PDA

View Full Version : Lich regeneration.



Zeful
2008-01-03, 01:27 AM
Okay this has bugged me for a while and I've tried asking a couple of times in the relevant threads but it's never been answered.

Why do people think that Liches regenerate near their phylactery? There's no support of that position in the MM, in fact the only mention of the regeneration is that it happens 1d10 days after death. So wouldn't the more logical answer be that liches regenerate at the place of last destruction?

I'm confused and I'd like some form of clarification.

AmberVael
2008-01-03, 01:34 AM
That's...
Huh. That really is kind of odd.
Just so people don't have to hunt it down, this is what the SRD says:

The Lich’s Phylactery

An integral part of becoming a lich is creating a magic phylactery in which the character stores its life force. As a rule, the only way to get rid of a lich for sure is to destroy its phylactery. Unless its phylactery is located and destroyed, a lich reappears 1d10 days after its apparent death.

Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery 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.

The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed. The box is Tiny and has 40 hit points, hardness 20, and a break DC of 40.

Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items.

Is there a more thorough explanation in the actual monster manual? Perhaps something in Libris Mortis?
*goes to look*

Bag_of_Holding
2008-01-03, 01:35 AM
Since the lich's life energy is stored in the phylactery, I'd say it should regenerate near the thing.

AmberVael
2008-01-03, 01:43 AM
Yes, but that is an assumption, and not an actual ruling. It could be that the body the lich was in regenerates and heals over.

I just checked Libris Mortis, and there didn't seem to be anything enlightening in it...

tyckspoon
2008-01-03, 01:50 AM
Liches regenerate wherever a particular DM thinks they should. That said, I believe there is a valid story reason for liches to come back near their phylacteries: it gives the party a strong incentive to find the phylactery. If the lich comes back in the same spot it was destroyed, the party can set up a deathtrap/prison for it and never have to worry about really destroying it by smashing the phylactery. They just set up a permanent Prismatic Sphere and a Dimension Lock, or fill the space with something damaging (Transmute Rock To Lava?) or just scry on the location so they can re-ambush the freshly regenned and most likely spell-less lich..

If the lich regenerates at his phylactery, they instead have at most 10 days to locate and destroy the thing before the lich is capable of turning the situation around and ambushing them with the benefit of having been through the previous fight and having a general knowledge of the party's abilities. That's a far more frightening and motivating scenario.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-01-03, 01:50 AM
Yes, but that is an assumption, and not an actual ruling. It could be that the body the lich was in regenerates and heals over.

I just checked Libris Mortis, and there didn't seem to be anything enlightening in it...

Well, the simplest solution would be to ask the DM :smallwink:. However he/she rules, then that would be the rule for your playing group!

Balkash
2008-01-03, 01:51 AM
-edit-
ninja'd
*****
Honestly I am shocked. I am scared, even. I looked in the MM and the SRD, plus LiMo. No where does it say exactly where the lich regenerates. From what I read, since the phylactery cannot regenerate a lich if it is inside an AMF, I'd think that means the lich would regenerate next to the phylactery. Either way, unless there is real evidence, I'll house-rule that the lich regenerates near its phylactery.

Zeful
2008-01-03, 01:53 AM
Bag_of_Holding: I disagree, the soul/life energy is merely stored in the tiny magic box that is the phylactery but the magic involved reanimates the skeleton that the lich is using. Because making a set of bones start moving is much easier than creating a complicated lattice structure that bones are made of.

Talic
2008-01-03, 02:20 AM
Dracoliches do regenerate near their phylactery, so you could consider such rulings an extension.

There are really only 3 options.

1) at the phylactery. (intuitive)

2) at the point of destruction. (kinda dumb, would make liches really easy to keep dead)

3) at a point set by the lich. (less likely)

herrhauptmann
2008-01-03, 02:25 AM
Best I can give to aid this is the entry regarding Dracoliches in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Book.
It says that the dracoliches soul returns to the phylactery upon destruction of the body. If any dragon, (or dragonish) body is in range, the dracolich can attempt to take over the corpse, requiring a charisma check. Failure means the body can never be controlled, success(on anything besides original body) means it becomes a proto-draco, and it can immediately become full dracolich by eating a portion of the last body, or by waiting a week. Attempts to possess the lich's old body are automatically successful and don't form proto-dracos.

If no body is in range, the dracolich's soul sits and waits in the phylactery until a body comes close enough.

Edit: Forgetting to hit 'post' is most likely the biggest reason for me to get ninja'd.

Talic
2008-01-03, 02:32 AM
Best I can give to aid this is the entry regarding Dracoliches in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Book.
It says that the dracoliches soul returns to the phylactery upon destruction of the body. If any dragon, (or dragonish) body is in range, the dracolich can attempt to take over the corpse, requiring a charisma check. Failure means the body can never be controlled, success(on anything besides original body) means it becomes a proto-draco, and it can immediately become full dracolich by eating a portion of the last body, or by waiting a week. Attempts to possess the lich's old body are automatically successful and don't form proto-dracos.

If no body is in range, the dracolich's soul sits and waits in the phylactery until a body comes close enough.

Edit: Forgetting to hit 'post' is most likely the biggest reason for me to get ninja'd.


I recall one dracolich that housed his phylactery inside a Longsword +2, Green Dragonslayer. the blade granted immunity to a green dragon's breath weapon, and was a bane weapon for dragons (living variety only). It was intelligent, and could impart its wielder with the location of the closest green dragon within 100 miles. Etched on the blade were the words "Dragon's Lair", though it was enchanted to appear to say "Dragonslayer".

Very cunning.

herrhauptmann
2008-01-03, 02:41 AM
I like that idea Talic.
Its like a normal lich housing his soul in a Ring of Wizardry 4, or better yet, something that normally has a faint/moderate necromantic aura.

Idea Man
2008-01-03, 02:53 AM
Not that it matters RaW, but Xykon regenerated next to his phylactery. :smallwink:

I'm a strong supporter of the "by the phylactery" theory. If it regenerated from it's remains, you would just need a broom and dustpan to move the body, and a diligent cleric to keep pouring holy water on the remains until the party finds that phylactery.

Regenerating at some other point would be the most strategic thing to do, but there's no literature to support that idea that I know of. Very cool idea, and works very well within the framework of the game, though.

Fhaolan
2008-01-03, 03:12 AM
I think the origin of the 'regenerate near their phylactery' bit is because in some of the oldest versions of D&D, the Lich's phylactery was described as being similar to a permanent magic jar spell, and when the Lich 'died' and enough time passed for it to recover, it would then attempt to magic jar into a nearby corpse or unlucky passers-by, and regenerate from there back to full power...

In other words, I think it's just lore that has persisted from older editions despite the rules not supporting it. :smallbiggrin:

Khanderas
2008-01-03, 03:48 AM
Yes, but that is an assumption, and not an actual ruling. It could be that the body the lich was in regenerates and heals over.

I just checked Libris Mortis, and there didn't seem to be anything enlightening in it...
Could be, but that would be too easy.
Acid tank. AMF (or just make sure the lich was out of spells, being dead does not count as resting before regaining spells)
Toss the dead lich bones into the acid tank. Nail the lid shut.

I think assuming the lich reforms near his phylactery is the best option all around. While not typed out clearly, I'm sure it was the intent.


The only two variants that I would consider is:
Does the phyactry MAKE a new body or just possess a nearby skeleton / corpse / living body ? (edit: though the description does say reform... so it would be the former.)

Aquillion
2008-01-03, 04:02 AM
I think it's left deliberately vague. Mostly, if the lich turned up in a specific place, players could easily use it against them... if they just regenerate where they die, who needs to find the phylactery? You just keep waiting and kill them again before they recover.

Hmm, do they come back with all their spells? You might have to set up an AMF. Which may keep them from coming back at all, come to think of it... and since it says they only come back in one specific timeframe, you could reasonably argue that if they 'miss the window' for any reason (because the spot where they're supposed to return is in an AMF, say) they don't get a second chance.

Well, anyway, returning at the phylactery is harder for players to trick, but has its own problems. It limits where it can be hidden, for one (the lich has to be able to appear near there). If they grow out of it, OOTS-style, it can't really be hidden inside a small box or container or sealed in concrete or anything like that... all this might not be bad, but it limits the things a DM can do.

I suspect WotC wanted to avoid that, so they left it vague on purpose. A lich simply 'comes back'; most of the time, the players aren't going to know the exact details (they probably weren't even contemplating the possibility of PC liches at that point.)

bugsysservant
2008-01-03, 04:48 AM
Dracoliches do regenerate near their phylactery, so you could consider such rulings an extension.

There are really only 3 options.

1) at the phylactery. (intuitive)

2) at the point of destruction. (kinda dumb, would make liches really easy to keep dead)

3) at a point set by the lich. (less likely)

That's not intuitive at all, I've never played that way and wasn't till I saw liches being discussed online that I realized many people played like that.

Personally, I try to model Sauron for my phylacteries. When he was destroyed (physically) he would wonder the earth as a spirit till he reformed his body. Since he was a God, I change that to be less powerful. I've never had to make a ruling on the matter, but if I did it would probably be something like "can travel up to 10 miles per day between death and reformation. Is only loosely aware of surroundings during this period, and will forget what is perceived, but no know magic can detect the body as it slowly reforms in the void, to emerge as it was at the state of death in 1d10 days."

Talic
2008-01-03, 05:02 AM
That's not intuitive at all, I've never played that way and wasn't till I saw liches being discussed online that I realized many people played like that.


First... Just because it's not what YOU personally do doesn't mean it's not intuitive.

For most any magical effect, the effect originates at the source. A lich with a phylactery comes back. A lich without one is dust. Thus, the phylactery is the source of the lich's regenerative ability.

Now, it could either power reappearring across thousands of miles and planes, or it could do it right next to itself. Note that the phylactery description specifically states that the lich "reappears", which implies an independence from the original body, as opposed to terms like "reanimates".

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

Note that the SRD specifically contradicts your view of a "wandering spirit". The life force of a lich is in the phylactery. Period. The phylactery causes the lich to reappear when destroyed after a time has passed. Period. Based on the above point, what is more intuitive?

Bear in mind that the lich is an example based on a variant haunting. In this instance, the soul is bound to an object, rather than a location. But such things exist in folklore. Based on what the creature is, the mechanics of the "near the phylactery" reasoning are very, VERY intuitive.

Zeful
2008-01-03, 05:19 AM
Except it's more intuitive to assume that the Lich regenerates in the space it died. Because it's simply easier to repair a damaged structure, any damaged structure than it is to build a new structure.

kamikasei
2008-01-03, 05:24 AM
Except it's more intuitive to assume that the Lich regenerates in the space it died. Because it's simply easier to repair a damaged structure, any damaged structure than it is to build a new structure.

Firstly, the wording which says the lich "reappears" doesn't support this. Secondly, the fact that the phylactery can recreate the lich whatever the condition of its remains - even if its been ground to dust or disintegrated - suggests no dependence on the original body.

Seriously, it's magic. It makes perfect sense for the lich to grow/appear from nothing at the phylactery. Otherwise you'll get the madness of PCs trying to scatter the lich's bones, or setting up death traps at its point of destruction, etc.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-03, 05:33 AM
Hmm, do they come back with all their spells? You might have to set up an AMF. Which may keep them from coming back at all, come to think of it... and since it says they only come back in one specific timeframe, you could reasonably argue that if they 'miss the window' for any reason (because the spot where they're supposed to return is in an AMF, say) they don't get a second chance.


An AMF only suppress the recreation. The Lich will return 1d10 days after the Phylactery has been removed from the AMF.

The description could obviously be more clear but the writers never had any doubt that the Lich return next to the Phylactery and anyone who has played earlier incarnations of D&D would most likely not be in any doubt either.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-03, 05:37 AM
I like that idea Talic.
Its like a normal lich housing his soul in a Ring of Wizardry 4, or better yet, something that normally has a faint/moderate necromantic aura.

RAW: A Phylactery cannot be part of another magic item or hold additional magical properties.

Talic
2008-01-03, 05:46 AM
RAW: A Phylactery cannot be part of another magic item or hold additional magical properties.

I never said I created that one. I believe it was a FR dracolich, though I'm not entirely sure. It was in a D&D 3.0 WotC reference book, though. Even so, it's not hard to make a magic item with a groove for a gem, and add an independent gem later. It could be that simple.

Though as it's in a sourcebook published by WotC, it would be an exception to the case, I'd wager.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-03, 05:52 AM
I never said I created that one.

That would be the reason I did not quote you. :smallwink:

Talic
2008-01-03, 05:52 AM
Except it's more intuitive to assume that the Lich regenerates in the space it died. Because it's simply easier to repair a damaged structure, any damaged structure than it is to build a new structure.

Wrong. We're trying to determine an effect that's not listed based on the words that are. The use of "reappears", rather than "reanimates", "rebuilds", reconstitutes" or somesuch, coupled with the source of the recovery, contradict you. Intuition should tell you that if something is directly contradicted, it's not supposed to go that way. You're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, by trying to force a completely different mechanic into a place where it doesn't work.

Let's look at a construction example, though. We blow up a building. By your logic, it's easier to go through that rubble, seperate out the materials, and rebuild another building with that material.

In actuality, it's easier to bulldoze that crap away to somewhere it can be recycled, and bring in fresh material, and construct the building thusly.

Often things are cheaper and easier to replace than to repair. Or do you fix every light bulb that burns out in your house?

bugsysservant
2008-01-03, 07:15 AM
First... Just because it's not what YOU personally do doesn't mean it's not intuitive.

Nor did I say it was universally intuitive. I just wasn't arrogant enough to assume my (debatable) view was the default theory.


For most any magical effect, the effect originates at the source. A lich with a phylactery comes back. A lich without one is dust. Thus, the phylactery is the source of the lich's regenerative ability.

If that were true the lich could never part with its phylactery, or the force binding it to the earth would be torn from the source. And a lich without a phylactery isn't dust. That would be a reasonable house rule, but by RAW, destroying a phylactery just prevents a lich from returning.


The life force of a lich is in the phylactery. Period. The phylactery causes the lich to reappear when destroyed after a time has passed. Period.

Umm, liches are undead. Clearly they aren't relying on their life force to animate themselves: the phylactery merely serves to prevent them from being permanently destroyed. And liches don't die when their phylacteries are destroyed, so they can easily get by without any animating force. By RAW the phylactery is much closer to a barrier to the grave then the animating force which also actively revives the lich.

And the SRD never says anything about the phylactery reanimating the lich. In fact the word "stores" implies a very passive part in the process of keeping the lich "alive". While it could be argued that the phylactery has some magical property that the Monster Manual inexplicably left out, its much more logical that the spirit returns on its own as a natural reaction to being unable to fully die.


Bear in mind that the lich is an example based on a variant haunting. In this instance, the soul is bound to an object, rather than a location.

Now THAT is pure opinion. The lich stems from Tolkien's Sauron and his ring of power. Clearly in the lord of the rings, and in D&D, the lich can spend a long time away from his phylactery. Why it should only take on the appearance of a ghost in very rare circumstances is illogical: if it were a ghost it could only go X feet from the object that its "haunting." That's not true, so your interpretation has no basis in the rules.

MorkaisChosen
2008-01-03, 07:31 AM
The way I see it, the Phylactery is another place for the lich's soul to go- so the soul can survive either in the body or in the phylactery. When the body is destroyed, the soul flees to the phylactery (a bit like a vampire to its coffin, but without the range restriction) and hangs out there until it's in a body again.

A logical extension of that idea is that the lich has to put together (or steal, or whatever) a new body quite close to its phylactery, as the phylactery is where it is.

EDIT: Looking at the Lich prgression on the WotC website, I see the following text.


She gains her new physical form by grafting her undead spirit to a humanoid corpse, mindless undead, or some weak-minded creature within a few miles of her phylactery.

[...]

If the phylactery is destroyed while the lich is still active in a body, her undead life force automatically joins that body. She takes no penalties of any kind for that joining, but without a phylactery, she cannot recover if her body is subsequently destroyed.

Looks a bit conclusive to me...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-03, 07:45 AM
And the SRD never says anything about the phylactery reanimating the lich. In fact the word "stores" implies a very passive part in the process of keeping the lich "alive". While it could be argued that the phylactery has some magical property that the Monster Manual inexplicably left out, its much more logical that the spirit returns on its own as a natural reaction to being unable to fully die.


Libris Mortis clearly states that the Phylactery "recreate a destroyed lich" if you find that the intend is not clear from the MM.

If this was not the case I really don't see much use of such a container.

I_am_an_undead
2008-01-03, 09:50 AM
Now THAT is pure opinion. The lich stems from Tolkien's Sauron and his ring of power. Clearly in the lord of the rings, and in D&D, the lich can spend a long time away from his phylactery. Why it should only take on the appearance of a ghost in very rare circumstances is illogical: if it were a ghost it could only go X feet from the object that its "haunting." That's not true, so your interpretation has no basis in the rules.

just a nitpick. You say liches stem from Tolkien's Sauron. It is also possible that they stem from Koschei the deathless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koschei), egyptian pharaohs, some middle eastern folklore, and maybe some writers like Clark Ashton Smith and Gardner Fox, one of the latter's short stories Gary actually based the description of a lich included in the game on. So, yeah. Sauron doesn't really spring into my mind when I think of liches.

Craig1f
2008-01-03, 10:15 AM
RAW: A Phylactery cannot be part of another magic item or hold additional magical properties.

Well, the phylactery could be a gem that was cleverly placed on the hilt of a magical blade, but is a separate object. It is simply made to look like part of the blade.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-03, 10:22 AM
Well, the phylactery could be a gem that was cleverly placed on the hilt of a magical blade, but is a separate object. It is simply made to look like part of the blade.

Certainly, but it would create two seperate magical auras etc. (A lich would of course disguise the magic aura of the phylactery, making it a moot point in many cases.)

No using an already existing item as the phylactery as was suggested in the post I responded to.

nyjastul69
2008-01-03, 10:42 AM
RAW: A Phylactery cannot be part of another magic item or hold additional magical properties.


What source are you citing?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-03, 10:45 AM
What source are you citing?

Libris Mortis.

Talic
2008-01-04, 12:59 AM
Ok, now that I've had some sleep, let me try responding to this in a non-grumpy manner.

Nor did I say it was universally intuitive. I just wasn't arrogant enough to assume my (debatable) view was the default theory.

No such thing as "universally intuitive". Something is intuitive if you can look at it and say, "I can see how that could be." It is not intuitive if you look at it and go, "huh?"
As far as arrogance, whilst I may occasionally be guilty of that, there is a marked difference between being arrogant and being right. I am stating that my view is the default theory for several reasons. First, it's more intuitive. Second, more people follow that way. Third, it's portrayed in that fashion in the very webcomic that hosts this forum. Therein lies the difference between arrogance and truth.


If that were true the lich could never part with its phylactery, or the force binding it to the earth would be torn from the source. And a lich without a phylactery isn't dust. That would be a reasonable house rule, but by RAW, destroying a phylactery just prevents a lich from returning.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that it was understood that we were discussing lich recovery after destruction. Thus, I illustrate what happens upon a lich destruction. I'm sorry, I'll spell it out more clearly next time, by specifically referencing the destruction.
That said, what makes the lich unique is the fact that it has a soul in the PM plane. What makes it undead is that the soul does not reside in the body. Necromantic energies animate the lich. The phylactery, a receptacle for the lich's soul, its essence, anchors it further by reforming it after destruction. That's not opinion. That's not house-rule. That's RAW, plain and simple fact.


Umm, liches are undead. Clearly they aren't relying on their life force to animate themselves: the phylactery merely serves to prevent them from being permanently destroyed. And liches don't die when their phylacteries are destroyed, so they can easily get by without any animating force. By RAW the phylactery is much closer to a barrier to the grave then the animating force which also actively revives the lich.

Note: The Monster Manual and SRD are not made for "Mature Audiences". Books which discuss souls are. Thus, the term "life force" is used. That does not mean "positive energy". You are absolutely correct though. They do not rely on their life force to be animate. Nor did I ever say otherwise. They do, however, rely on it to be recreated, along with some choice enchantments put into the phylactery (Reasoning: Craft Wondrous Item is required to build one). It has one in game effect. It recreates the destroyed lich that built it.


And the SRD never says anything about the phylactery reanimating the lich. In fact the word "stores" implies a very passive part in the process of keeping the lich "alive". While it could be argued that the phylactery has some magical property that the Monster Manual inexplicably left out, its much more logical that the spirit returns on its own as a natural reaction to being unable to fully die.

Incorrect. There are undead that have spirits unable to fully depart. (Note: Please don't use "die" when referencing undead. It's a very inaccurate term that oft leads to confusion, as the lich actually dies shortly before it's ever created.) They're called ghosts. If you note, spirits by themselves do not remanifest physical bodies. Intuition relies on following patterns and precedence to make sense of things. By that, and looking at ghosts, one could easily argue that the lich CANNOT return without the phylactery's magic.

However, even if what you said was true, what makes more sense? The soul recreating the body at its location (which we've both established now, is at the phylactery, by RAW. Nowhere else. No roaming, none of that.), or by exerting an insane amount of energy to affect the remains that have been severed from their negative energies?


Now THAT is pure opinion. The lich stems from Tolkien's Sauron and his ring of power. Clearly in the lord of the rings, and in D&D, the lich can spend a long time away from his phylactery. Why it should only take on the appearance of a ghost in very rare circumstances is illogical: if it were a ghost it could only go X feet from the object that its "haunting." That's not true, so your interpretation has no basis in the rules.
Conjecture. While my theory on the basis is certainly opinion, my statement that the soul is bound to the item is simple RAW. The similarities between the one ring and a phylactery are present, certainly. The one ring does house a soul. That's about where it ends. The one ring has a host of magical powers. The phylactery does not. The phylactery rebuilds the body. The ring does not. Or are you saying that the Lord of the Rings is unintuitive for not having sauron's sould magically craft a body, since it can't depart?

Actually, the LotR series is rather unintuitive there. The ring houses Sauron's soul. However, all of his senses are based in a tower, far away from the ring's location. Such a thing would show that the soul is bound to both a location (which is a place of residence) and to an item. One could argue that the essence of Sauron is actually based on traditional ghost stories. They do account for a massive amount of undead folklore, actually. Reasoning: Sauron, upon his death, was bound to his ring. However, he still obviously had a connection with his place of residence in Mordor, as his awareness went there. Not to his location of destruction or to his ring, but to a location significant to him. That's a classic haunt belief. Spirits return to a location or item of importance. Sauron is unable to directly incfluence the world, but he can communicate with things still bound to serve him. The limitations of a non-physical form certainly bear a resemblance to many ghost stories, most of which predate the LotR.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 05:28 AM
Actually, the LotR series is rather unintuitive there. The ring houses Sauron's soul.

I don't think that's true at all. I don't recall anything in Tolkien to suggest that Sauron had a "soul" or that it was contained in the Ring. As a Maia Sauron was fundamentally different from mortal races and the metaphysics of Middle Earth doesn't much resemble that of D&D in any case (eg: what happens to Elves when they die).

In short, I don't think the exact mechanics of the workings of Sauron's Ring are very helpful as a point of comparison for a Lich's phylactery. Sauron wasn't undead and was never mortal to begin with.

Eldritch_Ent
2008-01-04, 07:13 AM
Sauron wasn't undead, Sauron was an outsider. Possibly with Divine Ranks. Big difference.


Anyway, I place my vote behind Lich's being reborn near their phylactery. It's intuitive, makes sense, and is interesting from a tactical standpoint. It makes it so the Lich can't ditch risking his soul if his body is destroyed by casting his Phylactery, say, into the Astral Plane or some other less-known infinite void plane, or incasing his Phylactery in 370 consecutive AMF'd adamantium bricks. Or other such horrendous cheese, as well as preventing him from reappearing by, say, lining his lair where his body lies with 370 consecutive Positive-energy variations of the Symbol of Death.