Making a New phylactery for Xykon. Possible or not?

[Souhiro]

Is there any place where it says that the phylactery if a liche can be re-made, or just being substituted, in case of loss, deteriore, or kinda-of?

I think that phylacterys are personal and irreplaceable things for a Lich: Once you lost yours, you're f???ed up.

[Silverraptor]

Once you lost yours, you're f???ed up.

Also known as plan F.

[DimJim]

They need to be able to get their soul back, as far as I know, so it's possible unless it falls into the Snarl or something.

[hamishspence]

Soul is not actually in it according to SoD- the thing is a place for the soul to retreat to if the lich's body is destroyed. Which is why Xykon starts talking out of it, shortly after being thrown into the gate.

[factotum]

Xykon's soul isn't IN the phylactery unless his body has been destroyed, so there's no reason why he'd have to make another one if his first one got destroyed. However, it's entirely ambiguous in the core rules whether a lich can make another phylactery or not. The section on being a lich says that part of becoming a lich involves making a phylactery, which could imply that the lich can't make one at any other time; it's unclear, though.

[hamishspence]

and the expanded Undead-centric source Libris Mortis says flatly that they can't- one phylactery only, cannot be remade.

MM is more ambiguous.

[SadisticFishing]

MM is more ambiguous.

No, it isn't.

By 3.5 rules, there is no way to make a new phylactery. You can't create them as a wondrous item. The only presented way to make a phylactery is to become a lich.

[NerfTW]

And regardless of rules, allowing Xykon to simply make a new one would have rendered this whole scenario rather pointless.

[Random832]

By 3.5 rules, there is no way to make a new phylactery. You can't create them as a wondrous item. The only presented way to make a phylactery is to become a lich.

So he has to become a lich again.

[Lord_Drayakir]

Well, while that does make sense, I guess a way to circumvent that would be getting your phylactery destroyed, getting a friendly druid to cast "Reincarnate" on you, and then making another one.

Although, a question is this- where does the demilich get its other phylacteries from?

[batsofchaos]

Demiliches don't have multiple phylacteries. They have the phylactery they constructed as liches, and eight soul gems (which function identically to phylacteries, but are not phylacteries). The process of creating soul gems is similar but distinct to the phylactery creation process, and therefore cannot be assumed as a way to create a new phylactery if the original is destroyed. Here's the SRD quote:

Liches have phylacteries that allow them to reappear 1d10 days after their apparent death, as do demiliches. Demiliches also have eight soul gems, each of which acts like a phylactery in its own right. If all the soul gems, as well as the demilich’s phylactery, are not destroyed after a demilich is downed, the demilich reappears 1d10 days after its apparent death. The soul gems also allow the demilich to use its most devastating ability, trap the soul (see above). Each demilich must make its own soul gems, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The lich must be a sorcerer, wizard, or cleric of at least 21st level. Each soul gem costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation. Soul gems appear as egg-shaped gems of wondrous quality. They are always incorporated directly into the concentrated form of the demilich.

[Lord_Drayakir]

Ohhh. So it's like, first you burn through all the gems, then if you're playing a Sorcerer demilich who is too stupid to refill his, you get your phylactery destroyed.

That makes sense now.

[batsofchaos]

Except demiliches still have their phylactery from lich-dom, and they also have a neat power called phylactery transference that allows magic items that are in close proximity to their phylactery to be "worn" by the demilich, however far away they are from their phylactery. So that floating skull covered in gems? It's wearing bracers of armor +8, a headband of intellect +6, a pink Ioun stone, a ring of wizardry I, a ring of protection +2, and gloves of Dexterity +2. And if you manage to kill it (before it eats your soul) and crush its soul gems, it will STILL regenerate next to its phylactery in a demi-plane covered in wards.

[Atcote]

3.5 denies a Lich making a new phylactery, however, this is a comic strip...


He could just make the temporary switch to 4th edition, while allows it to be remade for a small cost...


I know it's far fetched, and I don't think it'd be that funny if it happened, but I won't deny the possibility.

[derfenrirwolv]

Its the DM's call. It doesn't say anything about making them, it doesn't say anything about not making them either in call.

The phylactery or not will be resolved at the behest of plot

[thelveres]

I think there was a spell with which to recall an item you have cast said spell on. (and since this phylactery was heavily enchanted it would be kinda weird to not have that spell on it)

Further, xycon is sure to have a scroll or something of locate object or discern location which would make tracking the phylactery which is like within 100 meters of himt atm maybe a 1000 at most by the time he gets what he needs from his stronghold, very easy and fast.

I am guessing that somehow this stupidly won't happen.


(and seriously on another note, wasn't that priest full on hp? and the pally made him recall with one hit?

Priests are seriously a god class compared to a paladin (and an improvised weapon one at that/no armor/items) I cant even begin to number the ways in which the priest could have killed him.. all this is just too plot driven.

[Foryn Gilnith]

(and seriously on another note, wasn't that priest full on hp? and the pally made him recall with one hit?

Priests are seriously a god class compared to a paladin (and an improvised weapon one at that/no armor/items) I cant even begin to number the ways in which the priest could have killed him.. all this is just too plot driven.

I assume that Redcloak had no spells for whatever reason. At least, that's the vibe I got from the comic. And he doesn't seem to be great in combat.

[holywhippet]

Further, Xykon is sure to have a scroll or something of locate object or discern location which would make tracking the phylactery which is like within 100 meters of himt atm maybe a 1000 at most by the time he gets what he needs from his stronghold, very easy and fast.

I am guessing that somehow this stupidly won't happen.


Xykon already said he's layered the phylactory with abjuration spells to proect it. I'd give very good odds that it's immune to being located magically.




(and seriously on another note, wasn't that priest full on hp? and the pally made him recall with one hit?

Priests are seriously a god class compared to a paladin (and an improvised weapon one at that/no armor/items) I cant even begin to number the ways in which the priest could have killed him.. all this is just too plot driven.

A god class when correctly optimised yes. But that generally comes about when the cleric is wearing full plate, using a tower shield and has buffed themself up. Redcloak might not even be wearing armour since he's in a goblin controlled castle. I doubt he has any buffing spells active and he's never demonstrated any aptitude for melee combat.

Technically he shouldn't even have been able to get that spell off. Casting next to an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity so O-Chul should have gotten in a free hit. Redcloak was prone and had just lost an eye to an angry high level fighter type. Running was his best option.

[Poppy Appletree]

Priests are seriously a god class compared to a paladin (and an improvised weapon one at that/no armor/items) I cant even begin to number the ways in which the priest could have killed him.. all this is just too plot driven.

O-Chul whipped off Redcloak's holy symbol (which doubles as Xykon's phylactery), hence him saying "no more spells" - a holy symbol is required for most cleric spells, and Word of Recall is one of the few Redcloak could have used without one.

[ImmortalAer]

Demiliches don't have multiple phylacteries. They have the phylactery they constructed as liches, and eight soul gems (which function identically to phylacteries, but are not phylacteries). The process of creating soul gems is similar but distinct to the phylactery creation process, and therefore cannot be assumed as a way to create a new phylactery if the original is destroyed.


...I'm supposing someone's used these rules for a d20 Harry Potter, at least once? :smallsigh:

[ABB]

Just using a little logic here, I'd say it's unlikely that xykon could make a new soul hidey place. Look at his reaction to having it even touched, for frak's sake. Then when he thought it was going to fall into the snarl he was all like "No no no no no no..."

If he could replace the bedamned thing I don't think he'd have been all hyper over it's possible loss. Then again if he couldn't replace it I'm surprised he didn't zip straight into the sewer at flank speed after it too.

Also, you'd think while he was casting so many spells on it bonehead would have put the equivalent of a lojack and a GPS on it too...

Anyhoo, I see a plot twist coming up here: X loses his soul hidey place and then gets whacked, but then, somewhere in the depts of...the ocean, a cesspool, whatever, a lost medallion begins to glow, and we hear an ominous laugh A'la ming the merciless at the end of flash gordon.

BTW, can a familiar tell a wizard to go frak himself in D&D? {Scrubbed}

[doodthedud]

(and seriously on another note, wasn't that priest full on hp?

Actually, Redcloak had just been hit by lightning and appeared to fail his saving throw.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html (see panel four)

[Souhiro]

Well, Many people has been asuming that Xykon can do many soul hidey place. This is discarted now.

In D&D4, Liches can remake their soul hidey places when they have them destroyed by brave adventurers? That's kinda cheap to me, as the one and only way to destroy a Lich would be to capture the soul hidey place, carry it into the liche's lair, destroy the liche, and use that last Dissintegrate spell onto the Soul Hidey Place. Anyother tactic would end with an angry liche regenerating.

If the light has to burn a lot of power, kinda burning 5D6 Levels into the Re-Making of the Phylactery (RMotP from now) it would be fine, but if the price is low... it's just another crappy D&D4 rule that I won't use.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

The way I've always understood this is this:

A lich can only have one phylactery at a time. He makes it, and hopes never to have to use it. If he uses it, he comes back, no blood, no foul.

If a rag-tag band of heroes manages to destroy his phylactery, the lich can make a new one, which is why you have to destroy both the lich AND the phylactery.

This means that Xykon is the one who is somewhat screwed at the moment. He can't make a new one, because his old one is still "active." But he doesn't know where he will end up if he is destroyed and has to rebuild (once again.)

Of course, this is great for allowing Xykon to return AFTER the whole story is over. Our Heroes are battling Xykon in front of the Rift, the Snarl reaches through and rips Xykon in half, Our Heroes close the Rift...
Hurray, until we see Xykon's phylactery on the bottom of the ocean, then eyes appear!
Dun, dun DUN!
(Spoilered just in case I guessed it right!)

[Evil DM Mark3]

Under the DnD rules there is only one way to get a new one.

Die.
Have someone use resurrection/True resurrection on you.
Become a Lich again.

[KillianHawkeye]

While I'm pretty sure that the intention in 3.x D&D is that a lich can only ever have 1 phylactery, I am completely sure it's a fact that Rich will or won't use that rule and either way it will be because of what works best for his story.

That being said, I personally think that Xykon's actions and attitudes (particularly in the recent strips) seem to indicate that the phylactery is irreplaceable.

[Mystic Muse]

The way I've always understood this is this:

A lich can only have one phylactery at a time. He makes it, and hopes never to have to use it. If he uses it, he comes back, no blood, no foul.

If a rag-tag band of heroes manages to destroy his phylactery, the lich can make a new one, which is why you have to destroy both the lich AND the phylactery.

This means that Xykon is the one who is somewhat screwed at the moment. He can't make a new one, because his old one is still "active." But he doesn't know where he will end up if he is destroyed and has to rebuild (once again.)

Of course, this is great for allowing Xykon to return AFTER the whole story is over. Our Heroes are battling Xykon in front of the Rift, the Snarl reaches through and rips Xykon in half, Our Heroes close the Rift...
Hurray, until we see Xykon's phylactery on the bottom of the ocean, then eyes appear!
Dun, dun DUN!
(Spoilered just in case I guessed it right!)

except if the snarl got xykon it would eat his soul not just destroy him

[Snails]

(and seriously on another note, wasn't that priest full on hp? and the pally made him recall with one hit?

Priests are seriously a god class compared to a paladin (and an improvised weapon one at that/no armor/items) I cant even begin to number the ways in which the priest could have killed him.. all this is just too plot driven.

A buffed-to-the-gills Cleric can be seriously hard to kill. An unbuffed Cleric can two lucky hits away from dead.

Redcloak was probably not buffed up, and thus we have no basis for believing that he walks around with more than 80-120 HP.

A very pedestrian critical hit with Smite Evil could easily do 40-50 HP damage. With a little powergaming, it is not difficult to figure out how to push this past 100 damage. And what exactly are the odds that O-Chul does not "powergame" at all?

As Redcloak appears to have just sucked up the full 10d6 damage from the caster level Quickened Chain Lightning, Redcloak could easily have killed outright by O-Chul's first attack.