Talk:Marilith (5e Race)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Hell no. I never ever make races that are restricted to one alignment, with "little wiggle room." Even demons. Creatures being formed of "pure chaos and evil," is boring as hell, I greatly prefer making the morality of "evil" races linked to their culture and upbringing over any sort of innate mentality they have. A Marilith raised by the societal norms of a Marilith will predominantly be chaotic evil, sure, but a Marilith raised in the mortal realm by humans? I strongly believe they can and should have just as much potential to be good or evil as a normal human would. Varkarrus (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2019 (MST)

I disagree entirely, however, the point of the stub was so the wording could be changed so that it can be like every other first party race and imply leniency while explicitly stating where the race naturally gravitates towards. See the Dragonborn's bit on extremities or hafling or the dwarf. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2019 (MST)
I mean, I've already said that on the page? Right under alignment: Mariliths native to hell are predominantly Chaotic Evil. But then, like, if a family of Dragonborn found a baby Marilith by the side of the road and raised if Hellboy style, that baby Marilith would probably grow up to have the same tendency towards extremes as their parents. Varkarrus (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2019 (MST)
I think there is a difference between D&D norms and personal norms. Mariliths are native to hell, so their typically CE. The wiggle room is if they're raised by another culture or get some wild hair up their rear like Drizzt Do Urden did. I don't think CL is wrong by any means about the alignment thing. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2019 (MST)
Exactly. Is that not explicitly what I put on the wiki page, though? Varkarrus (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2019 (MST)
I wouldn't say exactly. "marilith raised on another plane may be of any alignment." doesn't imply the evil nature that these creatures are. Its minor/subtle difference is all the difference CL and I see in it. In fact, so subtle that I didn't really take issue until CL pointed it out. Does it make or break an article *shrug*. Would it be better written in a typical D&D fashion...CL and I think so lol ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (MST)
Yes, I wrote that because I feel that Mariliths, nor any other race, should have an inherent tendency towards evil. If a Marilith is raised in a different culture, their sense of morality will be based off of that culture. Varkarrus (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2019 (MST)
Well said BSFM. There are several first-party races that have an inherent pull towards an evil alignment, it doesn't make it any less of a race or mean they should be avoided as an option in character creation. See the Drow, Duragar, Fallen Aasimar as well as every one of the monstrous races presented in VGtM of which the Marilith would certainly fall under. Not to be rude, but this seems more like an opinion that is being imposed onto the page rather than something written to the benefit of it. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2019 (MST)
But it is not [culture]. It is racial, and a good culture or even some whimsical hair could cause a different world view. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)
Saying that they are inherently evil is effectively saying they are genetically predisposed towards evil, which is a bad narrative for many reasons. It's far more interesting and also less problematic for them to have the same free will to choose between good and evil as any other race, and for them to only be massively predisposed towards evil as many are born in the abyss which imposes evil ideals on their society. Varkarrus (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2019 (MST)
D&D thrives on problems. The entire concept of confrontation is fundamental to the game and good & evil races help drive that basic thing. Bad narrative, far more interesting, less problematic are all opinions. The fact is your personal preference goes against the games last 30 (40 now I think? man, the things we say and don't update to) years of flavor.
An idea just thought of while typing this-give the race a different culture than the abyss from which the monster comes. Similar to what WotC did for the minotaur. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2019 (MST)
"The entire concept of confrontation is fundamental to the game and good & evil races help drive that basic thing" That is why their culture is mentioned as being inherently evil, yes. Frankly, even that has ain't perfect, but they Are demons and I don't agree with Everything in the article anyways. As for going against the game's last 30-40 years? Yeah. Of course. If there's problems with the game's lore, it's time to go against them. D&D's "races with inherent morality" thing has been criticized for a long time now. The power of homebrew is that we can. Ultimately, if leaving in a single word can make me feel more comfortable, and encourage people to create good-aligned Mariliths without having them feel like they're betraying canon, then why not leave it in? Varkarrus (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2019 (MST)
First, thanks for the article! :)
Um you say fix it but the article says understand what you are doing by playing in a typical Tolkien world, which is what D&D is. Now, there are other campaign settings that change racial interaction. I think that the homebrew content on the site is designed for Forgotten Realms and as such, the lore and fluff should be followed. The power of homebrew isn't to upturn an entire campaign setting because an aspect makes us uncomfortable. Technically, no one would have to use this article, but the idea of real world social problems is being pushed into a game we play to escape real world. Could we please leave that out and accept the world in which the game is designed? If one wants races portrayed another way, then a campaign setting is more than accepting, I think its encouraged.
I hope I don't come off as marginalizing your issue either. The article makes good points and you have valid wants, but I don't see this being the best course. May be quite possibly why others create their own game systems too? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2019 (MST)
Also, I thought betraying canon was encouragement enough to play races that oppose precedent? Sorry to bring my opinion after sort of shutting yours out, but being that "evil" race with a party creates tons of plots and story when arriving in any city. If someone isn't encouraged to play those characters, I am skeptical off the group play with. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2019 (MST)
Again, just because a race isn't genetically predisposed towards evil doesn't make it a non-evil race. The vast majority of Mariliths are chaotic evil because the vast majority of Mariliths are raised in a society that idealizes chaotic evil traits. There would be a few Mariliths who wholly reject these social norms, and there'd be a few Mariliths who've spend most of their lives outside this culture. That would not stop people from assuming that any Marilith they see is a normal, chaotic evil Marilith. Same goes for any "evil race." Varkarrus (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2019 (MST)
Tolkien, and his depiction of orcs, had really racist undertones. Over the generations, D&D has softened this and made orc culture evil, as opposed to orcs themselves. Varkarrus (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2019 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Would it be completely irrelevant to bring up undead in this conversation to draw parallels? Zombies and skeletons are evil even if a good creature summons them to do good things. Might be a little farfetched but its more than fluff, its like part of crunch too. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Yes it's irrelevant. Undead are soulless and lack free will. Those that do not lack free will, such as Liches and Vampires, should not be considered Always Evil, either. Demons, on the other hand, have free will, otherwise there'd be no good Mariliths at all, and also do you really want to play a character with no free will? Varkarrus (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2019 (MST)
Being inherently evil (or inherently anything) does not mean you don't have free will, so, using Gnolls, a chaotic evil race, as an example, some could make the choice to separate themselves from Yeenoghu and find fey patrons (such examples were written about in official WOTC literature). In fact, given how savage nature is, you might say that them embracing the "primal essence of nature" would make them just as dangerous and more than likely, especially given how there are plenty of evil fey creatures they could ally with, just as evil, if not more so. Even the 5e monster manual states that "no goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll", among other things. However, this does not in any way mean that a gnoll, or ANY creature predisposed to an evil alignment, can't be good depending on what the DM says, and that goes for good creatures too. Ultimately, a creatures inherent alignment just shows the common alignment of the species/race. The argument could be made that, despite the savagery and cold-heartedness of gnolls, most gnolls are evil, but not ALL gnolls are evil, meaning our dear marilith race is no different. --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2019 (MST)
So if I were to summarise this conversation: As there is a precedent for it throughout the first party material, there is no issue with having an inherently evil race, more so, given that the race in question is a demon of the Abyss, a literal manifestation of chaos and evil, this is the most accurate representation of the marilith creature as a playable race.
As it is clear what precedent is here, and the consensus appears to align with it I will revert the recent edits that go against that and lock the page from further edits until a solution can be agreed upon in regards to the other edits that were made. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2019 (MST)
At the very least, please don't describe them as being inherently evil. I removed the part where I implied it was their culture that made them evil, and left it ambiguous as a compromise. Varkarrus (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2019 (MST)
I will compromise by using intrinsic since inherent defines permanency. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2019 (MST)
I disagree with this; I believe that no race should be described as being naturally predisposed to evil. I think it would be better to describe their culture as encouraging evil behavior, similarly to how drow are described, as this gives a bit more opportunity for PCs of this race to "buck the trend" even though as written there's technically no requirement to be CE. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:28, 21 February 2019 (MST)
Yup, there is no requirement to be CE, a PC can play whatever they want with this race even an LG Paladin that goes without saying but the CE alignment is the most accurate representation of the race.
ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2019 (MST)
Why not copy pasta an entry that states this race us usually this, but these appear on occasion. Marilith are usually chaotic evil due to their nature but good ones have been known to exist from time to time. That seems more in line with traditional wording and allows the buck system that everyone knows exists. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2019 (MST)
I don't believe the race needs to say that outliers exist as per the previous reply. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2019 (MST)
It'll encourage the creation of outliers, and discourage "lore sticklers," which can't hurt. Varkarrus (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2019 (MST)
They don’t need to say outliers exist anymore than it needs to say they’re inherently evil. My suggestion is the vanilla junk WotC provides for their material as an olive branch. Why not use the 1st party genericness to accomplish this? We’re spinning circles while wizards has provided the template for what almost all races follow. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2019 (MST)
To use similar wording to how alignment is defined in pre-existing races, "Formed in the abyss and living a life of conquest and warfare, Mariliths tend towards Chaotic Evil" Varkarrus (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (MST)
Initially, I would have (albeit reluctantly) been fine with a description of their alignment that avoids calling them "intrinsically" a certain alignment, but BSFM makes a Really Good Point that none of the vanilla D&D races are described as being inherently any alignment, with "tends" being the strongest word used to describe how often a race is a certain alignment. Varkarrus (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2019 (MST)
oo! oo! I like this version most of them all. I support it’s use based mine and Vark’s comments. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2019 (MST)
While I still disagree, I believe this is the closest we'll get to a perfect compromise. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2019 (MST)
I'm willing to concede on this latest version of the description of alignment.ConcealedWife (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2019 (MST)

Large or Medium[edit]

However its done, whether by basing it off of Geodude's centaur race's Equine Build feature, or by simply stating so, I believe Mariliths should take up a 10*10 area, as a large creature does. I'm unsure of whether or not this would buff or nerf the race. On one hand, they'd be able to threaten more squares; a total of 12 instead of 8, but they would be an easier target and would have a harder time squeezing between creatures in combat. The reason why I feel they should, though, is because a medium sized creature is often far less than 5 feet by 5 feet in width and length, yet takes up a 5 ft by 5 ft area on the board anyways. The Marilith, on the other hand, is well over 8 feet long. If this would buff the race rather than nerf it, I would simply shift some "lower priority" power budget around, stuff less central to the race's concept, such as taking away an attribute point. Varkarrus (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2019 (MST)

I disagree, as it would involve introducing several additional rules just to make a Large size race effectively a Medium size race and take away from the current eloquence of the page. Whereas by simply keeping them Medium size they work within a game designed explicitly for Medium/Small sized player characters, they receive a good balance of interesting traits from the creature they are based off and we follow the precedent laid by the first party as shown when they converted the goliath and the centaur to 5th edition races, the goliath in VGtM becoming a Medium size with Powerful Build and the centaur in GGtR with their Equine Build, both still giving the spirit of being Large without being so. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2019 (MST)
"it would involve introducing several additional rules just to make a Large size race effectively a Medium size race" it doesn't, though? It's still effectively a large creature, and only treated as a medium-sized one for equipment and grappling. Doing this is pretty much the same as taking a medium creature and making it be treated as a large creature for carrying capacity. Also, the rules for large-sized creatures already exist. Varkarrus (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2019 (MST)
I believe it does so and to expand on what is stated above: It would require a wordy trait and a link to an external page outlining the limitations of being a Large Player Character. In terms of communication, you have the size trait stating that you are Large with the limitations of the Large Player Character rule and then you have a trait soon after that tells you to disregard half of it and that you are Medium in regards to XYZ. It is poor communication, contradictory and ineloquent by comparison to stating that they are Medium sized and using the Powerful Build wording. The latter of which is supported by game precedent. If you still disagree and believe they must be Large, perhaps the best course of action is to fork the page here and create Marilith, Variant (5e Race) where you can shift the races power around to accommodate being Large as I imagine it will be substantial enough difference to constitute a different experience for a Player Character. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2019 (MST)
You wouldn't even need to link to the variant rule in this case, since the homebrewed parts of that rule would not be relevant to this page at all; if anything I'd link to Large Races (DnD Guideline) but that isn't strictly necessary at all. How would you feel about mimicking the wording from my version of the centaur race on this? — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:42, 24 February 2019 (MST)
Yeah, I linked your centaur earlier in this discussion, IMHO its a much better way of implementing it than the UA Centaur; it has very simple wording and its easy to understand. Also, if it came to it, I think it'd be better to create an on-page variant of the Marilith since ultimately that'd be the only thing on the entire page that'd be different; the lore, physical appearance, size, other racial traits, and suggested characteristics would all be the same. Varkarrus (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (MST)
I vote on page variant beings that we have plenty of pages variants and if its simply size, there isn't a need for an entirely new page. Also, didn't Vark initiate this article? I'd be a little chapped if the community hi-jacked my idea and said re-do it :p ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2019 (MST)
I'll concede to an on-page variant, just make sure to use the subrace template as I'm not sure how having two summary line parameter will play out on the dpl's. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2019 (MST)

On the topic of lore, CW has been asking me if she can rewrite it for a few days now since it doesn't match how lore is written in the first party books and reminds me more of the way it is written in setting specific supplements like the FR. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2019 (MST)


I don't think Mariliths should have a penalty when it comes to climbing. Snakes are generally pretty good at that sort of thing. Varkarrus (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2019 (MST)

The monster doesn't have a climbing speed and neither does any of the snakes in the PHB or Monster Manual. The reduction puts their climbing speed at 10 feet, whereas most races climbing speed is 15 feet. If it was removed their climbing speed would be 20 feet and they would be more effective at climbing than other races and as effective as the tabaxi, who receive their own trait for it. As such, I believe it should be kept, the race is strong enough as it is. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2019 (MST)
That's pretty fair; I didn't realize their land speed was buffed. Varkarrus (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2019 (MST)
I'm glad this was explained well because I didn't see too much an issue either. I always forget climb speed equals half movement speed. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2019 (MST)
You know me and my fine tooth comb bsfm :eyes: —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2019 (MST)


Demonic Resistance: Strong, but can't imagine it being something different.
Serpintine Heritage: I think proficiency with poison or handling them better? Can't think of appropriate terms but hopefully the idea is there. This would just follow that 3 benefit pattern.
Master of Blades: (the only one to follow 5e naming schemes) I think is strong. I am not a fan of shoving with your tail then attacking so I'd remove that part but the rest I think is worthy of an ASI. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2019 (MST)

Not sure if you saw the encoded comments but I'll justify them here.
  1. The same as the aasimar's one from the Expanded Racial Feats for Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
  2. I originally had them as two separate benefits to keep to the general pattern but they're pretty much a package deal and the half-feat dwarven fortitude has two benefits so I merged them. As for the benefits themselves, I drew inspiration from the tieflings Infernal Heritage and the lizardfolk's Touch of Sess'inek for the type of benefit and the marilith for the kind of benefit.
  3. As for this one, it is meant to be a replacement for the duel wielder feat and I figured a +1 to AC would be less interesting than getting more use out of your tail so I went with that as well as the drawing six weapons instead of two.
ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (MST)
I agree with these points and find Master of Blades is fine. Varkarrus (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2019 (MST)
No, I didn't see them. I wouldn't think to look for them ;-) And the heritage was meant as an addition to the feat, not a replacement. I really don't see anything unbalanced with the feats. More like I think they're good and if I had to do anything with them, that's what I would do. Hope the clears up any need for justifying or ideas I think they aren't fine :) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2019 (MST)
Ah ok thanks for clarifying. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2019 (MST)
Okay in hindsight, and comparing it to the Dual-Wielder feat, I'm thinking Master of Blades might be too strong. I'm also not fond of how the feat "shoehorns" the Marilith into requiring them to attack with their tail every round. Any possibilities for how this could be fixed? Varkarrus (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (MST)
Could you expand on what you mean, and why it is an issue? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2019 (MST)
Never mind, I'm a dumbass. Varkarrus (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2019 (MST)

Still WIP?[edit]

There hasn't been any changes in a while, and the page is in a pretty good state at the moment. Varkarrus (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2019 (MST)

I planned on going over the SC's later but I've been busy with other things. As for the adjustments to the climbing specification and the crawling movement. The first is incorrect as per the GGtR wording and the latter is unnecessary as we are talking specifically about "movement while crawling" not "standing up from prone" or any other movement penalties. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2019 (MST)
I showed the page to others and every single one of them thought it was weird that "you move at 1/5th speed while climbing." They also commented on the Slither feature that the other penalties still applying wasn't wholly clear and should be outright stated. I feel there's no harm in clarifying. Varkarrus (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2019 (MST)
I would recommend you avoid changing first party wording based on your preference. If you refer to page 182 of the Players Handbook and see Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling under Special Types of Movement it says that while climbing each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot of movement. The trait says "When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet, instead of the normal 1 extra foot." so the math is then (movement speed/4) which is 10 for the marilith. Thus the assumption you and the others are making is incorrect.
Moving on, 5th edition is all about minimizing bloat and thus edits should avoid doing so. After referring to pages 182, 191 and 292 it seems the wording does actually allow a prone player to avoid difficult terrain which isn't the intent as such has been changed to "While you are prone, crawling costs 1 less foot of movement." which would mean a crawling marilith could move at 40 feet as they don't take 1/2 penalty(1 to 0), and 20 feet when crawling in difficult terrain as they take the 1/2 penalty(3 to 2). —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (MST)
I cannot possibly see how "each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet" can mean anything other than 1/5th movement speed, especially after the fact that it normally coats 1 extra feet of movement. 1+1 = 2, for half movement... But 1+4 = 5, meaning 5 feet of movement per foot travelled. If it was just 4 feet, or 3 extra feet, then it's make sense. Varkarrus (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2019 (MST)

Possible compromise for the "bloat" thing[edit]

So, I really do feel some things need to be elaborated on, especially after having to explain to several people various aspects of the race, such as how Slither works, and that they have 10 feet of climb speed, not 8. Since apparently, explaining these misconceptions on the page is "bloat," maybe as an alternative, the {{hover}} template can be used, for errata. Varkarrus (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2019 (MST)

More of a "them" problem really as this was broken down as the most correct way to word it previous and as such is a moot point. As for using {{hover}} I suppose that wouldn't be too bad though I'd like to find a way to remove the bolding as it doesn't align with the formatting rules. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2019 (MST)

Many Balance issues[edit]

Lets start with breaking the race down top to bottom. Ignoring feats for now. (I dont use the recommended scale because every race I see that uses that scale are almost always more powerfull then phb races and the like) First of all, speed. No race should start out with more then 35 movement. Any other race needs a feat or a class ability to even possibly reach a 40 feet movement speed. As such the first recommendation is to lower it to 35 feet (And no their disadvantage on climbing is not a counterweight for their ridiculously high movementspeed)

Second, Fiend heritage. This "ability" is more powerful then at first you may think. Any ability that makes you a creature type is not humanoid an enormous buff in disguise. As it makes you immune to many of the lower level charm spells. For example dominate person is a 3rd level spell. while on you they would have to use Dominate Monster instead as you are not humanoid. So either allow them to be affected by these spells.

Third, Multilimbed Prodigy, now I have no clue where to begin but lets start with the basics. This allows you to dual wield greatweapons. While holding a heavy crossbow. Having the use of 6 fully functional arms is ridiculously strong. Grappling 6 people at once? No problem (7 but we will get to that) now I would make a lot of changes to this to disallow almost everything that would make having 6 arms appealing. If you want to keep this, this should be the only real strong positive this race is allowed to have.

Fourth, Powerfull tail is a certain nono in combination with Multilimbed as this allows you to grapple a total of 7 creatures at a single time. 6 is already ridiculous but another one? That sounds like overkill. Removing this ability would make the race overall more balanced.

Fifth, Serpentine build is fine to keep.

Sixth, Slither while a fun little gimmick should be removed to keep the race balanced with Multilimbed Prodigy

I will come back on feats later--RedHawk007 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2019 (MST)

Grappling seven creatures at once? In theory, yeah, though that's not so bad. You can grapple as many creatures per round as you have attacks, which is at most 4, if you're a level 20 fighter. And if you're doing that, you're limiting the number of hands to wield weapons with. Grappling prevents movement, and the use of the Dodge action, but it doesn't confer advantage or disadvantage on any attacks. Sure you can restrain them if you have the Grappler feat, but that requires an action AND you're limited to doing it with one target at a time regardless of number of hands, as you are rendering yourself restrained. So where does that leave you? In melee combat with 4 targets, while you only have 2-3 hands free, and they have no disadvantage on attacks against you. Only way that could be advantageous is if your wizard then casts some big poisonous AoE spell on you (and successfully pulling that off deserves a reward), or if the creatures were low CR anyways. Getting to 7 grappled targets requires two whole rounds, all of your hands + tail, and no more than one failed / broken free grab. And, oh yeah, this is level 20. Varkarrus (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2019 (MST)
Then my friend you dont really know how grappling works that well. I know you have some pretty original ideas, but some things that push the boundaries of the game you are not familiar with. For example most monsters are not build for grappling. They cannot deal with it, Since you can be a barbarian and grap expertise in grappling you pretty much can pin a monster down by grappling them and shoving them prone. Giving you the same effect as pinning someone down without having to use the feat. Since you have 7 hands. You can grapple and shove them prone, then grapple someone next turn and use your other attack to swing a greatsword. I know you dont but if anyone with a bit of minmaxing sence grabs this race, they can use it for a whole load of different tactics. And oh yes, this is level 5. --RedHawk007 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2019 (MST)
Please be courteous. Assuming or telling others what they know isn't exactly within [civility] and [etiquette], kindly linked for light reading.
Also, finally someone has pointed out the issues presented within this and included that scales promote min maxing. finally!. I am only skeptical of this grappling concern? I think it may be blown out of proportion. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2019 (MDT)

Powerful Tail Buff?[edit]

Writing up that counterargument to RedHawk makes me think Powerful Tail might actually be Not Very Powerful at all. There doesn't seem to be much reason to care about grappling a target at 10 feet vs 5 feet, especially with 40 movement speed that you lose in the process. If other imbalances are addressed with the Marilith's traits, then I think maybe their Powerful Tail could have a portion of the Grappler feat baked in; namely "You can use your action to try to pin a creature Grappled by your tail. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both Restrained until the grapple ends." leaving out the advantage on grapple checks. This feels thematically appropriate, and not TOO powerful since it takes the Marilith out of the fight and it's not like they can grapple targets while restraining one. Just something to consider. Varkarrus (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2019 (MST)

4 Star Vote[edit]

As stated elsewhere, I am being transparent about my vote. I think there is flavor, and its be toned down (I really appreciate the Large Size being a variant), but something about it is quietly whispering "too much" at me. Can't place a finger but when I do, I'll of course share. ~ BigShotFancyMan 08:24, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

I'm Loving It![edit]

No, I'm not McDonald. But a I absolutely adore this race. I don't have the same problem with the alignment thing, because I know that it's only a suggestion. Anyway, I think that this is an amazing race and I would love to use it next time I play DnD... which will take forever since my family doesn't really play anymore and all my friends are too busy... Flamestarter (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2019 (MDT)Flamestarter

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!