Fair LA for the lich template?

[Zanos]

I've heard it said that the lich template is pretty garbage for casters due to the high LA. I(like many other people), think it's really cool fluff wise and pretty iconic for old wizards to chase immortality. What's a fair LA for the template as it stands? What could be added to bring it up to being worth +4 LA? What could be removed to bring it down?

[JaronK]

Honestly, since losing caster levels hurts so much, I'd just have the template cost wealth by level or cost exp or both. Or be the end result of a really hard quest of some kind.

JaronK

[Kuulvheysoon]

Hells, maybe even have it as the capstone of a 5-level Prestige class (that offers 3/5 casting, or the like), like Dry Lich (except Walker in the Waste is 10 levels, I know).

Make a skill requirement of 14, ability to cast 6th level spells and a special of an act of irredeemable evil (if you want to retain the original fluff).

[Spuddles]

I would remove all level adjustment and make the bonuses it grants enhancement bonuses. Keep the gp cost and feat requirement, but make it so you lose a level and 5,000xp.

[CRtwenty]

I'd say the LA is appropriate for something that essentially gives you immortality. :smallannoyed:

[Karnith]

I'd say the LA is appropriate for something that essentially gives you immortality. :smallannoyed:
Immortality is pretty cheap, honestly. You can play multiple LA +0 races that never die of old age (elans and killoren that I am aware of, and there are almost certainly others), there is at least one feat (albeit from Dragon) that gives it to you, and there are a bunch of templates that give immortality with lower LA that Lich (Necropolitan, Gravetouched Ghoul, etc.). Plus you can always Reincarnate or Mind Switch or something.

Besides, when was the last time you were in danger of dying of old age during a campaign?

EDIT: Ah, here we go. This is the handbook for getting immortality in 3.5. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5996.0)

And if you were talking about coming back, Resurrection etc. makes PC death pretty cheap anyway.

[qwertyu63]

I'd say the LA is appropriate for something that essentially gives you immortality. :smallannoyed:

...look up Wedded to History some time. Level 1 feat, grants agelessness and an extra effect on top of that. Immortality isn't that big a deal power-wise.

Or play a Warforged, Elan or Killoren.

There is a whole handbook on this... Here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5996.0).

[Vaz]

Dragon Magazine is frequently regarded as Persona non-grata at tables, unfortunately. You can however judge how well that goes down as a Dragonwrought Kobold, which at worst has a Primary Caster Stat as +1, IIRC.

In regards to Immortality, however, you still die at old age (again, IIRC, it's a long time since I've checked #354, and realmshelps is useless).

[qwertyu63]

Dragon Magazine is frequently regarded as Persona non-grata at tables, unfortunately. You can however judge how well that goes down as a Dragonwrought Kobold, which at worst has a Primary Caster Stat as +1, IIRC.

In regards to Immortality, however, you still die at old age (again, IIRC, it's a long time since I've checked #354, and realmshelps is useless).

I have it open now (It's rather one of my favorites). The Endless (Ex) special quality does in fact stop aging (the article uses the term "live until killed"). Aging penalties and bonuses don't apply, you don't age at all, you don't die of old age, you don't even reach old age. I would just type it out in full, but it's too long.

[Karnith]

In regards to Immortality, however, you still die at old age (again, IIRC, it's a long time since I've checked #354, and realmshelps is useless).
You may be thinking of the Timeless Body class feature granted by Monk and Druid (and probably some other classes), which prevents the ability score penalties normally accrued from aging, but which does not prevent actually dying of old age.

[The Viscount]

I would rate lich at about a +2, but that's just me. Being undead is worth about 1, extrapolated from Necropolitan which is LA+0 but costs a level. Compare to gravetouched ghoul, which is a +2, but gives some rather hefty stat bonuses. Lich is mostly defensive rather than offensive, partially because it feels very much like an NPC class. The part that really tips you off is the fact that a lich cannot create another phylactery if the original is destroyed. It's so parties can find the thing and smash it first, then go fight the lich and not have to worry about the lich making another phylactery. Of course, there's nothing stopping the lich from getting a true resurrection, then becoming a lich again, but that's a bit mean to do to your party.

[Mnemnosyne]

But liches don't just not die of old age, they also cannot be destroyed unless their phylactery is found and destroyed. And the other thread about where to hide one's phylactery shows that under 3.5 rules, hiding a phylactery so it is nearly impossible to destroy is not that hard.

So the real question is whether +4 LA is worth being reasonably certain you can't be destroyed. This is something that I think is typically overlooked in most questions about whether the Lich template is worth it or not. If you're a lich adventurer, when you have a TPK, it doesn't stop you because you just regenerate. It does mean you suffer loss, 'cause all the equipment on your body was lost or destroyed, but you're still around. From the character's point of view, this is a pretty good deal.

From the player's point of view, what happens is you wind up playing a character that has now been stripped of their best equipment. If you had instead just died outright, you'd probably roll up a new character with full WBL and keep playing. So you wind up playing a character 4 levels behind everyone else, and then on top of that, when your one major advantage comes into play, all it really does is let you survive, sans your equipment.

Personally, I'd just take a page out of the old days; in 2nd Edition, when you became a lichnee (when your phylactery was ready but you were still alive) you lost a level. Levels are much easier to gain in 3.5, so I'd just do basically that, but use the LA as a guide; instead of saddling the character with a level adjustment, they lose 4 levels. They can get those back and catch up with the party because experience is a river, but it's a noticeable and measurable cost for a significant period of time, so becoming a lich is not something to be undertaken lightly.

[ShadowFireLance]

I'd say about 3 is good, especially if you're the paranoid type, like myself, who has yet to get killed by loosing his Phylactory.

[CRtwenty]

But liches don't just not die of old age, they also cannot be destroyed unless their phylactery is found and destroyed. And the other thread about where to hide one's phylactery shows that under 3.5 rules, hiding a phylactery so it is nearly impossible to destroy is not that hard.

This, the immortality I was talking about is the ability to just reform once you're "killed". Agelessness is nice too, but as others have pointed out that's relatively easy to get other ways that don't require an LA. It's not very hard to hide a phylactery so nobody can find it.

[Spuddles]

I'd say the LA is appropriate for something that essentially gives you immortality. :smallannoyed:

Except you get more out of 4 more levels of wizard than you do with coming back 1d10 after you die because you didn't have 4 more levels of wizard.

[CRtwenty]

Except you get more out of 4 more levels of wizard than you do with coming back 1d10 after you die because you didn't have 4 more levels of wizard.

Arguable, especially if you've already hit 20 Wizard and maxed out your spell advancement.

[Spuddles]

Arguable, especially if you've already hit 20 Wizard and maxed out your spell advancement.

The difference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicSpellcasting) between wizard 20 (http://www.progressivedyn.com/images/Products/Wizard1.jpg) and wizard 21 (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/6/64880/2831813-Galactus.jpg).

[AuraTwilight]

Then become a lich AFTER acquiring epic spellcasting. It's not like it's meaningfully possible to advance it anyway given how borked it is.

[Spuddles]

In which case, what's even the point of having an LA?

If you're looking for corner cases where the LA doesn't matter, maybe the LA isn't actually worth it.

[CRtwenty]

In which case, what's even the point of having an LA?

If you're looking for corner cases where the LA doesn't matter, maybe the LA isn't actually worth it.

Functional immortality is ALWAYS worth it.

[Spuddles]

Functional immortality is ALWAYS worth it.

All you've done is provide an assertion that functional immortality is worth it if you don't have to pay for it.

Would you like to provide more of an argument, like how 5th level spells are as good as 7th level spells, or how never having 9ths is fine?

[Mnemnosyne]

The big problem is there's two viewpoints to look at this from. The character's and the player's.

From the character's viewpoint: If the downsides to being undead (there aren't really that many, cause most of them can be overcome with spells) are worth it, then being a lich is always worth it. Even if they're temporarily weaker than their non-lich companions, eventually they become stronger by virtue of continuing to exist when their compatriots have died. Plus, from an in-character perspective, it's not like the character's planning to stop getting stronger at level 20 or any other arbitrary point.

From the player's viewpoint: The character is going to be weaker with a +4 LA, and if LA buyoff is not implemented, will never recover from that weakness, so they'll always be behind. Furthermore, if the character dies, they can probably count on the party resurrecting the character. If the party doesn't resurrect the character, then they'll get to roll up a new one at the same level as the party instead of 4 levels lower. Finally, most campaigns will end at some point, and if that point is 'before epic' then the lich player has permanently locked herself out of a considerable power boost that she otherwise could have had. From a player's perspective, it's got a lot of 'not worth it' downsides.

That's why I say loss of levels might be a good solution, because unlike LA, you can recover from that and get back to the level your friends are at. You get benefits, you pay a cost, but it's not a permanent cost for the duration of the entire campaign. It's a more fair deal for the player, and from the character's viewpoint, it's still totally worth it.

[Spuddles]

The big problem is there's two viewpoints to look at this from. The character's and the player's.

From the character's viewpoint: If the downsides to being undead (there aren't really that many, cause most of them can be overcome with spells) are worth it, then being a lich is always worth it. Even if they're temporarily weaker than their non-lich companions, eventually they become stronger by virtue of continuing to exist when their compatriots have died. Plus, from an in-character perspective, it's not like the character's planning to stop getting stronger at level 20 or any other arbitrary point.

From the player's viewpoint: The character is going to be weaker with a +4 LA, and if LA buyoff is not implemented, will never recover from that weakness, so they'll always be behind. Furthermore, if the character dies, they can probably count on the party resurrecting the character. If the party doesn't resurrect the character, then they'll get to roll up a new one at the same level as the party instead of 4 levels lower. Finally, most campaigns will end at some point, and if that point is 'before epic' then the lich player has permanently locked herself out of a considerable power boost that she otherwise could have had. From a player's perspective, it's got a lot of 'not worth it' downsides.

That's why I say loss of levels might be a good solution, because unlike LA, you can recover from that and get back to the level your friends are at. You get benefits, you pay a cost, but it's not a permanent cost for the duration of the entire campaign. It's a more fair deal for the player, and from the character's viewpoint, it's still totally worth it.

Well, when you become a lich, the CR of your opponents goes up by 4. So that means facing very old dragons instead of adults, or whatever.

In game, lichdom paints you as a bigger target while you have fewer tools at your disposal relative to having 4 levels of, say, archmage.

[Grim Reader]

...look up Wedded to History some time. Level 1 feat, grants agelessness and an extra effect on top of that. Immortality isn't that big a deal power-wise.

I am reasonably certain that is an internet-propagated misunderstanding. Wedded to History does not give you the Endless quaity, nor stop you aging in any fashion. Its just a gateway feat to the other feats that grant bonuses based on having had a long life.

[Perseus]

Level loss? What level loss?

I've got a thought bottle ;)

[Sylthia]

It seems the lich immortality is more of an rp bonus than a mechanical one. You lose all your gear and true resurrection plus a multitude of other ways to prevent or return from death are available without the LA at that point.

[LordChaos13]

Lichdom should be an XP cost not an LA (like Necropolitan) for the following reason:
ALL intelligent (Evil) Wizards go for some form of Lich. This is stupid if they have 4LA, but if its just being a bit weaker for a time due to tearing your own soul out for the great bonuses

Being a Lich is the end-game for Evil Wizards, it is the goal that springboards into the higher up plots (like killing/becoming a God, see: Vecna) and marks the difference between Mid-level BBEG for level-grinding up too the actual Destiny-Altering Threats and being a Destiny-Altering Threat
If the difference is a few (probably redundant) immunities, a paralysis handshake, a bunch of weaknesses and 4 dead levels not even giving HD then no self-respecting Lich would reveal he IS one.

Lichhood should be a ritual one needs to find, decipher, gather ingredients and then pay a portion of your soul (not your potential, your current power).
It's a DM-Explicit-Approval-Only template probably not meant to be applied to the PCs and certainly not in char gen.

[Karnith]

I am reasonably certain that is an internet-propagated misunderstanding. Wedded to History does not give you the Endless quaity, nor stop you aging in any fashion. Its just a gateway feat to the other feats that grant bonuses based on having had a long life.
Characters with the Wedded to History feat get to choose an ancient background, which also lets them choose how they became Elder characters. Per Dragon 354, p. 51:
Although the rules presented in this article focus on those who have lived for a thousand years or more, many of the concepts are applicable to any character who has survived beyond the normal life expectancy of her race. You must, however, first work out how your character managed to achieve her status as an Elder Character by selecting between two broad choices.(Emphasis mine)

Those two choices are "stranger in a strange land" style characters, who have been transplanted from ancient times into modern times, and "cheating the reaper" style characters, who simply do not age. Choosing the latter does not, I suppose, necessarily mean that you gain the endless quality, but it does mean that your character doesn't age, and the issue also says that "the easiest way to achieve this comes from giving your character the endless special quality."

From the character's viewpoint: If the downsides to being undead (there aren't really that many, cause most of them can be overcome with spells) are worth it, then being a lich is always worth it.
I'm not so sure about that. Assuming that level adjustment is noticeable in-character (and it ought to be, since liches would presumably notice that it takes them a long time to increase their magical powers after achieving lichdom), it would be more prudent for a spellcaster seeking undeath to become a necropolitan (or a gravetouched ghoul, I suppose, though you can't exactly just choose to become one), as it would grant them the benefits of undeath without being a major block on their road to power.

[Kornaki]

Yeah but after you became a lich wouldn't you just not tell anyone about the level adjustment? You're evil and the people who might care are your rivals who you want to be as weak as possible

[Karnith]

Yeah but after you became a lich wouldn't you just not tell anyone about the level adjustment? You're evil and the people who might care are your rivals who you want to be as weak as possible
Well, there's also the fact that as a general rule all of the more powerful races would be slower to learn higher-level magic than weaker races (i.e. drow v. normal elves). If it's known that becoming a Lich makes you more powerful, then it would also be known (or at least very reasonable to presume) that it'd slow your magical development.

Alternately, it could be observed in combat by comparing the capabilities of recent liches versus their capabilities before achieving lichdom. Science!

Plus, if you really want to be undead, becoming a necropolitan is cheaper and easier.