Lich and Phylactery

[Nargrakhan]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

[Snake-Aes]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

Any lich can create a phylactery, and no rule says they can't make another if the current one goes boom.

And there are two specifics on epics: An epic spell that gives you more phylacteries, and demi-liches. These have a bunch of gems that they use in some nasty spells, and also work as phylacteries.

[Ancalagon]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

In principle yes. The issue is just if that's possible in OotS-World as well. Since, well, if Xykon lost his phylactery permanently it'd escalate things in a very dramatic way.

[Laughing Dragon]

So, a Lich CAN have more than one Phylactery! That answers an important question. Because if they COULDN'T, then the best tatictal situation now would be for O'Chul to try to escape with Xykon's Phylactery and do some serious plotting to take out Xykon. Step one of such a plot would be to destroy the Phylactery just before the critical melee, minimizing the chance that another could be created in time to prevent Xykon's demise.
As it now stands however, O'Chul will destroy the Phylactery and go after Xykon ... probably to meet his death.

[Kaytara]

In principle yes. The issue is just if that's possible in OotS-World as well. Since, well, if Xykon lost his phylactery permanently it'd escalate things in a very dramatic way.
Which is why I'm betting that it WILL be permanent. :D Also, if it's not permanent, rebuilding it would still take Xykon what, several months? Still a long time to be vulnerable, and since there are only two more Gates remaining, the whole story may be over in a few months, anyway - so Rich may as well houserule it to be permanent.

[SoC175]

Well, destroying the Phylactery (which will actually be very difficult for O'Chul (overcomming hardness 20 with his improvised weapon) will only matter if they can slay Xykon before he finished creating a replacement.

Xykon doesn't fear the loss of his phylactery as long as it's not coupled with a threat to his current body, he made that clear when Redcloak tried to threat him with destroying it in SoD.

Well, if O'Chul destroys it and Xykon starts right away that's a timeframe of 120 days to destroy him (120,000 gp, one day per gp to create)

[Meridian]

When a person becomes a Lich, he binds his soul into a Phylactery. I'm not familiar with D&D Liches more than what I could read from 3.5 Monster Manual, but I would suppose that technically you have to destroy the Lich's body (meaning the actual, physical form of the Lich) and release his soul (destroy the Phylactery).

I could make a hypothesis that once a Phylactery is destroyed, the Lich's soul will be transferred back into his body until he creates a new one. I'm going a bit hazy here, but would it be possible for a Lich to NOT create a Phylactery, instead housing his soul actually inside his body? Of course that would be foolish, but possible, maybe?

This would also explain what happens to the soul once the Phylactery is destroyed..

[Snake-Aes]

it is possible. While Xykon is un-alive, the phylactery is just an expensive trinket with stupid hardness.

[Volkov]

Actually libris mortis specifically states that once a lich loses it's phylactery, it cannot build a new one. So unless Tsusiko, Jirik, or Redcloak are willing to use revive undead each time he croaks, or if he wishes to become a demi-lich, he's dead for good.

[SoC175]

I could make a hypothesis that once a Phylactery is destroyed, the Lich's soul will be transferred back into his body until he creates a new one.
The soul is in the lich's body by default and only retreats into the Phylactery if the body is destroyed and only until a new body has been formed.

Without a Phylactery a lich's soul will proceed to the afterlife if the body is destroyed, it doesn't matter in which order you destroy body and phylactery, you just need both destroyed at the same time.

[Meridian]

The soul is in the lich's body by default and only retreats into the Phylactery if the body is destroyed and only until a new body has been formed.

Without a Phylactery a lich's soul will proceed to the afterlife if the body is destroyed, it doesn't matter in which order you destroy body and phylactery, you just need both destroyed at the same time.

Ah, I see. It work that way, then. As said, my knowledge is based on Monster Manual. Thanks for the clarification.

[Krazax]

The soul is in the lich's body by default and only retreats into the Phylactery if the body is destroyed and only until a new body has been formed.

Without a Phylactery a lich's soul will proceed to the afterlife if the body is destroyed, it doesn't matter in which order you destroy body and phylactery, you just need both destroyed at the same time.

Yeah gotta destroy them both, destroying the Phylactery while the Lich is still alive, just takes away his Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. Although I am uncertain as to the afterlife part. I'd have to do some re-reading, but what I could have sworn was destroying both meant the Lich's essence/life force is utterly annihilated/dispersed. As in, no after life. As in no chance for reincarnate or resurrection etc.

As in... Gone Daddy Gone.


Course.. 3.+ could have changed all that. I'll have to pull some books out tonight. Personally I like the old 2nd Edition Van Richten's guides more than the 3.0 version. There are just huge differences in power levels between the 2nd ed and 3rd ed lichs. 2nd Ed was for epic bosses, 3rd they turned undead into player characters, so they got toned down dramatically.

I think it was the Gnome Chef Lich from Libris Mortis that really made me loathe the 3rd Ed version. I wouldn't doubt Rich probably prefers the old style as well. Most writers do prefer a more 'epic' master villain.

[vampire2948]

What if O-Chul throws it into the Snarl-Rift?

Is the entire lich's soul stored in it? If it is...then I assume the soul and necklace would cease to exist.

Problems for our favourite undead sorceror? I think so.


Vampire2948,

[Lamech]

Actually libris mortis specifically states that once a lich loses it's phylactery, it cannot build a new one. So unless Tsusiko, Jirik, or Redcloak are willing to use revive undead each time he croaks, or if he wishes to become a demi-lich, he's dead for good.He'll have to become a demi-lich? Like the demi-gods of gods? Hahaha... owned. Whaa? No? More powerful?
Umm... it turns out demi-liches are immune to almost everything and can inflict perma-deaths pretty much at will. And have large stat boosts. And have 8 of those hidey-holes for their souls. And don't need to keep magic items close by. Umm... DONT DO IT O-CHUL

[shadzar]

What if O-Chul throws it into the Snarl-Rift?

Is the entire lich's soul stored in it? If it is...then I assume the soul and necklace would cease to exist.

Problems for our favourite undead sorceror? I think so.


Vampire2948,

The phylactery houses the soul when a body is not present for it. Upon creation of a body, the phylactery just becomes and empty "box" that the soul can return to through the use of the arcane writings placed on it, and rituals performed to turn it into a phylactery.

None that I know of outside of the One Ring have been destroyed and caused the destruction of the lich themselves.

So it just means X is pretty screwed if it gets destroyed and he learns nothing of it, thinking he still has that safety net and can be reckless.

[Volkov]

Yeah gotta destroy them both, destroying the Phylactery while the Lich is still alive, just takes away his Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. Although I am uncertain as to the afterlife part. I'd have to do some re-reading, but what I could have sworn was destroying both meant the Lich's essence/life force is utterly annihilated/dispersed. As in, no after life. As in no chance for reincarnate or resurrection etc.

As in... Gone Daddy Gone.


Course.. 3.+ could have changed all that. I'll have to pull some books out tonight. Personally I like the old 2nd Edition Van Richten's guides more than the 3.0 version. There are just huge differences in power levels between the 2nd ed and 3rd ed lichs. 2nd Ed was for epic bosses, 3rd they turned undead into player characters, so they got toned down dramatically.

I think it was the Gnome Chef Lich from Libris Mortis that really made me loathe the 3rd Ed version. I wouldn't doubt Rich probably prefers the old style as well. Most writers do prefer a more 'epic' master villain.
No the Revive Undead spell can bring back a destroyed lich/demilich like any other undead. They just lose a level.

[NerfTW]

What makes everyone think Red Cloak's "recall" spell was anywhere near Azure City? For all we know, it sent him back to his homelands.

There's a chance Xykon won't know Red Cloak lost the phylactery. This might be a way of making sure Xykon isn't seen as invincible for the last half of the story. He won't know he doesn't have a phylactery to fall back on, while the Order might. It would make for an interesting dynamic.

[Callista]

There's no reason he wouldn't have multiple Word of Recalls in play at any one time. A decent Cleric player using that spell would prepare at least two--one to escape far away; one to return to a nearby familiar location.

[Simanos]

Actually libris mortis specifically states that once a lich loses it's phylactery, it cannot build a new one. So unless Tsusiko, Jirik, or Redcloak are willing to use revive undead each time he croaks, or if he wishes to become a demi-lich, he's dead for good.
Really? Where does it say that? What does it say exactly?

Personally I dislike epic levels and prefer adventure in lower levels. I would never have generic liches as opponents in my campaign. It would always be a named one with backstory and depending on my predisposition I could even (house)rule that destroying the phylactery would automatically destroy the lich (for some of them, not necessarily all) if it suit my current purposes and made the players feel nice. First rule is having fun.

[WarriorTribble]

If I might go on a tangent, couldn't Xykon simply repair his phylactery? I mean O-Chul might break it, but I don't see how he could destroy the remains. Not to mention while I could see Xykon working 60 days (is this right?) to fix the thing, I just can't see him stay put for 120 days to make another one.

Course, the problem is (SoD spoilers)since Redcloak is the one who made the thing in the first place, Xykon will probably have to get his help to do either option. I wonder if our skeletal sorcerer could swallow his pride to do that.

[appending_doom]

Broken magic items lose all of their magical properties. He can only "repair" the item if it received damage but was not actually broken.

That is, he can "repair" a destroyed phylactery if and only if he can make a replacement at all.

[Borris]

When you destroy a magic item, it loses all its magic. You can repair a +2 flaming sword that has been sundered (through uses of Make Whole, for example), but it will only be a masterwork sword. To get the magical properties back, you have to enchant the item all over again. Carfting an item takes 1 day per 1000 gp of the cost, so a 120,000 gp phylactery would take 120 days.

But as has been clarified in Libirs Mortis, a lich only has one phylactery, crafted at the time it attains lichdom. As long as the phylactery exists, the lich's soul will get back to it if its body is destroyed, and slowly regenerate. If the phylactery is destoyed, though, the lich has only one life left (like pretty much everyone else).

Can O-Chul break the phylactery? I'm sure he can. Any self-respected two-handed weapon takes the Power Attack feat at some point. And since the phylactery is an unattended object, it's pretty much impossible to miss. Besides, we've already seen that Xykon's crown radiated evil, and I'm pretty sure the amulet that housed Xykon's very soul not too long ago will be even more evil. Chance are O-Chul can use his other Smite Evil to deal even more damage. With hardness 20 and 40 hp, O-Chul needs to deal 60 points of damage in one hit, or two hits of 40. Assuming a Base Attack Bonus of +12, a Str of 16, and 8 paladin levels, a maximum strength Power Attack Smite would deal 1d8+36 ≈ 40. On subsequent attacks (without Smite), O-Chul would deal an average of 32 points of damage, so he can destroy the phylactry in 3 hits. A single full attack if he's lucky.

[Theodoriph]

The phylactery houses the soul when a body is not present for it. Upon creation of a body, the phylactery just becomes and empty "box" that the soul can return to through the use of the arcane writings placed on it, and rituals performed to turn it into a phylactery.

None that I know of outside of the One Ring have been destroyed and caused the destruction of the lich themselves.

So it just means X is pretty screwed if it gets destroyed and he learns nothing of it, thinking he still has that safety net and can be reckless.


The One Ring wasn't a phylactery, not according to the meaning of phylactery in D&D (and Sauron wasn't a lich). They worked in very different ways.

[shadzar]

The One Ring wasn't a phylactery, not according to the meaning of phylactery in D&D (and Sauron wasn't a lich). They worked in very different ways.

Close enough relation wouldn't you say? Since Middle Earth isn't Abeir, Toril, Krynn, Oerth, etc.

They are analogous of each other.

[brant167]

Our group always ruled that once a phylactery is destroyed the lich becomes alive, as in living breathing coffee drinking mammal, again. It’s far from what’s RAW but could be interesting if it happened that way in oots.

[Hydro Globus]

Can O-Chul break the phylactery? I'm sure he can.

The question is, can an unenchanted improvised weapon break it?

(I'm pretty sure it couldn't in 3.0, but I think the rules changed since then).

[Theodoriph]

Just thought I'd weigh in on the phylactery thing.


According to the Monster Manual, a lich should be able to create another phylactery for two reasons:

1) A phylactery isn't anything special according to the MM. It's just like crafting any other wondrous item. And since multiples of other wondrous items can be created, there's no reason you couldn't create another phylactery.

2) If a phylactery were special, the Monster Manual surely would have made note of it. That kind of thing is fairly important to know when plotting to destroy a lich.

Thus, from the Monster Manual, the safe conclusion is that a lich can make another one.


According to Libris Mortis, a lich cannot create more than one phylactery. Someone asked for a quote. It says, "A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one."


Of course, the problem is, Libris Mortis does not necessarily overrule the Monster Manual. It all depends on what books and rules the DM (re: Rich) preferred when constructing the campaign.

So...wait and see. :smallbiggrin:



Personally, O'Chul destroying it and dying would be fitting, but it would also mean that Xykon couldn't die until near the end of the comic (unless RC finds someone else for his scheme), which would give him a kind of plot immunity.

(Of course, Rich could have surprising plot twists involved, in which case, the above can be ignored)

[Gaiyamato]

Phylacteries like any item can have additional enchantments placed on them.
They can even have an Arcane Mark so that Red Cloak could simply recall the phylactery to wherever his location is (assuming he can somehow cast instant summons). Alternatively it could have insane hardness or hp, even regenerate damage. It could explode with wards etc. Heck it could summon demons or undead to defend it.
Only if it were a base ordinary phylactery would it be so easy to destroy.

But this is O'Chul we are talking about. He surely has some ability to trash things. lol.

[Laughing Dragon]

Xykon is nothing if not in it for the long haul ... meaning that IF the phylactery is destroyed and IF he CAN make a new one, then he will suck it up for 120 days and do it. He will be extremely pissed about it, and probably be out of sorts for at least half a decade ... but he will do what it takes to survive.

I had thought of the idea that Redcloak might not tell him that the phylactery had been destroyed, it would make for an interesting dynamic.

Xykon: The OOTS are coming, have we got everything prepared?
Redcloak: Sir, I'm afraid I have some bad news.
Xykon: MitD is weapy over O'Chul again?
Redcloak: No, fortunately for us he's moved on to "Denial" but it is something related to O'Chul.
Xykon: Are you going to tell me? We don't have time for a game of 20 questions.
Redcloak: Well sir you remember when he escaped and stabbed out my eye?
Xykon: Yes. He came at me in his underwear, swinging a bent metal bar, and he was all "You will now pay for your evil deeds." I was laughing so hard I almost couldn't kill him.
Redcloak: Well, between then and when he stabbed out my eye he destroyed your phylactery.
Xykon: :smalleek: ... Ha, ha, ha. You almost had me punked there. It might have worked except that you forgot to take it off.
Redcloak: Oh, you mean this? No, this is just my unholy symbol. After the incident with the elf, then O'Chul, then MitD depression, I just didn't want to tell you one more piece of bad news. So I made a new unholy symbol that looked just like the old one.
Xykon: You deceitful little ...
>>door bangs open<<
Roy: You will now pay for your evil deeds, Xykon.
Xykon: You know ... that just doesn't seem that funny the second time around.
Redcloak: Bye ... Word of Recall
Xykon: :smalleek:

The one ring was never a phylactery, it actually permanently housed a portion of Sauron's soul/being/essence. That's how it could act, at least in a limited fashion, of its own volition. Unlike Voldemort however, Sauron could not survive when a (significant) portion of his soul/being/essence was destroyed. Besides, Sauron was never a mortal to begin with ... he was a member of the "higher" race of beings called the Valar.

[Ancalagon]

In fact, Sauron "only" was one of the Maiar (one of the lesser "gods" or "angels")... Melkor was (is?) a Vala.

[Berserk Monk]

Xykon never knew how to make a phylactery. Red Cloak had to show him how.

[Ancalagon]

Xykon never knew how to make a phylactery. Red Cloak had to show him how.

Who said Redcloak cannot show it again? And who said that Xykon did not learn how to make a new one?

[CallingCtulhu]

In fact, Sauron "only" was one of the Maiar (one of the lesser "gods" or "angels")... Melkor was (is?) a Vala.

Technically, their both still 'alive'. Sauron's a shadow of his former self, and can't physically act with the World (I think he can somewhat influence actions though). Melkor's busy being Satan-In-the-Ice-Lake, but is stil very much alive.

Yes, I'm a huge Tolkien Geek :P

[Snake-Aes]

Technically, their both still 'alive'. Sauron's a shadow of his former self, and can't physically act with the World (I think he can somewhat influence actions though). Melkor's busy being Satan-In-the-Ice-Lake, but is stil very much alive.

Yes, I'm a huge Tolkien Geek :P

<3 Silmarillion.

[WarriorTribble]

Who said Redcloak cannot show it again? And who said that Xykon did not learn how to make a new one?Has Xykon ever been shown making items, or using items that he might've created? I honestly don't know, I'm hoping someone else would do the research for me. :smallsmile:

Also, if memory serves Redcloack outright made the phylactery for Xykon. Course, it's still not much of an obstacle, heck might even be a good thing. Can anyone see Xykon allocating eight hours of his day to patiently crafting an extremely complicated piece of jewelry? I’m impressed he once made coffee.

[derfenrirwolv]

Its the DM (authors) call. Nothing in core states it clearly one way or the other. Soon would probably know, I doubt O'chul or even Xykon does.

Xykon states in start of darkness that his soul isn't in the phylactery right now, so crushing it before he needs it won't do anything unless you then kill him.

[Ancalagon]

Has Xykon ever been shown making items, or using items that he might've created? I honestly don't know, I'm hoping someone else would do the research for me. :smallsmile:

Xykon was crafting magic items eight hours a day while waiting in Azure City. He complains about not being able to spend more time on doing that per day... so I'd say: He should be a master-creater by now.

Btw, it would not surprise me that he already did create a new phylactery without telling Redcloak... that would be a nasty surprise for O'Chul, though...

[WarriorTribble]

Xykon was crafting magic items eight hours a day while waiting in Azure City. He complains about not being able to spend more time on doing that per day... so I'd say: He should be a master-creater by now.When did he say this?

[Cor1]

There's no reason he wouldn't have multiple Word of Recalls in play at any one time. A decent Cleric player using that spell would prepare at least two--one to escape far away; one to return to a nearby familiar location.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wordofRecall.htm

The destination must be familiar, very familiar.. Why was I remembering that you can't have more than one of these at any time? (One programmed destination and no additional ones, I mean)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm

Says nothing about destroyed phylacteries... The LM seems to say that the phylactery is a result of the ritual that turns one into a lich. That makes sense. But to create a phylactery, I remember reading that you need the Magic Jar spell : http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/MagicJar.htm - and there is nothing that prevents you from using a spell chain that will simply send your soul into your Contingency-cast, non-phylacterous, Permanent Magic Jar, then you can possess the first peon who happens to come along. It's even a signature lich ability, possessing new bodies before your current one rots too much to use.
So, yeah, the Libris Mortis can say whatever it wishes on Phylacteries, but if you lose the one you got at the end of your transformation ritual, you can use Permanency+MagicJar to make an ersatz. Or just Clone your undead body, the spell description says NOTHING aout cloning unliving flesh. Might as well clone yourself several times while alive, so you can possess your own clone bodies from your permanent magic jar... (Wuzzat "rocks fall, everyone dies"? Back in a minute.)

[Scarlet Knight]

The One Ring wasn't a phylactery, not according to the meaning of phylactery in D&D (and Sauron wasn't a lich). They worked in very different ways.

I would say Voldermort & his Horcruxes are a more appropriate analogy.

[SOdhner]

None that I know of outside of the One Ring have been destroyed and caused the destruction of the lich themselves.

It's been... ouch, twenty years maybe? But I think that the destruction of Morda's phylactery in The Chronicles of Prydain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicles_of_Prydain) killed him. That was my first exposure to the concept of a lich.

[pasko77]

About the hardness of a phylactery, SoD spoiler:

Redcloack threatens x to break it BARE HANDED, so it cannot be so hard.
Edit: or maybe with a stick, i don't remember. The point is that he was threatening to do it with ease.

[Zevox]

Melkor's busy being Satan-In-the-Ice-Lake, but is stil very much alive.
I think you mean "brooding in the empty void, waiting for the chance to re-enter the world." He was never killed or imprisoned in any way, after all, just cast out beyond the Walls of Night.


Yes, I'm a huge Tolkien Geek :P
Likewise. :smallbiggrin:

But anyway, yeah, Sauron is not an appropriate analogy for D&D Liches. Without the power he stored in the Ring, he basically could not survive in any but the basest form of spirit, and could never recover his power. But he was immortal, just like all his kind. A D&D Lich is merely a mortal that has become an undead, and his phylactery merely a safety net to allow his soul to linger and acquire a new body if his current one is destroyed, rather than passing on to the afterlife. He is not immortal, not a god, like Sauron, nor does his phylactery confer upon him any additional power, as the Ring did to Sauron. Destroying his phylactery without destroying his body does nothing to him; but destroy both, and he's as dead as any other mortal.

On the hardness of Xykon's phylactery, I'd say its likely easier to destroy than the average one. Remember that the Monster Manual described phylactery is a small metal box. Xykon's is just a holy symbol. Even assuming the magic that makes it a phylactery improves its resilience, I'd lay odds that its weaker and easier to break than the MM phylactery.

Zevox

[The MunchKING]

Alternatively it could have insane hardness or hp, even regenerate damage. It could explode with wards etc. Heck it could summon demons or undead to defend it.
Only if it were a base ordinary phylactery would it be so easy to destroy.

Pshaw it should be EASIER to destroy. Redcloak put it in his Holy Symbol specifically so he could make it easy to break if Xykon rebelled against him.

[Lamech]

I wouldn't trust the libris mortis. It claims ghosts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm) are corporeal when on the eatheral plane. Which is kind of completely and totally wrong.

[The MunchKING]

I wouldn't trust the libris mortis. It claims ghosts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm) are corporeal when on the eatheral plane. Which is kind of completely and totally wrong.

To other etherial creatures? Yes. That's in the MM too...

[hamishspence]

is it? when a ghost become ethereal- that is, shifts to ethereal plane, doesn't this remove its incorporealness?

In the novels, it sometimes did- Drizzt, when chased by a "ghost pegasus" shifted to the ethereal plane in order to damage it better when it was on that plane.

[The MunchKING]

Yeah, it removes it's INcorporealness, leaving it corporeal to other etheral creatures.

[Lysander]

This has been said before, but my two cents are:

Xykon can build a new one. Doing so will be a major pain in the ass though. Which gives O-Chul a choice. Either:

1) Escape with the phylactery and give it to the heroes. That way if Xykon is ever destroyed they can destroy it immediately.

2) Destroy it now. Xykon will likely build a new one before they can kill him, but it'll occupy him for several months and divert resources.

Option 1 is better if successful, but Option 2 is a guaranteed boon for the forces of good even if O-Chul is killed in the escape attempt.

[Volkov]

About the hardness of a phylactery, SoD spoiler:

Redcloack threatens x to break it BARE HANDED, so it cannot be so hard.
Edit: or maybe with a stick, i don't remember. The point is that he was threatening to do it with ease.


Phylacteries are as hard as Diamonds and Adamantine. A hardness of 20, which means a +5 steel weapon wouldn't do squat to it. The Strength DC to break it is, I believe 40 or sixty, don't remember which, and you can always further harden the phylactery with magic, and thus add more hit points.

[The MunchKING]

Phylacteries are as hard as Diamonds and Adamantine. A hardness of 20, which means a +5 steel weapon wouldn't do squat to it. The Strength DC to break it is, I believe 40 or sixty, don't remember which, and you can always further harden the phylactery with magic, and thus add more hit points.

For a GENERIC one, yes.

As was stated this one was far from Generic.

[Volkov]

For a GENERIC one, yes.

As was stated this one was far from Generic.

I think that's a minimum hardness.

[The MunchKING]

I think that's a minimum hardness.

Just cause the Liche's soul is in it doesn't make it hard. A lich generally MAKES it hard (and out of the hardest stuff he can find) in order to protect his soul.

[Lamech]

To other etherial creatures? Yes. That's in the MM too...
Huh... In the very first part it says it gains the incorporeal subtype. Which means it has no strength score. So it... becomes corporeal on the eatheral plane when it manifests? Okay thats really wierd. Which is what the LM actually says...

And how the crap can it be incorpoeral and corporeal at the same time? Incorpoeral creatures don't have strength scores. So no strength score for Mr. Ghost... (I think this needs a house rule.)

Anyway ghosts are screwed up, and I my complaint about the LM is invalid.

[The MunchKING]

Huh... In the very first part it says it gains the incorporeal subtype. Which means it has no strength score.

Except it HAS a listed strength score.


So it... becomes corporeal on the eatheral plane when it manifests? Okay thats really wierd. Which is what the LM actually says...

I thought it was corpareal on the etheral plane ALL the time, it was only in the Material Plane when it Manifested.


And how the crap can it be incorpoeral and corporeal at the same time?

I'ts a cross-planar creature.


Incorpoeral creatures don't have strength scores. So no strength score for Mr. Ghost... (I think this needs a house rule.)

Well obviously he can't use his stregth on Material Plane dwellers, but on the Etheral plane iot should be all good. and The sample Ghost DID have a Strength score, he just didn't have a Con.

[hamishspence]

incorrect- the ghost template does not affect strength and the sample ghost has a Str- it just can't use it to boost its attacks while its incorporeal.

But the incorporeal trait, in passing, suggests no incorporeal creatures have a Str score.

Conclusion- ghosts are an exception to the standard rule. Maybe they count as normal creatures from the ethereal plane that gain the incorporeal trait when they shift to the Material?

EDIT: ninjaed

[Volkov]

Just cause the Liche's soul is in it doesn't make it hard. A lich generally MAKES it hard (and out of the hardest stuff he can find) in order to protect his soul.

Well my APL 100 campaign's demilich villain's hardness 200, 4000 hit point phylactery is probably the hardest box to break. Ever.

[Krazax]

No the Revive Undead spell can bring back a destroyed lich/demilich like any other undead. They just lose a level.

That is an interesting bit of information. Your source is LM tho, which as I pointed out previously, had the intention of turning undead creatures into player characters. Sure this is on the 3.5 system, but you still have to take the information provided there in to context of the situation here. Without Revive Dead in a party of Undead Player Characters, once your character 'died', they would have been permanent dead for all intensive purposes. So they gave them a party-friendly spell that allows them to be brought back.

I don't think Rich's Xykon is a player character. I think he's a Dungeon Master controlled major villain, an NPC (Non-Player Character). NPC's are the providence of the Dungeon Master, and his backbone source is the Dungeon Master's guide, which is THE over ruling trump card of all source materials in D&D. You or anyone can quote whatever source material they want, but when it comes to the providence of the DM and the game itself, DMG is the authority, and therein since it's 1st generation has been the line (paraphrasing) "All rules and materials are simply guidelines to assist you, to be used or not used as desired."

As such, Rich the DM of this 'campaign' therefor is at liberty to use or not use whichever source material he wants and to use it how he desires. Although he has shown a desire to adhere to 3.5 rules, he has not shown a desire to showcase undead player characters within his campaign. As a result, he might not be interesting in using, or adhering to it verbatim, the LM material.

My point here isn't to debunk you, or say your wrong. I'm simply pointing out that our resident DM doesn't appear to be delegating his major villain to the lowly power level of a player character. Xykon has systematically appeared to be more 'epic' in design. Major villains in campaigns are typically statistical exceptions to the rules provided in various source material.

I mean, could you imagine Azalin of the Ravenloft campaign having the lowly power level of a 3.5 lich? Or even the vampire lord Strahd of Barovia being equally delegated to the rules of the LM? They certainly wouldn't be very 'epic' or awe inspiring major villains. Understand my point of view?

We should honestly hope that Rich doesn't use LM as a source material to govern Xykon. Xykon deserves better. :smallsmile:



Or just Clone your undead body, the spell description says NOTHING aout cloning unliving flesh. Might as well clone yourself several times while alive, so you can possess your own clone bodies from your permanent magic jar... (Wuzzat "rocks fall, everyone dies"? Back in a minute.)

Clone spell states:

"To create the duplicate, you must have a piece of flesh (not hair, nails, scales, or the like) with a volume of at least 1 cubic inch that was taken from the original creature’s living body"

Source: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Clone

Xykon can't clone himself because it is too late. The Unliving flesh of a lich is considered dead flesh. Dead flesh doesn't grow and become healthy, and a lich's body never starts looking 'better' normally.

The problem with the clone spell and this type of 'cloning bodies ahead of time' is the nature of the spells. The clone becomes a hollow shell calling for the soul of the original host (kinda like a phylactery if think about it) upon their death. The process of lichdom effectively kills the individual. Therefor if you had a clone made before your transformation, your soul could theoretically be pulled apart and annihilated by the demands of your clone, your current host body, and that of your phylactery.

There are ways to theoretically circumvent this from happening, but such courses often require behaviors and agreements not prone to individuals of evil persuasion. Anyone becoming a lich, in contrary to an arch-lich, is normally an evil personality.

Would you put your evil vile soul and future immortality into the hands of another selfish and evil individual, a demon, or a devil? Possible, but not likely.

[Optimystik]

Really? Where does it say that? What does it say exactly?

Good question. *digs it up*



The Lich's Phylactery

Every lich has a phylactery that stores its life force. Creation of this phylactery is a prerequisite for becoming a lich.
...
(information about its cost follows, then...)
A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one. If a lich without a phylactery is slain, the lich is forever destroyed. A phylactery in an antimagic field cannot recreate a destroyed lich, however the lich reappears 1d10 days after the phylactery is removed from the area.

Seems pretty unambiguous. The question is, whether the Giant will use that ruling. Maybe O-Chul will only get to crack it before Xykon figures out what's up? I don't think it will be completely destroyed, or that might interfere with the MitD's instructions in SoD.

[Lamech]

incorrect- the ghost template does not affect strength and the sample ghost has a Str- it just can't use it to boost its attacks while its incorporeal.

But the incorporeal trait, in passing, suggests no incorporeal creatures have a Str score.

Conclusion- ghosts are an exception to the standard rule. Maybe they count as normal creatures from the ethereal plane that gain the incorporeal trait when they shift to the Material?

EDIT: ninjaed
So the sample is in error, you go with what the sample was made with. Of course, giving ghosts a str score while incorporeal would be a sane houserule. (And nessacary one if you want to use ghosts with out extreme weirdness.)


I thought it was corpareal on the etheral plane ALL the time, it was only in the Material Plane when it Manifested.Apperantly not. Blame Wizards. Although again this would be a sane houserule.

[hamishspence]

its a template- and one which does not say "loses its Str score". You will probably find numerous other ghosts in D&D sourcebooks- with Str scores.

Ghostly dragon? Same. Sample ghosts in Libris Mortis? Same. WoTC's intent, in all their sources using ghosts, seems to be that they retain (but while incorporeal, cannot use) their Str score.

[Kaytara]

I don't think it will be completely destroyed, or that might interfere with the MitD's instructions in SoD.
I thought so, too, but I now think that it shouldn't interfere much. It's set to trigger if Redcloak ever betrays Xykon. The important part of the MitD's instructions, after all, is that they will result in Redcloak's death, not that phylactery will escape unharmed. Besides, Xykon was talking about "that shiny symbol" Redcloak was wearing. The MitD can easily eat Redcloak and spit out the holy symbol he would have made by then - it just won't be the phylactery anymore.

[Optimystik]

I thought so, too, but I now think that it shouldn't interfere much. It's set to trigger if Redcloak ever betrays Xykon. The important part of the MitD's instructions, after all, is that they will result in Redcloak's death, not that phylactery will escape unharmed. Besides, Xykon was talking about "that shiny symbol" Redcloak was wearing. The MitD can easily eat Redcloak and spit out the holy symbol he would have made by then - it just won't be the phylactery anymore.

Good point, Xykon leaving it vague may be a plot point...

It might not result in Redcloak's death if it swallows him whole though, at least not right away :smallsmile:

[Simanos]

Well my APL 100 campaign's demilich villain's hardness 200, 4000 hit point phylactery is probably the hardest box to break. Ever.
I just made one that is APL 200 (whatever APL means) and Hardness 400 and 8000 Hitpoints so mine is bigger than yours...


Good question. *digs it up*


Originally Posted by Libris Mortis pg. 151, "Liches"
The Lich's Phylactery

Every lich has a phylactery that stores its life force. Creation of this phylactery is a prerequisite for becoming a lich.
...
(information about its cost follows, then...)
A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one. If a lich without a phylactery is slain, the lich is forever destroyed. A phylactery in an antimagic field cannot recreate a destroyed lich, however the lich reappears 1d10 days after the phylactery is removed from the area.

Seems pretty unambiguous. The question is, whether the Giant will use that ruling. Maybe O-Chul will only get to crack it before Xykon figures out what's up? I don't think it will be completely destroyed, or that might interfere with the MitD's instructions in SoD.
Thanks for the digging.
Still it doesn't sound so bad for the lich. So it can't regenerate if it dies, so what? It's still a very potent enemy for the PCs and not supposed to die anyway, it's supposed to terrorize and kill them :smalltongue:
It will probably make even Xykon better. His turn to get character growth, no? :smallcool:

[The MunchKING]

Average Player Level.

And it's not about how big and Hard your Phylactary is, but how well you hide it. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Simanos]

Average Player Level.

And it's not about how big and Hard your Phylactary is, but how well you hide it. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
That's what those with "inadequate" Phylacteries would have you believe :smalltongue:

[The MunchKING]

What? Your lich can't play "hide the Phylanctropy" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Day long?? :smalltongue:

[Hydro Globus]

Xykon was crafting magic items eight hours a day while waiting in Azure City. He complains about not being able to spend more time on doing that per day... so I'd say: He should be a master-creater by now.

Btw, it would not surprise me that he already did create a new phylactery without telling Redcloak... that would be a nasty surprise for O'Chul, though...

When did he say this?

543 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html).

[ericgrau]

This seemed like the most appropriate thread to post this question, so here goes:

Xykon's soul is in his phylactery. What happens if O-Chul throws it into the rift, and destroys Xykon's soul forever?

[Ancalagon]

When did he say this?

Here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html

Xykon has been a very busy bee, crafting lots and lots of magic items (or a few powerful ones).

edit: Urks. too late... anyway...

[Ancalagon]

Xykon's soul is in his phylactery. What happens if O-Chul throws it into the rift, and destroys Xykon's soul forever?

Well, it gets unmade, obviously. But only IF his soul in there (= his body is currently destroyed).

[Iuris]

I'm rather surprised that everyone seems to consider the phylactery as the backup for the body.

I have ever considered the phylactery the true residence of the soul, so that the body is just the projection of it. That's why the body can be remade - it's just a vessel for the power that is truly in the phylactery.

[dancrilis]

I'm rather surprised that everyone seems to consider the phylactery as the backup for the body.
Read SoD and you will see why people consider the phylactery as a backup for the body.

[shadzar]

I'm rather surprised that everyone seems to consider the phylactery as the backup for the body.

I view it as a long distance remote control (with HUD) for the body and the container for the soul myself.

[Chameon]

Here's a question, a relatively simple one at that, is there any evidence that OotS is following SoD? And yes, I know the Gourmet Chef Belkar scene, but somehow I don't consider that evidence. If there is no more evidence then that, then another question follows, can living entities be made into Phylacteries? Seeing as to how they're not using hourglasses like the liches I've heard of, and it seems like they could use any object in theory, what's to stop one from say, using the skull of a favored minion who's still alive as a Phylactery?

If so, this would make an interesting plot twist and (while I know unusual and sideways viewed) good explanation of why Xykon keeps Redcloak working for him. It would also explain why Redcloak seems to avoid killing him.

Please Note: Poster of this is unfamiliar with DnD, and knows almost nothing about the rules. Also, this idea was stolen off of Harry Potter, which is already causing massive ammounts of self-loathing.

[shadzar]

can living entities be made into Phylacteries?

To make one you need to inscribe arcane symbols on the inside of it so that it will keep the soul in it, so I would wager no, because carving up the inside of a living thing might not let it be a living thing anymore. :smalleek:

[Thajocoth]

...rebuilding it would still take Xykon what, several months? ...

'If your phylactery is destroyed, you can build a new one; the process takes 10 days and costs 50,000 gp." - Monster Manual, page 177, last sentence of leftmost column.

I know Xykon isn't in 4th ed, but who knows whether or not this number 10 is new to 4th or not. Could be 10 days in 3.5 as well for all we know. It's the same cost as making the initial phylactery pre-lichification ritual... So I'd assume that whatever 3.5's lichification ritual says for making one's first phylactery applies to it's later phylacteries as well if liches could make new phylacteries in 3.5, which is something it sounds like we still don't even know for sure. No one can find any such quotes anywhere within the 3.5 source material?

EDIT: Somehow glossed over Optimystik's post halfway up the thread. Nevermind then...

[Undead Prince]

'If your phylactery is destroyed, you can build a new one; the process takes 10 days and costs 50,000 gp." - Monster Manual, page 177, last sentence of leftmost column.

I know Xykon isn't in 4th ed, but who knows whether or not this number 10 is new to 4th or not.

The 3.5 MM does not have this passage.

The 3.5 Libris Mortis explicitely stated the one phylactery rule.

The 3.5 Champions of Ruin, however, contains the epic spell Aumvor's Fragmented Phylactery, which splits the object in question into many separate phylacteries, all of which must be destroyed to prevent the lich from reforming.

[Kornaki]

This whole story arc is for the

"Fool! I've updated to 4th edition! I'll just make a new one!"

joke

[Chameon]

To make one you need to inscribe arcane symbols on the inside of it so that it will keep the soul in it, so I would wager no, because carving up the inside of a living thing might not let it be a living thing anymore. :smalleek:

Perfect, it's quite plausible therefore to maintain a living entity whose skull is infact a Phylactery. Does it neccessarily have to be carved in a specific manner? Could you, for example, cast a spell to do it for you? I'm not saying the whole task, I'm just saying the inscription. Also, we know that the arcane symbols can fit on relatively small objects, as the holy symbol, if it is a phylactery, could contain the symbols. Also, they were originally used in Hourglasses, which are much, much smaller then skulls. Theoretically therefore (and this is only providing that SoD is in no way correct regarding Xykon's phylactery) Xykon could've made Redcloak into his phylactery. It's doubtful, there's many problems with it, and it would've required a custom spell, but it would explain why Redcloak remains loyal, why he's never been killed before, why he doesn't take advantage of his owning the symbol (though that can easily backfire in current -normal- situation as well.) and many other reasons.

Loyal- Would you attempt to betray someone who's immortal so long as your skull remains solid?
Killed Before- Xykon wouldn't risk accidentally destroying his own Phylactery.
Advantage of owning Phylactery- An amulet can be broken, he could get an idea to threaten X as such.
Other Reasons- X is not a complete idiot, yet he has referred to the amulet as being a phylactery millions of times, most of those times within scryable locations, he's pissed off millions of people, is it likely he'd reveal it that often if he didn't think he could take advantage of it? Also, he seems to be extremely sacrificial of Goblins for entertainment, yet he never once risks RC even vaguely, while yes this MIGHT be explained by the holy symbol being the ending item, it could also be explained easily by this theory, moreso because heroes enjoy taking relics of minor or no power for souvenirs. (And it's doubtful they couldn't just take him out before the amulet itself)
Problems with Theory- Why would RC let X make him into a Phylactery in the first place,
Possible Solution to Problems- RC realized it WOULD give him some leverage, keep him from being killed randomly, and -possibly- help the goblins massively.

[shadzar]

Perfect, it's quite plausible therefore to maintain a living entity whose skull is infact a Phylactery. Does it neccessarily have to be carved in a specific manner?

The exact symbols and manner would be unique to each lich????

It isn't really given, because in most editions it is an actual box that is described to be used for the phylactery. So you can open the box and inscribe the insides of it and then close it. :smallconfused:

[Simanos]

The exact symbols and manner would be unique to each lich????

It isn't really given, because in most editions it is an actual box that is described to be used for the phylactery. So you can open the box and inscribe the insides of it and then close it. :smallconfused:
And in fact the box is said to contain parchments, likening it to the Hebrew Tefillin.

The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed.

[SteveDJ]

I've seen some comments in this thread suggesting rules (or just guidelines??) that one creates a phylactery during the process of becoming a lich.

So, if X is already a lich, he cannot become another one... so, it would seem reasonable that he cannot create another phylactery (unless he were to first change to something that is not a lich, just so he can perform the ritual of becoming a lich again to complete a new phylactery).

Ok, maybe not - but it seems as good a theory as any... :smallbiggrin:

[ericgrau]

I'm rather surprised that everyone seems to consider the phylactery as the backup for the body.

I have ever considered the phylactery the true residence of the soul, so that the body is just the projection of it. That's why the body can be remade - it's just a vessel for the power that is truly in the phylactery.


An integral part of becoming a lich is creating a magic phylactery in which the character stores its life force.

In other parts of the rules, "life force" is used interchangeable with "soul". And after a long explanation, MitD learns that Xykon's phylactery is his "soul hidey place".

So what happens if the phylactery is thrown into a rift and it is destroyed while Xykon's body is still intact. Is the soul destroyed with it? If so, does Xykon's body remain active?

[shadzar]

In other parts of the rules, "life force" is used interchangeable with "soul". And after a long explanation, MitD learns that Xykon's phylactery is his "soul hidey place".

So what happens if the phylactery is thrown into a rift and it is destroyed while Xykon's body is still intact. Is the soul destroyed with it? If so, does Xykon's body remain active?

That is the problem over the editions, that some never really state what the phylactery if for maybe?

It will be up to Rich to decide how his universe treats liches and phylacteries as to where the "soul" is always in the phylactery and its destruction means the end of the lich, as it appears O'Chul is implying, or just a really big pain in the but for the lich on his last body if he cannot create another phylactery.

I know how I would rule it in a game, but the comic is not my game, and is not even strictly representative of a game, and the story is more important than some undefined rules.

I just know whatever happens it is gonna be GOOD.

[ericgrau]

Ooh ya, and I'm getting so impatient checking for 656.

In start of darkness it's made clear that if RC destroys Xykon's phylactery while he's alive he can just make another. I was thinking that might be different if he tossed the phylactery into the rift and Xykon's soul is unmade. But we'll see.

[Dagren]

Good point, Xykon leaving it vague may be a plot point...

It might not result in Redcloak's death if it swallows him whole though, at least not right away :smallsmile:I forget, can you cast spells with verbal components while being swallowed? I'm pretty sure somatic are out, but we now know that Redcloak prepares Word of Recall each morning, so...

Not Redcloak in particular, but imagine, a party are all "Oh no!" after a member is swallowed, then *pop!* he's back, complaining about the gunk on his robes, and casually warning that he left a couple of Delayed Blast Fireballs in there, so they may want to stand back... Yeah, when Wizards are awesome, they really are awesome. (Assuming they still have HP left, that is)

[Kranden]

since there are only two more Gates remaining, the whole story may be over in a few months, anyway - so Rich may as well houserule it to be permanent.

Why would you say only a few months? Last I checked the last strip where we saw the last gate go boom was copyrighted in 2007. Only a few months? We have been trailing the bluebeards story in OOTS for years now. And they have not even gotten to the western continent yet.

[Green and Red]

Even if Xykon cant remake his phylactery (like libris mortis says) as long as redcloak is an hand he could simply have himself ressurected (which works on willing lichs) and build another one while alive, becoming a lich all over again. The only problem with this method might be his maximum age, but:
a) even "low" epic spells can easyly give you a few years
b) i dont think he was at the point were he would die within the few days/weeks/months it would take to become a lich again

Sure he would be weaker while alive, but not that much, he never got much use out of his lich abilities. Also he could catch up on his coffe drinking.

[Crazeemeel]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

I think that if the phylactery is destroyed then Xykon wouldn't be smart enough to make another one without Redcloak's help.