Succubus Alternate Form

[Xeoble]

It says that a succubus can only change into humanoid forms, is this strictly "humanoid" or does it count other things like "monstrous humanoid"?

 

[Xeoble]

anyone? i'm gaming in a half-hour, tryin to use a necklace of demons from BoVD with maximum efficiency

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I believe so, but I don't see why she couldn't look like a tiefling

IMC it's Alter Self - less hassles that way.

 

[AEtherfyre]

I'd say that monstrous humanoid counts. They're grouped with humanoids as far as Bane Weapons or Favored Enemies are concerned, after all, and they are still vulnerable to Hold Person or Charm Person. I don't see why they wouldn't count, actually, by any but the most technical reading - and I think that'd be just a tad ridiculous.

 

[Dingleberry]

I'd say that monstrous humanoid counts. They're grouped with humanoids as far as Bane Weapons or Favored Enemies are concerned, after all, and they are still vulnerable to Hold Person or Charm Person. I don't see why they wouldn't count, actually, by any but the most technical reading - and I think that'd be just a tad ridiculous.

Interesting - my reading of the rules is exactly the opposite on every example you gave. I think the rules expressly differentiate between Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids, and I don't find it the slightest bit ridiculous.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

"Humanoid" and "monstrous humanoid" are well-defined terms, meaning different things. That said, it would be cumbersome if written material could not use the word "giant" to merely mean "big" if it were clear from context that that was what was going on.

When the D&D rules say "humanoid," to refer to a creature, they clearly mean the creature type. If they mean otherwise, which is rarely, they generally take pains to not use the word to describe a creature, but a shape, as with the phrase "humanoid in form." So no, hold person and such do not work on monstrous humanoids.

With the succubus, however, the ability says they can take "humanoid forms," not "the forms of humanoids," so it could reasonably be taken as describing a shape rather than referring to a creature type. I haven't seen a clarification on the issue.

 

[AEtherfyre]

Whoops, my mistake about Hold Person, etc - but they're still listed under the same heading as far as Bane and Favored Enemy are concerned, you realize.

 

[Dingleberry]

Whoops, my mistake about Hold Person, etc - but they're still listed under the same heading as far as Bane and Favored Enemy are concerned, you realize.

My DMG shows "monstrous humanoids" and "humanoids" listed separately on the "Designated Foe" table for bane/i] (46-50 and 95-100, respectively). And while it's true that the list of ranger favored enemies in the PHB doesn't include Monstrous Humanoids, I believe it to be an error rather than an intentional combining of the two types. For example, see the "Choosing a Favored Enemy" seciton in MotW, which discusses them as separate favored enemy categories.

 

[AEtherfyre]

Again, my mistake.

I hate not having my books - I say stupid stuff.


I figured out why I thought Monstrous Humanoid was a subset of humaniod. As far as I can tell, it exists to give several monsters fighter BAB rather than cleric - other than that, most of the Monstrous Humanoids could have been worked in as Aberrations or Giants, IMO. I looked through the SRD, and the only critters of that type were: Hags, Centaurs, Medusae, Harpies, Koa-Toans, Yuan-Ti, and maybe one or two thers. Almost as few as there are Fey, and I think Fey probably have a better reason to exist as a distinct group.

Edit: Oh. Right. Minotaur and Grimlock.

 

[Dingleberry]

I hate not having my books - I say stupid stuff.

At least you have an excuse. I usually say stupid stuff whether I have the books in hand or not.