D&D 5E I love the 5e Succubus

[gyor]

Technically a Incubus/Succubus should be able to get herself pregnate, start off Incubus, extract sperm, turn into a Succubus and inseminate. Seriously one Succubi hanging around in the Ethereal Plane could in time build an army of them.

That is what makes the Succubi more scary, her ability to reproduce her own kind, as well as Cambions, without being strongly tied to the lower planes the way devils are.

And I had my own ideas for a Succubus Pact.

Sylthia is a Succubi from Archeron, nick named the Recruiter by Archeron Warlords, who hire her services to build thier armies up. Sylthia is more honest then most Succubi, instead of lying about her nature she tells her prey what she is an makes her recruitment pitch, sex and magic powers, in exhange for your soul. Archeron is no where near as horrifying as the 9 hells or the Abyss, or even Hades, so its a much easier sell.

Another one. Asama, nicked named The High Priestess of the Dark Reward, is from Pandemondium, and she believes she serves the Plane Itself along with her daughters and sons. Asama and her daughters on the mortal plane act as Priestesses of a "God" they call the Dark Reward, who is no God at all, but rather the delusions inspired by the howling winds of Pandemondium which they believe is the voice of there God. Asama and her Daughters promise a paradise of Endless pleasures in the after life in exchange for evil acts. In a sense she delivers as she sends corrupted souls to her colony of Succubi in Pandemondium where these "damned" souls are rewarded with endless debauchery. Asama offers Warlock Pacts in exchange for large donations to fund her warped Evanglism. Asama and her daughters don't believe they are succubi, they're cinvinced they're featherless Angels in Service to the Dark Reward.

The Conjurer Al Khalid en Garash is a mad merchant and breeder of magically enslaved succubi. The Fool thinks he's in charge and that what he is doing is perfectly safe, and the Succubi and happy to act compliant for now, as thier numbers increase, happy to bide thier time pleasing niave mortals, even offering free magic to thier new "owners" such as Warlock Pacts, and a "harmless" enchantment that will allow thier masters and mistresses to comunicate with the Succubi no matter where they go in the Planes...

 

[gyor]

Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin

I decided to update this Succubus.

Name Eludecia
Class: Paladin (level 5)
Subclass: Oath of Devotion
Race: Succubus
Background: Urchin (succubi don't seem like devoted parents).

Traits:

Claws
Telepathic Bond
Charm
Draining Kiss
Etherealness
Shapecharger
Wings (fly speed 60 feet)
Divine Sense
Lay on Hands (25 hps)
Divine Smite
Extra Attack
Spellcasting
Divine Health
Oath of Devotion
Fighting Style: Protection
Feat: Shield Master

Seems kind of cool, and the perfect choice for a none evil fiend pact Patron.

 

[Shemeska]

Eh. This does fix the "continuity issues" while also providing a plethora of other options. That's a win/win.

Let's also not forget something here. Forgotten Realms might have continuity issues. Dark Sun might have continuity issues. Planescape. Ravenloft.

The Monster Manual is none of those. The Monster Manual is D&D.

D&D is a game. D&D has no continuity. It has history, but not continuity. It is, first and foremost, meant to be played--and to provide multiple options for that play. It is a toolset for players to build their own continuity.

Continuity of general feel is one thing, but continuity of detail between editions will always, and should always, come a distant second to the developers doing their best to make the game better.

Here's where I'm coming from however - in returning to a common cosmology in 5e, I think it very much does matter to retain as much continuity as possible in the presentation and flavor of planar monsters, and feel free to disagree with me here, but I do hold that there is both history and continuity, just with a hard disjunction by intent in 4e.

In this particular case you've got three editions wherein the succubus is one of -the- iconic demons and then one edition that intentionally broke with that and presented them as devils with a rationale that was wholly entwined with the flavor of the 4e PoL/Nerath core. When you have the 1e/2e/3e lore and the 4e lore, I think it best to present the MM with the option that remains coherent with the most settings for the majority of their own material that would be impacted. In that case, succubi as demons as the default seems the most rationale decision, and makes for much less headaches if you later on have to contradict the MM by saying 'In X setting succubi/incubi are demons'.

That being said, I can see giving some subtle nods to the 4e material so as to not completely reject that as an option.

Mind you, I'm pretty cool with 5e's handling of the planes. It's really only the handling of succubi/incubi and tieflings that I genuinely object to (much more so the latter). As I've said before, it isn't perfect, but it's something I can work with.

 

[Remathilis]

What I like is this opens the door to Succubi Queens: Lilith for example. They could also tie in some of the other mythical succubi creatures (Lamia, Yuki-Onna) to them. Even make them the evil equivalent of Angels: outsiders that travel the lower planes but aren't tied to the Demon/Devil/Daemon hierarchies.

 

[the Jester]

I respectfully disagree. It was a great opportunity to ease the continuity issues caused by bizarrely making them suddenly devils in 4e, but they tried a middle option.

Here's where I'm coming from however - in returning to a common cosmology in 5e, I think it very much does matter to retain as much continuity as possible in the presentation and flavor of planar monsters, and feel free to disagree with me here, but I do hold that there is both history and continuity, just with a hard disjunction by intent in 4e.

In this particular case you've got three editions wherein the succubus is one of -the- iconic demons and then one edition that intentionally broke with that and presented them as devils with a rationale that was wholly entwined with the flavor of the 4e PoL/Nerath core. When you have the 1e/2e/3e lore and the 4e lore, I think it best to present the MM with the option that remains coherent with the most settings for the majority of their own material that would be impacted.

Yeah, but that's a "screw the 4e guys" approach that won't serve 5e's goals. IMHO, it's far better to let everyone have their cake rather than giving a little extra bite to 'classic' players. Besides, succubi as in-between-fiends work fine in any encounter I can recall seeing them in. If they work fine in all the old adventures- especially if you consider that they probably tell devils that succubi are devils, and tell demons that succubi are demons- then who is losing out?

If everyone can use the monster as they have been and all that changes is a label, I think it's a win. Wouldn't this be exactly the compromise that they settled on? And either staying demon or staying devil would create the issues you describe for someone, while the compromise seems designed to allow all your campaign's old stories to remain in place without disturbance.

You say that "It was a great opportunity to ease the continuity issues caused by bizarrely making them suddenly devils in 4e", but it sounds like, rather than easing the continuity issues for everyone, you wanted to completely appease early-edition succubi-as-demon issues while ignoring those of 4e players and dms. I think it's easy to get around continuity issues, and feel that returning to succubi-as-demons would rather sweep them under the rug at the expense of succubi-as-devil groups (and vice-versa). The compromise position gives an easy, obvious solution to both groups. Isn't that better than telling one group that their stuff was just wrong, and screw the integrity of their campaigns? The way I see it, the compromise preserves stories from both sides- maybe that Lolth-following succubus wasn't a demon, but who cares? It was still a succubus filling a role in Lolth's list of servants, much like Drow or an evil ogre shaman of Lolth would be. I don't know that the compromise makes it hard to fit succubi into the demon role or the devil role, but leaving them one or the other certainly does make it harder to fit them into the opposite fiend role.

Moreover, I don't have the 5e MM yet, but I doubt very much whether any of the new lore will stop you from running a succubus as a demon if you want, or stop a Nerath DM from continuing to use them as devils.

 

[gyor]

To turn a Succubus into a demon by 5e rules its simple. Where it says Succubus Fiend add (demon). Done.

Seriously the demon subtype has almost no mechanical effect. The only subtype to have any real mechanical impact at all is (Shapechanger).

Type matters much more in mechanical terms, in the Succubi's case fiend.

Fluff wise they already serve Demon Princes in the Abyss in 5e terms so how much practical influence would this have on any setting?

In Ebberon pre 4e they were from the Plane of Darkness I believe, during 4e they were from the 9 hells, nether has a connection to the Abyss.

Darksun I don't think Extraplanar Creatures play much of an impact.

In Forgotten Realms there was an in setting explaination for the switch of most of the succubi from demons to devils and it would not take much to explain Succubi going completely rogue as a race.

In Greyhawk they were traditionally demons, but in the Nentar Vale Setting they are traditionally Devils. So we have a compromise.

Planescape, this is the biggy, and even here we have a presidenece set with Lawful Fall-From-Grace, who while a demon, showed it was possible for Succubi to branch out. Having Succubi in all Lower Planes is less of a difference in Planescape terms then making the Outlands no longer a true Outer Plane or adding in the Elemental Chaos, making part of the Elemental Planes like a Elemental reflection of the Material Plane and its echo planes, or setting the energy planes, Negative and Positive out past the the Outer Planes and far, far away from the Inner Planes which means the QausiElemental Plane of Radiance no longer exists, and then thier is the question of how to make the Elemental Chaos different from Limbo because in 4e the Elemental Chaos ate Limbo not just the Elemental Planes.

As for Tielflings the Planescape Tiefling will be a part of the Planetouched race, which this is just my guess, not fact, will be in the new Elemental Evil Adventurer's Handbook.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Here's where I'm coming from however - in returning to a common cosmology in 5e, I think it very much does matter to retain as much continuity as possible in the presentation and flavor of planar monsters, and feel free to disagree with me here, but I do hold that there is both history and continuity, just with a hard disjunction by intent in 4e.

Nope, because that wasn't their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to create a good game that respects the game's history and would be more popular than 4e.

Note "respects." Not "is slavishly devoted to." Had the 4e cosmology proved more popular than the Great Wheel, I guarantee you they'd have kept it. As it is, they have kept the parts that were popular or really good as story seeds.

And they did that while respecting the game's history, because it doesn't change the overall feel of the Great Wheel. Details of it, sure. Not overall.

Again, game, first and foremost. The purpose is to provide an array of interesting tools, not a continuous pre-written story. Consistency of detail has no intrinsic value in this situation; it is worthwhile, or not worthwhile, based purely on how it improves or detracts from the edition.

You will find background/detail changes between every edition, though not remotely to the extent that 4e took it. For better or worse, each of those changes was made by someone who thought they were improving the game. Some did; some didn't; most are up for debate.

But the fact that 5e has retained the best of multiple options and built them into a whole that still feels more or less self-consistent makes, by definition, for a better game than one that only retained the best of one of those options.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Or, to put it another way...

Chaotic evil is a subset of "any evil." Demon is a subset of fiend.

Succubi = Chaotic evil demon encourages the sort of game that Great Wheel/older lore fans want to play.

Succubi = any evil fiend still encourages the above, but now it also encourages the World Axis/newer lore fans, or the fans who don't care and just want options.

There is literally no downside. (Since I'm quite sure that nobody here actually subscribes to the "It's no fun for me if other people are doing it differently" perspective. And no, that's not snark; I mean that. I think we're all better gamers than that.)

 

[Lancelot]

[everything below is prefaced with "in my opinion"...] [also: SPOILER for a decades-old Planescape module]

Like the OP, I love the 5e succubus... regardless of the threat to my energy levels / maximum hp. And here's why...

1e/2e got it WRONG. That's all there is to it. Not everything in 1e was the right decision. Weapon speed factors, the original rules for the bard, the original monk, the original rules for psionics, the decision to make Odin a winnable fight for high-level characters, the entire concept/design/development of the H-series of Bloodstone modules (you know... the ones which had the tarrasque in a random dungeon room, with text saying: "This room has the tarrasque in it.").

In the classic 1e Monster Manual, both demons and devils had their respective highly-intelligent naked winged women (cf. 1e MM artwork) with charm powers who could disguise themselves as a mortal and charm foolish adventurers. One had feathered wings, one had bat wings. And that was about that. It was redundant design. The similarity of the succubus and erinyes was ridiculous. This is hardly a unique observation. Order of the Stick has commented on it multiple times, with the heroes constantly confused about whether one of the villains is a demon or a devil, and whether she is vulnerable to iron or silver. Other than that, they're virtually the same monster. Yes, yes... some minor differences in spell-like powers, AC, HD, etc. The rope of entanglement and the dagger of venom. Whatever. You know what I mean, fellow grognards.

2e Planescape made the situation worse, and I say that as a huge Planescape fan who owns just as much Planescape material as Shemeska (assuming Todd owns all of it...) and loves the setting with a passion. Planescape blurred the motivations and capabilities of the baatezu and the tanar'ri to the point that they were very close to the same race wearing different colored hats. The erinyes was the busty lingerie-wearing diTerlizzi red-head, and the succubus was the busty lingerie-wearing diTerlizzi blonde. Even in the modules... Chiryn's fatal love affair with Kas'rarlin really wouldn't be that much different if you swapped the "families" completely. It's a cambion longing for an erinyes who dwells in her own tower on Avernus, and tortures her prisoners for her own amusement. Wow. Big change, there. In fact, virtually every succubus or erinyes that appears in every Planescape module could be reasonably interchanged... as long as you change their motivations from "Because Chaos" to "Because Law", and vice versa.

3e started to get it right by doing something different with the erinyes, and they also corrected another thing that 1e got wrong. 3e changed the erinyes to (gasp) a warrior / fury / fallen angel of vengeance. Most of them were still wearing lingerie, because (heavy sigh). But at least they were now depicted as badass fighters wielding blades, flaming bows, and bringing the pain. Artwork began to show erinyes returning from the Blood War carrying demon heads. Much more in line with the ACTUAL erinyes, i.e. the FURY of Greek myth. If there's any proof that the Olympian pantheon has been long absent from this world, it's because the actual Furies didn't start calling for the heads of the 1e design/art team for depicting them as feathered seductresses.

So, the erinyes is now fixed. We've got a warrior fury that is closer to the mythical ideal, and we've reduced the design redundancy. We no longer have two virtually-identical races of artistically-objectionable eye candy.

...

But now we have a problem. There are two races of fiends.

One is Lawful Evil and heavily predicated on the concepts of subtlety, temptation, guile and intelligence. According to 2e, they're outnumbered by their foes by a margin of approximately infinity. Their intellect, discipline and cunning is their edge. Their leaders are mostly human-looking, and many of them are attractive (Dispater, Fierna, Belial, Glasya, Mephistopheles, Asmodeus). In real myth and D&D lore, they're after souls. They want domination and control, not destruction.

The other race is Chaotic Evil. They are a random force of destruction, taking vastly more shapes than their enemies. Virtually all of these shapes are beyond monstrous in human terms. Many barely even qualify as humanoid. Their leaders are almost never human-looking (Graz'zt being the notable exception, but that's another whole argument). They are out for annihilation. They win their battles, usually, with sheer numbers and ferocity. They don't have the patience or discipline for long-term plans, for the most part.

So... which of those two sides do you think should get the succubus? The intellectual, subtle schemer. With little or no combat capability. Almost always encountered alone, working with great subtlety, to gather souls.

Also note that if you picked race #2 (for tradition!), then who the heck is the classic seducer/tempter for race #1? The spinagon? The barbazu? The frickin' gelugon?!? (spined, bearded, ice devils respectively, for those of you who aren't in the know).

...

For my money, 4e got it "mostly" right. If the erinyes is now a warrior (and she should be, because of real myth, design redundancy, and to reduce the amount of cheesecake pandering), then it's a no-brainer that the succubus should be a devil from a story and design perspective.

However, 5e got it EVEN MORE right. There's no reason that a succubus cannot also be a demon. Or a yugoloth! Or a slaad, for that matter. I'm not sure what a slaad succubus would actually look like. Something that a frog would find incredibly attractive. Possibly an anthropomorphized pig in a blonde wig, perhaps.

...

So, in summary: 5e succubus rules. And also the incubus. They can now be all things to all people... as they should have been, from the very first version.

Next topic: gorgons in D&D. Snake-haired ladies cursed by the gods, or giant metallic bulls? We need an immediate re-think on the role of the medusa in 5e....

 

[Gundark]

Nothing beats the AD&D succubus, subject of many a 12-year old boy's fantasy:

View attachment 63724

Probably a few adults as well....