Resurrecting a lich

[Darth Stabber]

Okay so a lich is getting tired of being undead, and it decides it wants to breathe again. He calls up a Cleric friend and says "Hey I've got some diamonds I want to put to use, How's about you prepare true resurrection tommorrow?" What happens when True Resurrection is cast on a lich (and he is willing)? Does he become a Human (or elf, halfling, ect) again? Does he resurrect as a lich again if his phylactery is not destroyed, or would he come back as a living dude, or does he stay dead? Is he still immortal? What happens to his phylactery?

[druid91]

Okay so a lich is getting tired of being undead, and it decides it wants to breathe again. He calls up a Cleric friend and says "Hey I've got some diamonds I want to put to use, How's about you prepare true resurrection tommorrow?" What happens when True Resurrection is cast on a lich (and he is willing)? Does he become a Human (or elf, halfling, ect) again? Does he resurrect as a lich again if his phylactery is not destroyed, or would he come back as a living dude, or does he stay dead? Is he still immortal? What happens to his phylactery?

I believe he has to be destroyed first.

[Mando Knight]

Resurrection (and True Res) return an undead to the form it was before it became undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType).

[Darth Stabber]

So then what happens to the phylactery?

The undead entry says specifically states that they may be targeted by True Ressurection, and the description for raise dead (and therefore True Resurrection) make no differentiation between animate and inanimate corpses, therefore destroying the lich first is unnecessary.

Would killing a living former lich cause him to come back to life in 1d10 days? At which point would he be a lich or a human (elf, halfling, ect)

[Kuma Kode]

He would have to sacrifice the template. The template makes him undead as part of it. In just the same way that you can't pick to gain the umbral template but retain corporeality, you have to take it all or none.

He ceases to be a lich. The phylactery, while functioning like a magic item, is a part of the template and it ceases to function.

[Psyren]

The undead entry says specifically states that they may be targeted by True Ressurection, and the description for raise dead (and therefore True Resurrection) make no differentiation between animate and inanimate corpses, therefore destroying the lich first is unnecessary.

Resurrection:


You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

True Resurrection:


You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

So yes, even for TR destruction of the lich is a necessary component.

[Darth Stabber]

Okay well that is annoying, must the phylactery be destroyed too?

This comes up because of a homebrewed raise dead spell that does not require a willing target, but only effects animate undead (necromancy sor/wiz 9th, dread necro 8th). It was developed specifically to deal with liches. It has unfortunate implications when paired with animate dead (ie legitimately dead targets can be raised against their will), that I don't know how to fix in a susinct manner.


Save:will negates
Cast time: Standard action
SR:yes
range: short
Target: one corpreal undead creature.

Effects: as True Resurrection, except as noted, and the target need not be willing.

material components: 1 Drop of the casters blood, and a peice of the targets flesh

[Yora]

Since a lich is not really dead for as long as the phylactery exists, I'd say it first has to be destroyed to make him actual really dead. Then he can be ressurected normaly, just as if he had never become a lich and died when still mortal.

[137beth]

Since a lich is not really dead for as long as the phylactery exists, I'd say it first has to be destroyed to make him actual really dead. Then he can be ressurected normaly, just as if he had never become a lich and died when still mortal.

A lich still has the undead type even before its phylactery is destroyed. So it is, in fact, dead.

[Jack_Simth]

Resurrection:



True Resurrection:



So yes, even for TR destruction of the lich is a necessary component.

Check the Undead Type Entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) though:

Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.

Resurrection and True Resurrection, needing only a tiny portion of the body, can't raise someone who's corpse is walking around elsewhere. However, applied directly to the walking corpse, they work just fine. At least, that's my reading.

[Psyren]

Check the Undead Type Entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) though:


Resurrection and True Resurrection, needing only a tiny portion of the body, can't raise someone who's corpse is walking around elsewhere. However, applied directly to the walking corpse, they work just fine. At least, that's my reading.

Sorry, but the entries for the spells themselves are primary sources for how the spells work, and thus trump what the undead entry states. Furthermore, the undead entries do not necessarily contradict what the spells say - they simply don't spell out that you have to destroy the undead creatures first.

[Quietus]

Sorry, but the entries for the spells themselves are primary sources for how the spells work, and thus trump what the undead entry states. Furthermore, the undead entries do not necessarily contradict what the spells say - they simply don't spell out that you have to destroy the undead creatures first.

And if, as in the case of a lich, they come back afterward? So if you kill a lich, it's destroyed, then its phylactery rebuilds it, the lich has been destroyed, it's just still there, and is a valid subject for True Resurrection?

Personally, I'd go with the "Res from a piece of the creature doesn't work if the undead is still up and active, but as an offensive touch spell it'd work". Because really, you're looking at a ten minute casting time. That's kinda ridiculous for in-combat use.

[Psyren]

And if, as in the case of a lich, they come back afterward? So if you kill a lich, it's destroyed, then its phylactery rebuilds it, the lich has been destroyed, it's just still there, and is a valid subject for True Resurrection?

If it comes back, it's not "destroyed" anymore. I'd say you have a window between destruction and phylactery-reformation to rez it.

Which is really pointless anyway; you can't force him to come back. If I wanted to stay a lich and you were trying to rez me, I'd simply say no and wait for my phylactery to do its thing.

"Offensive touch spell?" This isn't Final Fantasy, you can't blow up a lich with a Fenix Down :smalltongue:

[Quietus]

"Offensive touch spell?" This isn't Final Fantasy, you can't blow up a lich with a Fenix Down :smalltongue:

No, not quite - though Heal spells do tend to work fairly well, for low optimization. That being said, this is exactly what Darth Stabber is trying to do, as he has a homebrewed spell that explicitly allows you to use it on an unwilling undead.

[Darth Stabber]

I am infact trying to use Fenix Down to debuff a lich. There is a nation that is overrun with necromancers, one cabal decided that it needed a faster way to deal with rivals than hunt down random phylacteries. So they developed this spell to render phylacteries a non-concern. At which point you have a soft squishy human, and when you kill him, he won't be back 1d10 days later.

My problem is that it has the potential to resurrect unwilling people who moved on to their next life, via animate dead. I want a susinct way of phrasing it only resurrects bodies that are undead, but still have their soul, or some such thing. I can't think of a way to unambiguously state its effects, and close semantic loopholes, while keeping some utility against Vampires and the like.

And Actually it makes a fine cure for vampirism, if your willing to blow a diamond on it.

[Quietus]

If the main reason for it is to stop Liches, why not just have a spell that severs a lichs' connection with its phylactery for a period of time? Cast on a lich, they won't regenerate if killed before the time is up, or cast on a lich's remains within X time, you sever the connection to the phylactery. Why fancy around with raising someone before killing them, when you can just make it so when they die, they're dead?

[Psyren]

So you're homebrewing a rez spell that works on intact undead. Why bother asking how RAW works then? Just word your spell so that it works the way you want it to.

[Darth Stabber]

So you're homebrewing a rez spell that works on intact undead. Why bother asking how RAW works then? Just word your spell so that it works the way you want it to.

When Homebrewing I try to deviate only as much absolutely neccessary to achieve the design goal, using existing mechanics wherever possible, especially when adding something to a tier1 class. That is one of my personal mottos in homebrewing: only deviate when existing mechanic fail to support. That motto doesn't apply when homebrewing a fix to an existing mechanic, but for spells, feats, races, monsters, templates, and classes the rule holds true.

And just severing ties to a phylactery reduces the utility significantly. It would have no effect on vampires (I didn't initially think of that, but it is a usefull side effect), nor any other intelligent self-possessed undead. The idea is that it affects those that cheat death through undeath. There are numerous ways to gain immortality through undeath, and I think that a 9th lvl spell is fair game for attempting to reverse this, especially given that it offers a will save (most of the likely targets will be quite good at those).

[Psyren]

You will have to deviate pretty significantly if you want a rez spell that works on intact undead (for starters, it should probably be very high-level and have a save + SR, otherwise you could one-shot any undead with it.)

If the lich in question IS willing, then such a spell wouldn't be necessary, as they'd also be willing to stand still and let you destroy them.

[Kuma Kode]

When it comes down to resurrection, few undead really have souls. Since the spells have no caveats about who they can reanimate, this would mean that animating an undead can rip its soul from wherever it is, even from the grips of an archfiend. This makes it far more powerful, cosmically, than resurrection or even true resurrection.

The general idea is that undead bodies form new "souls" out of coalesced negative energy and pieces that were left behind. Some undead, like nonintelligent undead, lack these psuedosouls, and even some incorporeal creatures lack them.

Since you can't resurrect a creature who's walking around as an undead, you could say that undead created through the create spawn special ability or through intentional behavior like the lich retain their soul because it never had the chance to leave, but that those created long after the death through necromancy spells instead receive a false soul created by the spell.

So... undead created through a create spawn ability or those who willingly became undead (such as liches and some vampires). Would that work for your spell?

[Darth Stabber]

That actually works, and creates a new distinction between undead types. Original souled, new souled, and unsouled (or mindless). And this spell works on the first type.

[Callista]

I am infact trying to use Fenix Down to debuff a lich. There is a nation that is overrun with necromancers, one cabal decided that it needed a faster way to deal with rivals than hunt down random phylacteries. So they developed this spell to render phylacteries a non-concern. At which point you have a soft squishy human, and when you kill him, he won't be back 1d10 days later.

My problem is that it has the potential to resurrect unwilling people who moved on to their next life, via animate dead. I want a susinct way of phrasing it only resurrects bodies that are undead, but still have their soul, or some such thing. I can't think of a way to unambiguously state its effects, and close semantic loopholes, while keeping some utility against Vampires and the like.

And Actually it makes a fine cure for vampirism, if your willing to blow a diamond on it.State that the undead creature has to have an INT score and cannot be an Awakened undead, with the explanation that undead with INT scores have INT scores because they retain their souls; in the case of unwilling undead, their souls are trapped passengers, and in the case of willing undead, their souls are corrupted by the negative energy.

[Kuma Kode]

State that the undead creature has to have an INT score and cannot be an Awakened undead, with the explanation that undead with INT scores have INT scores because they retain their souls; in the case of unwilling undead, their souls are trapped passengers, and in the case of willing undead, their souls are corrupted by the negative energy.

That's what I was thinking earlier, but that unfortunately includes undead animated by create undead and create greater undead, which runs into the ripping souls away from archfiend thing. Made a deal with the devil you weren't keen on keeping? That's fine! Have a friend reanimate you as a wight. Instead of being tortured for eternity, you get to run around and kill people for your afterlife.

So if you go that route, you'll need to expand "Awakened" to just include any undead created through the application of a spell.

[Moriato]

I think the phylactery would have to be destroyed before ressurection would work. The soul has to be free and willing to return, and so long as the phylactery is intact, the lich's soul is trapped in it, is it not?

[Dr. Steve]

HAve you thought about wording it in such a way that it, "is only effective against those who became undead willingly." That way you can get ll the necromantic people but still leaves story loopholes e.g. a vampire who was forced to become one. Basically takes care of liches and the like though.

[Psyren]

I think the phylactery would have to be destroyed before ressurection would work. The soul has to be free and willing to return, and so long as the phylactery is intact, the lich's soul is trapped in it, is it not?

RAW, it is never spelled out what happens to a lich's soul while the phylactery is intact. The Giant interpreted it the way you describe, but there's a number of other ways it could play out.

[Pentachoron]

Am I the only one currently envisioning a character that wanders the earth trolling sentient undead?

[Psyren]

Am I the only one currently envisioning a character that wanders the earth trolling sentient undead?

"I rezzed you. You're mortal again. You're welcome."

"Problem, mummy?" :trollface:

[Darth Stabber]

"I rezzed you. You're mortal again. You're welcome."

"Problem, mummy?" :trollface:
You can only go back 170-200 years, for some old mummies, liches and vampires, that's a drop in the bucket. That being said, it is some rather awesome trolling.