Can a Druid become an "Archlich"?

[wulfire]

Hi gamers!
I've been thinking about my character development recently and had a thought about endgame, but no idea if it's feasible before I approach my DM.
My character was a human barbarian lv1. You'll notice I said was. He was bit by a vampire lord, and barely survived. So he has been given a half orc template, and taken 2 levels of Druid (wild shape as flavour for effects of surviving a bite). He also has a flaw; doesn't like taking damage and has to pass a wisdom check every time or he attacks everything within 20ft.
I'm thinking that someone who doesn't want to be anywhere near death again might want to go to extreme lengths to ensure that doesn't happen again.
So, my question is could my character become what used to be known as an Archlich, or is there something else I could consider?
I was thinking that each time we vanquish an undead I could study it and eventually become something similar, without the Evil deeds, in order to rid the world of vampires.
I'm happy to entertain other ideas if the flavour is right. I'm currently loving this roleplay!

[quindraco]

Hi gamers!
I've been thinking about my character development recently and had a thought about endgame, but no idea if it's feasible before I approach my DM.
My character was a human barbarian lv1. You'll notice I said was. He was bit by a vampire lord, and barely survived. So he has been given a half orc template, and taken 2 levels of Druid (wild shape as flavour for effects of surviving a bite). He also has a flaw; doesn't like taking damage and has to pass a wisdom check every time or he attacks everything within 20ft.
I'm thinking that someone who doesn't want to be anywhere near death again might want to go to extreme lengths to ensure that doesn't happen again.
I was thinking that each time we vanquish an undead I could study it and eventually become something similar, without the Evil deeds, in order to rid the world of vampires.
I'm happy to entertain other ideas if the flavour is right. I'm currently loving this roleplay!

There's no question here, but from the post title I'm guessing you're asking for suggestions. Circle of Spores is the most undead-ish Druid Circle I know of.

[nickl_2000]

In reading in Monster Manual on liches, it seems like a Druid would have a lot of trouble becoming a Lich. They don't have the imprisonment spell to feed their Phylactery and they don't have the arcane magic to create the potion needed for that.

However, there are creatures that can escape death other than just liches.
-Vampires themselves can escape death as long as they aren't in direct sunlight.
-According to the MM a Death Knight will also arise from death repeated until it redeems itself.
-Can never remember which, but either Demons or Devils get reborn as a weaker version when they die
-I could easily see a deal made with a powerful being to be raised from the dead if your character dies for something in return.

[Ionathus]

One of my favorite PCs is the first one I ever played: a human druid whose parents died of old age when she was young (baby of the family) and she chose to become a druid for many reasons, but the one she's not admitting to herself is the level 18 feature Timeless Body (https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/druid#ClassFeatures).

Basically, it ain't lichdom, but it'll extend the clock much longer than anyone else would otherwise be able to do. Particularly useful for you since it's a level 18 ability instead of an actual capstone, so you can still get it despite having at least 1 level in another class.

[sithlordnergal]

Ehhh, its going to heavily depend on what kind of magic your DM requires for Lichdom. Used to be most full casters could become Liches, as I believe even Clerics could be Liches after a while. In 5e its up in the air. We get mentions of magic rituals, and arcane spells, but no real specifics. Personally, I think they could, it'd make for an interesting flip on the Druid. Some sort of evil Druid that has foresaken the Natural world to become a Lich

[JackPhoenix]

Ehhh, its going to heavily depend on what kind of magic your DM requires for Lichdom. Used to be most full casters could become Liches, as I believe even Clerics could be Liches after a while. In 5e its up in the air. We get mentions of magic rituals, and arcane spells, but no real specifics. Personally, I think they could, it'd make for an interesting flip on the Druid. Some sort of evil Druid that has foresaken the Natural world to become a Lich

We do have one RAW way to become lich in CoS. The requirement is being evil and able to cast level 9 wizard spells. And literally the first sentence of the Lich's description in the MM says they are wizards.

[Millstone85]

In reading in Monster Manual on liches, it seems like a Druid would have a lot of trouble becoming a Lich. They don't have the imprisonment spell to feed their Phylactery and they don't have the arcane magic to create the potion needed for that.
We do have one RAW way to become lich in CoS. The requirement is being evil and able to cast level 9 wizard spells. And literally the first sentence of the Lich's description in the MM says they are wizards.Ah, but you see, an archlich is not just a powerful lich.

It is actually a good-aligned spellcaster of such heroic resolve that they manage to achieve and persist in lichdom without making a fiendish pact and without using any soul but their own.

In past edition, they came from the ranks of wizards, priests and even bards. Also, they could use the help of another spellcaster in preparing the potion for their transformation.

[TMac9000]

Lichdom seems to require 9th level spells, which requires 17th level in any full caster class. And that’s just the ante.

Timeless Body is what you get for 18th level Druid, without any extra time- and gold-wasting shenanigans.

Personally, choosing between lichdom and Timeless Body, I’d lean towards the one where you don’t have to mummify your yarbles.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Mechanics aside, will going undead screw up your divine connection?

Of all the classes in the game, Druids and Grave Clerics seem really not good with being undead. Like it's counter to the entire class premise.

Now, I see you have some stuff you're doing for mechanics vs flavor, like the Half-Orc for a vampire bite and the druid more for shape shifting. If you're not really a druid, but using the druid mechanics to support something else. Well, that's another talk to the DM.

[Christew]

In past edition, they came from the ranks of wizards, priests and even bards. Also, they could use the help of another spellcaster in preparing the potion for their transformation.
Said potion had a roughly one in ten chance of granting normal death instead of undeath, if I recall.

[Millstone85]

Personally, choosing between lichdom and Timeless Body, I’d lean towards the one where you don’t have to mummify your yarbles.
Said potion had a roughly one in ten chance of granting normal death instead of undeath, if I recall.Two good reasons to wait until your late Timeless Body years.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Not sure about the lore but pretty sure there's a lichen lich in the candlekeep book that could kind of have that kind of flavor?

[Brookshw]

Said potion had a roughly one in ten chance of granting normal death instead of undeath, if I recall.

7% chance of death per Lost Ships, good recall! That clause didn't make it into the 2e MM, and Libris Mortis had the Good Lich template which omitted it as well.

[elyktsorb]

Druid immortality.

Get to Druid level 8.

Get a Ring of Spell Storing.

Store Reincarnate in the ring.

Get a friend who also wants to be immortal.

Whenever one of you comes close to death, have the other kill you, then cast Reincarnate on you, giving you a completely new body and resetting your age.

Profit?

[sithlordnergal]

Druid immortality.

Get to Druid level 8.

Get a Ring of Spell Storing.

Store Reincarnate in the ring.

Get a friend who also wants to be immortal.

Whenever one of you comes close to death, have the other kill you, then cast Reincarnate on you, giving you a completely new body and resetting your age.

Profit?

Well...profit till the Inevitables come for ya.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can a Druid become an "Archlich"?

If you read the whole PHB section on Druids, you'll stumble across this bit.


Druids accept that which is cruel in Nature, and they hate that which is unnatural, including Aberrations (such as Beholders and mind flayers) and Undead (such as zombies and vampires). Druids sometimes lead raids against such creatures, especially when the Monsters encroach on the druids' territory.

Thematically, druids are on opposite sides of a circle to undead.

Wizards, on the other hand, are very much compatible with lichdom.

And literally the first sentence of the Lich's description in the MM says they are wizards. Apparently many people don't read the books. :smallcool:

[Brookshw]

[B]
Apparently many people don't read the books. :smallcool:

Oh, so what :smalltongue: I don't recall 5e having archliches either.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Can a Druid become an "Archlich"?

If you read the whole PHB section on Druids, you'll stumble across this bit.



Thematically, druids are on opposite sides of a circle to undead.

Wizards, on the other hand, are very much compatible with lichdom.
Apparently many people don't read the books. :smallcool:


The flaw here is that the TC clearly isn't a "Druid" they are using the Druid mechanics to represent some form of vampirism. So the question becomes purely DM domain because we're already into House rule stuff.

[Millstone85]

Well...profit till the Inevitables come for ya.Good news, immortality seekers! The maruts, formerly known as enforcers of the inevitability of death, are now working under the Kolyarut to make sure that contracts are respected. It would seem that they gave up on fighting undeath, possibly because of the new cosmic weight of the Shadowfell.

[Composer99]

To sum up:
- The 5e rules do not include any default, out-of-the-box provision for druids becoming undead in the manner of liches.
- However, they also do not forbid your DM from making such a thing possible in their campaign setting.
- As others have noted, your use of archlich is apt because they were a kind of lich who did not necessarily have to follow the evil path of conventional liches. Another example from editions past might be the Deathless from 3.5s Book of Exalted Deeds, who were undead with the evil serial numbers filed off.

So the answer is by all means, your druid may very well be able to become an archlich or similar creature, but we can't say for sure, so best to consult with your DM and if they find the idea agreeable, perhaps collaborate on such a process.

As far as concrete suggestions goes, I would say that casting a 9th-level spell or expending a 9th-level spell slot, spending a big pile of money, and questing for rare ingredients are all reasonable requirements.

[sithlordnergal]

Can a Druid become an "Archlich"?

If you read the whole PHB section on Druids, you'll stumble across this bit.



Thematically, druids are on opposite sides of a circle to undead.

Wizards, on the other hand, are very much compatible with lichdom.
Apparently many people don't read the books. :smallcool:

And? That's all fluff, which is both changeable and, more importantly, ignorable. You're 100% free to make a City Druid that's never seen more than a house cat and a mouse, absolutely LOATHS the outdoors, woodsy areas, and nature in general, and would LOVE to see Urban areas take over uncontrol wild areas to give people better places to live, and is a Circle of Wildfire Druid because they adore fire. Nothing in the rules prevents you from making the most non-Druidy Druid imaginable.

At the same time you can make a Wizard that hates undead, hates unnatural things that go against Nature, and uses their magic to support and aid Nature, like a Druid would.

[Sigreid]

The most recent writeups I've seen indicate it's the sole domain of arcane casters. That said, in older editions a Lich could be a wizard or a cleric. Hate to give this dumb answer, but the answer is does the DM want druids to be able to become liches? If so, I'd suggest the mold/fungus one would be most appropriate.

[KorvinStarmast]

And? That's all fluff, That construction, right there, makes you wrong. This isn't 4th edition, it's 5th edition. Your assumption that somehow there is a distinction is off by one edition.

they are using the Druid mechanics to represent some form of vampirism. Which means they have not bothered to read the PHB.

And if I might note: this isn't about some other edition. This is 5e sub forum. When we drag anything from other editions in (as I do with morale checks, and social interactions by using 2d6 rather than the anal WoTC-d20-for-everything-tool) we need to clarify that we are not using the 5e tools to work on our D&D car.
Let's head to the 5e D&D monster manual.
Funny how that works, Archlich is not an entry. :smallyuk:

It is quite possible that the previous edition "archlich" thing was dispensed with in the same way that one dispenses with dingleberries after a bowel movement. :smalleek:

[ProsecutorGodot]

That construction, right there, makes you wrong. This isn't 4th edition, it's 5th edition. Your assumption that somehow there is a distinction is off by one edition.

Druid's are the poster child for "there is no fluff" anyway, what with that "won't wear metal armor" thing they have going on. I think it's pretty fair to say that no text is given any more weight than another - they are all equally important, right up until the point you decide to use, ignore or change it.

Also, on topic, you've got a really easy solution to your problem in the for of Zealot Barbarian. Devote yourself fully to the idea that death can't claim you until you're ready. You can even stop at 3 (flavor it as having mastery of your own soul rather than whatever being controls the afterlife) and then focus next on how you can ensure that if death ever comes knocking you'll have a quick answer to be back up on your feet. This does lock out the option of Timeless Body, but not eventually having 9th level spells and working out a solution with your DM on the whole Archlich idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druid's are the poster child for "there is no fluff" anyway, what with that "won't wear metal armor" thing they have going on. I think it's pretty fair to say that no text is given any more weight than another - they are all equally important, right up until the point you decide to use, ignore or change it. Having been through that mess a few times on this sub forum, let's not derail there again, OK?
In my game, the PC's went through a lot of time, trouble, and expense to get some chitin from an umber hulk made into some medium armor (half plate) for their druid that wasn't made of metal. :smallsmile:

[ProsecutorGodot]

Having been through that mess a few times on this sub forum, let's not derail there again, OK?
In my game, the PC's went through a lot of time, trouble, and expense to get some chitin from an umber hulk made into some medium armor (half plate) for their druid that wasn't made of metal. :smallsmile:

My Lizardfolk Druid carried a collection of monster parts and continuously added bits and bobs onto a shield. I think by the time he left the party it was a Bullette scalp adorned with Umberhulk tusks and a ring of Hook Horror claws and a Rock Lobster beak for stabbing.

But an entire armor set? I can see how that would be some long and expensive work.

[KorvinStarmast]

But an entire armor set? I can see how that would be some long and expensive work. Which is part of the fun, or can be. Give's the players a thing to strive for.

[sithlordnergal]

That construction, right there, makes you wrong. This isn't 4th edition, it's 5th edition. Your assumption that somehow there is a distinction is off by one edition.


So, where are the mechanics that support the idea that the construction, as you prefer call it, either negatively or positively effect a Druid? Do you lose all your druidic abilities and spell casting if you wear metal armor, like you did in 3.5? Do you lose all of your abilities if you refuse to revere nature and choose to become an undead? Is that written into the mechanics of the class itself, similar to the Monk's Martial Arts? Looking over the PHB the druid loses...nothing mechanically via doing any of that. Checking Xanathar's...I see no loss of abilities if you abandon nature. Maybe its in Tasha's, but I doubt it. You can wear metal armor and its just seen as a taboo, you can become an undead and you lose nothing, you can give nature a big middle finger and you're still a Druid according to the PHB.

If its not a mechanical aspect of the class, then its fluff. Now, if the Druid had something like in 3.5 where it flat out said as a part of the class mechanics that you lose your Druid abilities and Druid spell casting when you wore metal armor or did those things, then it would be based in mechanics. At that point it would be similar to what happens to Monks if they wear armor. It would be a mechanical detriment, not some nebulous RP requirement that people seem to have for the class. And heck, the fact that Monks do lose 3 abilities when they wear armor kind of proves there is a distinction between mechanics and fluff, yeah? Otherwise they'd have just written "Monks don't like wearing metal armor" as a tiny blurb within the class description rather then making you lose abilities via class mechanics.

The fluff of a class doesn't matter. Paladins don't need to be beacons of good, Wizards don't need to be magical experts, bards don't need to be musically gifted or "thrive on stories", Clerics can be atheist, and Druids don't have to care one bit about nature. You can choose to use that fluff at the start of each class if you wish, but you can throw it all out the window too, if you so desire. If you wanna play a Shepard Druid as a better version of a Conjuration Wizard that only cares about nature as long as it can serve them, and summons beasts and fey to do his will like a Wizard might a Demon, you're free to do so. Never let the fluff of a class define a character, ever.

[KorvinStarmast]

mechanics {snip} The fluff of a class doesn't matter {snip}.
In 4e the distinction was made explicit, but in 5e that was not done. You are importing a 4e frame of reference into 5e, which is what I commented upon.

Given that I don't accept the false dichotomy that you seem to be supporting (that there is this either / or state, a binary state) I think that we are at an impasse. :smallfrown:

[sithlordnergal]

In 4e the distinction was made explicit, but in 5e that was not done. You are importing a 4e frame of reference into 5e, which is what I commented upon.

Given that I don't accept the false dichotomy that you seem to be supporting (that there is this either / or state, a binary state) I think that we are at an impasse. :smallfrown:

So, what you're saying then is that the fluff parts are a mechanic of the class? Even if those mechanics actually have 0 mechanical effect? I.E. a Cleric MUST believe in some sort of deity because the fluff part of their class specifically states they follow/worship a deity, and therefore cannot be, say, Atheist.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, what you're saying then is that the fluff parts are a mechanic of the class? Even if those mechanics actually have 0 mechanical effect? I.E. a Cleric MUST believe in some sort of deity because the fluff part of their class specifically states they follow/worship a deity, and therefore cannot be, say, Atheist.
Once again, the false dichotomy and narrow focus on mechanics is an obstacle to this conversation, which you are framing as binary. That's a problem in perspective.

Also, if you read the DMG (pages 10-13) you will find that there is an option for using "forces and philosophies" rather than deities for clerics (and for paladins and their oaths) but the default is as it says in the PHB: a deity chose this PC to go out and adventure.

EDIT since I found what I was looking for:

Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities. In plain English, that's pretty clear.

Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. {snip} The gods don't grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling. (There is some supporting text in a box in Chapter 10 about divine spell casting and The Weave).

... the ability to cast Cleric Spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes.
Pretty clear connection there.

When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it.
And there, in plain English.

Does the DM have latitude to modify that? Sure. The rules are not a strait jacket.

The larger point is that PCs are not just a batch of mechanics.

It's not that hard to wrap one's head around, by the way, the idea that the cleric is one chosen by a deity (while most other priests/officials/servants are not clerics in the way that a PC is a cleric).
It fits the fictional genre that has no question about whether or not there are deities - various deities are objectively real in at least two settings (Faerun and Greyhawk) and also in Dragonlance.
Granted, in a setting like Dark Sun, or Eberron, it's a bit less clear, but then you get to Specific Over General: in the specific cast of the Dark Sun setting, for example (which 5e has yet to publish, Grrrrrrrrrr) the general provision of deities being objectively real is altered. Eberron has its own exception to the Core. (MM, DMG, PHB).

As an aside: within the genre, it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to select atheism for a cleric in fantasy worlds where the deities are known to be real. You offered an odd example to anchor your objection to.

And just so that you know: in the Greyhawk world that I Dm currently, I prefer the forces and philosophies mode, though in any given region that Force, or Philosophy, might have a different name and a different way of worshipping or venerating it. Example being the Tempest Domain: the party cleric served "The Storm" and from The Storm drew her divine power. The locals in Saltmarsh called that same power Procan, which is a storm deity in the standard Greyhawk lore.

[sithlordnergal]

Once again, the false dichotomy and narrow focus on mechanics is an obstacle to this conversation, which you are framing as binary. That's a problem in perspective.

Ok, I do see where our disconnect is. In my eyes, there is no false dichotomy. As far as I'm concerned, a class is nothing more then a bundle of abilities and mechanics. That's what's important, as that's what has an effect at the table and can effect rolls. The rest of the stuff is ignorable, because it has 0 effect on class abilities. I.E. a Druid isn't a Druid because they revere nature, a Druid is a Druid because they can Wildshape and use the Druid spell list.

Now an actual character is going to be more than a bundle of hard mechanics, but characters are free to use or ignore whatever they like in those blurbs at the begining of each class as they like. They aren't restricted to being something just because they chose a class/subclass that has a blurb at the beginning stating these classes act like X.



snip

I will agree that Cleric isn't the best choice for example. But I can't think of many other classes where an RP blurb is closely tied to the class. Maybe Warlock wod be a good choice too. You don't need to make a deal, serve a patron, or whatever. You can steal your power from the patron instead. Or just have it be powered by some otherworldly magic in general without ever interacting with a patron at all.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Druid immortality.
Whenever one of you comes close to death, have the other kill you, then cast Reincarnate on you, giving you a completely new body and resetting your age.

The Reincarnate spell doesn't specify that a younger body is formed to house your soul. It merely states a new adult body is formed to house your soul. This new body, could be decrepit, and about to die.

By RAW, you might have a less than ideal quality of immortal life.
RB-DM-FTW🃏


We do have one RAW way to become lich in CoS.

The Monster Manual makes it clear that Fiends, Gods, and Strange Entities also can teach the secrets of Lichdom, especially Orcus.

Any Druid that cuts a deal with Orcus, can become Lich.

As a Supernatural Boon, the Imprisonment spell is added to the character's Spell Casting Lists, and possibly the character can only use the Imprisonment spell to cast the Lich's special option.

Bob's Your Uncle! We have a Druid Lich!

A good aligned Lich is entirely appropriate for an Aernal Elf in Eberron.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ok, I do see where our disconnect is. In my eyes, there is no false dichotomy. As far as I'm concerned, a class is nothing more then a bundle of abilities and mechanics.
Yeah, that's were our perspectives seem to a bit incompatible.

As to the Warlock as a more interesting example: one of the things that still bugs me about Warlock - which is for my money a great class - is that they seem to have written the description with the INT based caster in mind (seeker of secrets and all that) and then during the home stretch caved in and reverted to CHA caster. In that case it seems to me that there is a disconnect, though perhaps not as large a one as my preferences would mark it, between the Warlock as described and the Warlock mechanics that support the class concept.

[Thunderous Mojo]

In that case it seems to me that there is a disconnect, between the Warlock as described and the Warlock mechanics that support the class concept.
(Note:quote edited)

I agree with this, though I don't agree regarding the Warlock being an Intelligence Caster. Wormtongue, was a warlock. A person that has become attached to a powerful being, and begs to be taught secrets.

The problem with the Warlock class, to my mind is that there is no mechanical, nor creative guidance on how to make the Warlock's Patron, feel like they are an active force in the game.

Small ribbons, such as having to pick a taboo...like your character can only wear a single hue of color, or has to avoid telling the truth, etc, etc. can lead to memorable characters, that are fun and challenging to roleplay.

There should have been guidance written on how to make Warlock Patrons memorable characters, and how to structure things so the player has autonomy of action, but should also expect the Patron to request services from time to time.

The Generous Fairy Godmother Patron that also expects their wards to reciprocate by being generous with their time, when their Godmother calls on them....
....A Godmother I may add that has been known to nail people that disappoint her to trees using Magic Nails and then cause the tree to instantly grow huge and tall.........that type of Warlock Patron....is very different, from the essentially absentee Patrons in the PHB and Elsewhere.

[Millstone85]

As an aside: within the genre, it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to select atheism for a cleric in fantasy worlds where the deities are known to be real.But for an old-canon example of such gymnastics, see Planescape and its unsubtly-named faction of the Athar.

The Athar point of view: Yes, none can deny the existence of Pelor, Mystra and other entities of overwhelming might, known in Sigil as the Powers. But are these truly gods? How do you distinguish divinity from sufficiently advanced magic? What of the fact that the Powers can be brought down when starved of mortal worship? And hasn't it been shown that collective faith in a philosophy can fuel clerical spellcasting all the same?

Obviously, it attracts them the worst enemies.


As to the Warlock as a more interesting example: one of the things that still bugs me about Warlock - which is for my money a great class - is that they seem to have written the description with the INT based caster in mind (seeker of secrets and all that) and then during the home stretch caved in and reverted to CHA caster.Which might be the reason why, where every other class gets an explanation for its spellcasting ability, the warlock gets none.

Really, on one side we have:

"lntelligence is your spellcasting abilily..."

"for your artificer spells; your understanding of the theory behind magic allows you to wield these spells with superior skill."
"for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization."

"Wisdom is your spellcasting ability..."

"for your cleric spells. The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity."
"for your druid spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to nature."
"for your ranger spells, since your magic draws on your attunement to nature."

"Charisma is your spellcasting ability..."

"for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration."
"for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions."
"for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world."


And then, alone in the corner:

"Charisma is your spellcasting abilily for your warlock spells, so you use your Charisma whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability."

[gloryblaze]

Druids can canonically become (something very similar to) liches in 5e, complete with phylactery, no need to do mental gymnastics about fluff:



Lichen liches are the undead remnants of powerful druids.

A lichen lich looks like a skeleton covered with fungi and bark-like lichen. A lichen lich has vines writhing within its chest cavity. These vines exude viscid and poisonous black fluid.

snip

Rejuvenation. If it has a phylactery, a destroyed lich gains a new body in 1d10 days, regaining all its hit points and becoming active again. The new body appears within 5 feet of the phylactery.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem with the Warlock class, to my mind is that there is no mechanical, nor creative guidance on how to make the Warlock's Patron, feel like they are an active force in the game.
{snip a bit, brother}
There should have been guidance written on how to make Warlock Patrons memorable characters, and how to structure things so the player has autonomy of action, but should also expect the Patron to request services from time to time.

The Generous Fairy Godmother Patron that also expects their wards to reciprocate by being generous with their time, when their Godmother calls on them....
....A Godmother I may add that has been known to nail people that disappoint her to trees using Magic Nails and then cause the tree to instantly grow huge and tall.........that type of Warlock Patron....is very different, from the essentially absentee Patrons in the PHB and Elsewhere. Not sure if it needed to be in PHB or in DMG, but it isn't anywhere. (DMG probably the better place).

But for an old-canon example of such gymnastics, see Planescape and its unsubtly-named faction of the Athar. The Athar point of view: Yes, none can deny the existence of Pelor, Mystra and other entities of overwhelming might, known in Sigil as the Powers. But are these truly gods? The simple answer in 5e is yes. Full stop.
Mini rant follows:
I get a bit annoyed by use of the term canon in these discussions.
I can pull an Aslan style "My old canon is older than your old canon" and point out that in the original game there were clerics and not one single defined deity, even though their powers were certainly modeled on divine miracles from a source that most players were familiar with. (Sticks to snakes, raise dead, light, healing, etc). When the first deities were provided as published figures (rather than the usual DM made something to fit their campaign) (Gods, Demigods, and Heroes) Sigil didn't exist. Citing Sigil as "canon" is on, at best, shaky ground. (I say that as a point of reference. I liked a lot of what Planescape had to offer. Some 5e planescape material would be most welcome by this user).
Which leaves me with: let's discuss this in 5e terms.

Druids can canonically become (something very similar to) liches in 5e, complete with phylactery, no need to do mental gymnastics about fluff:
While I would hardly call Candlekeep Adventure books "canon" since they are set in the FR explicitly, and explicitly in Core books there is no single official setting, therefore 'canon' is a meaningless term, I do appreciate your including that example for how druid ~ Lich concept has been modeled in a published adventure. (And IIRC from that adventure, its thematics were OK but I'd need to go back and read it).

[elyktsorb]

The Reincarnate spell doesn't specify that a younger body is formed to house your soul. It merely states a new adult body is formed to house your soul. This new body, could be decrepit, and about to die.

By RAW, you might have a less than ideal quality of immortal life.
RB-DM-FTW🃏


Any less quality then being a lich or something?

Even if we were to regard that as a possibility, then that also means it's vague enough that it could make you an adult body of any age from just having become an adult to about to die of old age, and with X races living into the hundreds of years, the odds of being right at the verge of dieing from old age are pretty slim.

So even if you did become another old and on death's door person, if it's the friend in question all the druid would have to do is kill them and cast reincarnate again, and even if they only have the one spell slot, they have 9 days to get the spell back if the friend dies almost immediately.

And if it's the Druid that it happens to, again, assuming he only has 1 casting of reincarnate available, he just casts it on the ring and the friend casts it again. Even if the druid has to attune to the ring to cast the spell on it (which I don't think they have to) that's only one hour.

The odds of them reincarnating twice into an age that would also be on death's door would be quite small, but you know, that's the risk you take for effective, low effort, immortality I suppose.

[Millstone85]

I can pull an Aslan style "My old canon is older than your old canon"When I said old, it was an acknowledgement that this isn't the current lore. More precisely, 5e has yet to say anything about the Factions of Sigil. So your Aslan would be trying to out-humble me, I guess?


Citing Sigil as "canon" is on, at best, shaky ground. (I say that as a point of reference. I liked a lot of what Planescape had to offer. Some 5e planescape material would be most welcome by this user).
Which leaves me with: let's discuss this in 5e terms.

While I would hardly call Candlekeep Adventure books "canon" since they are set in the FR explicitly, and explicitly in Core books there is no single official settingYou and I have very different readings of the core books.

To me, they do describe an official setting. That setting, as it happens, is Planescape, by which I mean a multiverse that includes "Sigil, City of Doors" as well as "Known Worlds of the Material Plane" such as Toril, Oerth and Krynn (DMG p68).

[Thunderous Mojo]

Any less quality then being a lich or something?

The Clone spell could work on a Lich, and you can come back as a younger version, so a "Juicy Lich" is possible. Why be a mouldering corpse if you don't have to. (Admittedly this is not an option for a Druid Lich.)


The odds of them reincarnating twice into an age that would also be on death's door would be quite small, but you know, that's the risk you take for effective, low effort, immortality I suppose.

Odds may not matter to a Rat Bastard DM.🃏
In a campaign with metaphysical forces like the Fates, or the Norns, such forces may find perpetual Reincarnation to be cheating Fate, and thus after a certain point always put the 'offender' in a body close to death.

Like you said, you roll the dice, get the new race, and hope the DM doesn't make you old.

Thematically, I love the idea of a Legendary Circle of Star Druids, cheating fate, by perpetually Reincarnating, and having to constantly compile intricate Astrological Charts to accurately predict their current deaths so they can ultimately cheat death.....
....Thanks for the inspiring post elyktsorb!

[ProsecutorGodot]

The Clone spell could work on a Lich, and you can come back as a younger version, so a "Juicy Lich" is possible. Why be a mouldering corpse if you don't have to. (Admittedly this is not an option for a Druid Lich.)
The Clone spell requires a living creature. It also requires that a soul is able to travel, a Lich fails in both regards.

[Millstone85]

The Clone spell requires a living creature.And the living dead qualify as such, at least according to this exchange on Twitter (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1275084912551321600):
ok, here's a question for #dnd5e rules buffs

the rules sometimes use the term 'living creature' but I'm not sure how that is actually defined because for things like golems, devils or animated tables this is weird territory
In D&D, "living creature" means a creature that isn't dead, regardless of the creature's type.

See the "Dropping to 0 Hit Points" section in the "Player's Handbook" for the rules on dying in the game (p. 197–8).
So an undead creature would be considered "a living creature"

Is this why some spells/abilities that talk about creatures as targets specifically rule out undead and constructs?
Yes.
Which, to echo KorvinStarmast and sithlordnergal's earlier disagreement, could be seen as a major case of crunch/fluff conflict.


It also requires that a soul is able to travelAh now, yes, a lich's soul is indeed trapped in its phylactery.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The Clone spell requires a living creature. It also requires that a soul is able to travel, a Lich fails in both regards.

A Lich still needs to consume souls, however, a Lich's soul is not tethered to a particular body.

If a Lich's current body dies, and it has a matured Clone, it is up to the DM to determine the Order of Operations for Soul Migration....so while P.G. may say "No", another DM may say "Yes".

Given most Liches are Wizards, most should have some custom spells....
Such as "Acererak's Juicy Clone Body" which can pave over any technical difficulties.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And the living dead qualify as such, at least according to this exchange on Twitter (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1275084912551321600):
Which, to echo KorvinStarmast and sithlordnergal's earlier disagreement, could be seen as a major case of crunch/fluff conflict.
A strange interpretation, considering that become a Lich pretty explicitly requires dying and remaining dead. It also draws a direct parallel between them and living creatures, framing them separately.

They further their own power at any cost, having no interest in the affairs of the living except where those affairs interfere with their own.
But, I can see how it could be "alive" as a game term and not a creature characteristic. Curse that casual reading design having the same word for different but related mechanics.


A Lich still needs to consume souls, however, a Lich's soul is not tethered to a particular body.
It's tethered to its Phylactery, where it remains forever. The body contains no soul.

With its phylactery prepared, the future lich drinks a potion of transformation — a vile concoction of poison mixed with the blood of a sentient creature whose soul is sacrificed to the phylactery. The wizard falls dead, then rises as a lich as its soul is drawn into the phylactery, where it forever remains.
I suppose depending on how you treat the destruction of a Phylactery there could be a soul left afterwards that can travel to a possible existing clone. We're not actually given details on what happens to a Lich's soul after that other than it means the "possibility of eternal death. "Possibility" leads me to assume that you might be partially right, a Lich would never have to worry about their Clone activating while they're a lich because they never "die" in the game sense and their soul can't travel in the first place, though when their phylactery is destroyed they actually die and unless you rule it destroys the Lich's soul, it's now free to travel.

[newbie padawan]

This is something that you are really going to have to talk with your dm about, as there are many paths to power... but your dm is the one that would decide which paths you can take... or if they are even possible. You could try to find a liches knowledge and improve/ alter it to become an archlich, you could bargain with powerful creatures, or you could ask your dm where such knowledge would be found/ possible in his world.