowledge. Battle Medic. Moving at full speed while sneaking. Legendary Diplomat. Cat Fall. Higher levels of Quick Repair.

That ship has sailed and I'm not sure it is a bad thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is really unfortunate for this thread that grapples are over so quickly now. Takes away a lot of the magic for me.
And that means the Lust Demon is now only grabbing me or restraining me with her Constant Tongues, for a measly six seconds as well. I mean, being diplomatically grabbed by tongues sure has ist uses, but it's so restraining ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DerNils wrote:

It is really unfortunate for this thread that grapples are over so quickly now. Takes away a lot of the magic for me.

And that means the Lust Demon is now only grabbing me or restraining me with her Constant Tongues, for a measly six seconds as well. I mean, being diplomatically grabbed by tongues sure has ist uses, but it's so restraining ...

But it's a helluva 6 seconds....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

It is really unfortunate for this thread that grapples are over so quickly now. Takes away a lot of the magic for me.

And that means the Lust Demon is now only grabbing me or restraining me with her Constant Tongues, for a measly six seconds as well. I mean, being diplomatically grabbed by tongues sure has ist uses, but it's so restraining ...

You could just be willingly grabbed, similar to willingly being touched by a spellcaster...but I guess that's GM FIAT territory, huh?

That being said, keeping with the current edition lingo, Lust Demon in a Grabbing doesn't exactly roll off the tongue or sound as useful, but being a more gender neutral name, Lust Demon could now allow for "Incubi" as well, which is actually a step forward. I now welcome our new "Incubi in a Grabbing" overlords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
DerNils wrote:

It is really unfortunate for this thread that grapples are over so quickly now. Takes away a lot of the magic for me.

And that means the Lust Demon is now only grabbing me or restraining me with her Constant Tongues, for a measly six seconds as well. I mean, being diplomatically grabbed by tongues sure has ist uses, but it's so restraining ...

You could just be willingly grabbed, similar to willingly being touched by a spellcaster...but I guess that's GM FIAT territory, huh?

That being said, keeping with the current edition lingo, Lust Demon in a Grabbing doesn't exactly roll off the tongue or sound as useful, but being a more gender neutral name, Lust Demon could now allow for "Incubi" as well, which is actually a step forward. I now welcome our new "Incubi in a Grabbing" overlords.

Incubus was already a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but Incubi had a different MO than Succubi. And Paizo has been good in getting away from one gender Monsters - there was already some mentioning that Succubi don't Need to be in female form at all.

Good Point on getting grabbed willingly - that is probably how the Diplomacy for Grabbing works, right? "You want me to touch you, admit it!" ;)

And one more reason for there to be a repositioning maneuver. I mean, getting Shoved on to the bed is fine, but sometimes I want to pull someone in - for variety, err science!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

They changed the name from Succubus/Incubus to "Lust Demon"?! Why? The new name sounds so generic...


MaUC wrote:
They changed the name from Succubus/Incubus to "Lust Demon"?! Why? The new name sounds so generic...

Because it's more gender-neutral, as it should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:
Yeah, but Incubi had a different MO than Succubi. And Paizo has been good in getting away from one gender Monsters - there was already some mentioning that Succubi don't Need to be in female form at all.

And this is why when in a thing I did in the past I made a male Succubus and was very insistent that he was very different from an Incubus. /off topic bit

If I remember correctly though, I think Incubi did come up in the old thread at some point, but it was a bit too hard and they were having a hard time keeping it up. /bad joke bit

Anyways, for on-topic stuff, I have a couple points.

1) They have finally managed to simplify Grapple rules, Gods be praised. You can even go two rounds between checks if you're good enough to consistently crit-succeed. I do kinda miss the bonus for maintaining on subsequent rounds, but something something knife-edge balance.

2) I really like the Succubus Lust Demon getting to swap out Diplo instead of Acrobatics, and would love to see more abilities like that on both sides of the GM's screen in the future. Though I suppose it would have to be carefully considered to prevent being too exploitable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
MaUC wrote:
They changed the name from Succubus/Incubus to "Lust Demon"?! Why? The new name sounds so generic...
Because it's more gender-neutral, as it should be.

They could at least invent a non-generic gender neutral term.

Or maybe just have demons that always follow a particular form, vrocks always look like demented buzzards and nobody is asking for that to change.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Paizo is moving away from monster names introduced by TSR/WotC across the board, likely because you can only use OGL (and thus, the names introduced there) in pen and paper RPG products and you can't use them in board/card/video games and fiction. Since that means that 90% of demons are getting renamed, Succubus is just following the suit, 'cause it would be rather odd if every demon became "*something* demon" and Succubus would stay, erm, Succubus.


I do agree that the generic Lust, Rage, whatever demon is not very appealing. They wanted to make this more Golarion-infused, so why not come up with Golarion specific names? They did it (albeit poorly) with some other Monsters, e.g. the Ankhrav formerly known as Ankheg. It's even more limiting because if you want to have Lust demons on other Tiers, those will have to have some strange names, while also being lust demons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

I do agree that the generic Lust, Rage, whatever demon is not very appealing. They wanted to make this more Golarion-infused, so why not come up with Golarion specific names? They did it (albeit poorly) with some other Monsters, e.g. the Ankhrav formerly known as Ankheg. It's even more limiting because if you want to have Lust demons on other Tiers, those will have to have some strange names, while also being lust demons.

I recall reading something way back that the goal with demons was to tie them more properly to a particular sin thematically and "__ demon" is about the easiest way to get that point across as it comes (also easier on the workload rather than making up some latinese or moonspeak names for everything). Brings me back to Dragon Age which did basically the same thing albeit with much less variety and gave the same treatment to benevolent spirits as well.

Plus I don't see how succubus/moonspeak name here is any more conductive to having a variety of CRs than a basic lust demon. The riff raff of them are all CR whatever, but there's Jill the Lust Demon/Succubus/whatever over there that happens to be CR20. Seems pretty simple to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

I do agree that the generic Lust, Rage, whatever demon is not very appealing. They wanted to make this more Golarion-infused, so why not come up with Golarion specific names? They did it (albeit poorly) with some other Monsters, e.g. the Ankhrav formerly known as Ankheg. It's even more limiting because if you want to have Lust demons on other Tiers, those will have to have some strange names, while also being lust demons.

In D&D 1e most of the demons were named Type I, Type II ... Type VI.

The familiar names were actually names of individual demons, so the heading for the "Marilith" actually reads:
Type V (Marilith, etc.)

Of course, Succubus, is a creature of real world legends, so renaming it in Pathfinder seems pointless - like changing the name Pegasus to Horse, Winged or Hydra to Snake, Multi-Headed.
Yes, it's accurate, but it removes much of the flavor connecting them to old real world tales.


Jeven wrote:
DerNils wrote:

I do agree that the generic Lust, Rage, whatever demon is not very appealing. They wanted to make this more Golarion-infused, so why not come up with Golarion specific names? They did it (albeit poorly) with some other Monsters, e.g. the Ankhrav formerly known as Ankheg. It's even more limiting because if you want to have Lust demons on other Tiers, those will have to have some strange names, while also being lust demons.

In D&D 1e most of the demons were named Type I, Type II ... Type VI.

The familiar names were actually names of individual demons, so the heading for the "Marilith" actually reads:
Type V (Marilith, etc.)

Of course, Succubus, is a creature of real world legends, so renaming it in Pathfinder seems pointless - like changing the name Pegasus to Horse, Winged or Hydra to Snake, Multi-Headed.
Yes, it's accurate, but it removes much of the flavor connecting them to old real world tales.

Feel free to wage a complaint at the copyright holders about it and see where it gets you if lacking this "connection" is such a problem.

If you're lucky, you might not end up in a jail cell with a Lust Demon of your own to tango with. Me? I'd rather not take those chances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^The name succubus/incubus goes back to times before copyright existed, so no chances to take.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^The name succubus/incubus goes back to times before copyright existed, so no chances to take.

So does the name Tiamat, but if you call your five-headed dragon goddess that, WotC might sue you into oblivion. The name might be public domain, the monster might not. IP law is funny like that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^The name succubus/incubus goes back to times before copyright existed, so no chances to take.

So does the name Tiamat, but if you call your five-headed dragon goddess that, WotC might sue you into oblivion. The name might be public domain, the monster might not. IP law is funny like that.

To be totally fair, I'm pretty sure in that case they would be more opposed to the whole "five-headed dragon goddess" bit than just the use of the name, since that particular depiction of Tiamat was if not created by DnD at least popularized by it. In contrast, the depiction of a succubus as a sex-based (generally female) demon, well, that's just straight up the Lore. Would be a much harder case for Wizards to make.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know the American legal system, you might sure end up being right and them being wrong, but you'll still go bankrupt due to legal fees before you score your Pyrrhic moral victory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always thought it was weird that Lust Demons were fixed into one gender presentation so a good portion of the people they run into they just have no hope of doing their job with. Seems like they'd have a much better success rate if they were more flexible about these things.

Like for maximal Lust Demon success rate you'd want the demon to be able to figure out what you're into and then be whatever that is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although - thinking like a demon here - for truly maximal success rate you might instead just go for forcefully altering what people are into so that they are into you. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the absence of Commander Shephard, I'm Lathiira and I endorse this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In most games, including PF1, succubi can shapeshift so everyone could have a good time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I always thought it was weird that Lust Demons were fixed into one gender presentation so a good portion of the people they run into they just have no hope of doing their job with. Seems like they'd have a much better success rate if they were more flexible about these things.

Like for maximal Lust Demon success rate you'd want the demon to be able to figure out what you're into and then be whatever that is.

And if you want the shifting to keep going on forever ...

"I will corrupt you through you carnal desires through my demonic powers of Lust!"

"Good luck with that. I'm a paladin of Arshea, and I'm here to redeem you through the holy power of love!"

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Succubus In Another Grapple All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.