Alexander Moonbeam
*eyeroll*
A well-prepared lich can, of course, come back from anything. Getting ganged by a party of level-5 treasure-hunters might all be part of his master plan.
General Discussion
- Thread starter Beoric
- Start date
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I remember a time when I though the idea of anybody being crazy enough to work for a lich, EHP or supervillain was unrealistic. Now I could write their dialogue.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I forget, do 1e Liches have phylacteries?
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yes, although I don't think the re-spawning aspect was mentioned. And EGG defines a phylactery in the DMG as "An arm wrapping with a container holding religious writings, thus a form of amulet or charm," which suggests it is likely attached to the lich, so not really much of a safety feature.
That being said, I am pretty sure I was aware of the re-spawning trope before 3e came out. It must have come from somewhere, but not sure where.
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
This is for magic items that are phylacteries. A lich's phylactery is hidden, and if its not found the lich can't be permanently killed.
It's like a vampire's coffin. They're supposed to be incredibly hard to find. Not sitting in a big room waiting for you to stake them through as in Baldur's Gate 2. Beating a lich without knowing where their phylactery is before you engage with it, is nothing but inviting tremendous pain on yourself. You now have a tremendously capable enemy with zero time pressure desiring revenge.
In the open campaign setting the DMG presumes, this is going to be a slow-simmering nightmare.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Where is that written in 0e or 1e? It isn't in the lich entry in the MM, which says, "The lich passes from a state of humanity to a non-human, non-living existence through force of will. It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery." I did word searches in the MM and DMG and found nothing.
It is mentioned in the 2e Monstrous Manual, which says, "In order to ensure the final destruction of a lich, its body must be wholly annihilated and its phylactery must be sought out and destroyed in some manner."
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
It may have been in a module, or additional commentary in various TSR products. I know this wasn't something new in 2E.
Edit - Blueprint for a Lich article by Lakofka in Dragon 26. So this clarification was put out very shortly after the MM was published, and by someone in the TSR inner circle. The Lords of Darkness undead supplement (late 1E-era) also makes this explicit.
Edit - Blueprint for a Lich article by Lakofka in Dragon 26. So this clarification was put out very shortly after the MM was published, and by someone in the TSR inner circle. The Lords of Darkness undead supplement (late 1E-era) also makes this explicit.
Last edited:
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Did Gygax ever make use of the phylactery in his modules? The only lich I can think of (besides Acererak) was in D2 and I don't think that lich had a phylactery.
I remember that article by Lakofka. I saw it when it was in the Best of Dragon.
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I've not used most of the TSR modules so my knowledge of them is hit-and-miss. I don't recall any liches as the centerpiece of a module, more that (like in D2) they were just around to encounter.
But nothing about that precludes the phylactery as described in Dragon. Interpreting it as the magic item - a simple arm/forehead decoration - as noted, means it would be meaningless to include. Which is a good indicator that's not how it was intended to be interpreted.
But nothing about that precludes the phylactery as described in Dragon. Interpreting it as the magic item - a simple arm/forehead decoration - as noted, means it would be meaningless to include. Which is a good indicator that's not how it was intended to be interpreted.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
The phylactery magic item seems to be based mainly on the English definition of the word ("a small leather box containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law."), and it has direct bearing on the effects of said magic item (wasn't it a phylactery of faithfulness, which would warn you if you were going to do something that would break your clerical values?). From my brief Google search, it appears that 'phylactery' means amulet in Greek. This is probably what Gary was going for with the description of the lich in the MM.
I would surmise that the lich's phylactery didn't really become a thing until later in 1e. The evidence doesn't seem to show that Gygax embraced the idea that Lakofka expressed in Dragon #26. I wonder if the idea became more important in 2e with the removal of demons and devils. I remember reading that they upped the power of giants and dragons, in an attempt to make them high level replacements for demons and devils. Liches would also work, with the added benefit of reviving one of their attributes---the fact that the demon or devil wasn't permanently destroyed if killed in the prime material plane. You destroyed their physical form, but now you have an angry immortal being that wants revenge. You get the same thing with liches and their phylacteries, without the demonic 'taint' that Lorraine Williams seemed to have hated.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Is this a 1e thing? We encountered this last week in Barrowmaze. The guys dispatched a trio of vampires and followed their gaseous forms back to their coffins to stake them permanently, but questions in the group caused a quick check of the 3.5e MM where it says nothing about coffins and now I'm wondering if that's just a rule we carried over from our older campaigns...
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I'm also OK with people deciding that liches are just underweight threats in 1E and were written in such a way that this was somehow missed by everyone at the time, with a meaningless-to-play detail of a phylactery mysteriously appearing in the MM entry to no real purpose. No skin off my back.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't think anyone means any offence. I'm mostly curious if lich's and vampires fall under one of those weird D&D 'common law' categories.
Bad comparison maybe; but sorta like people saying gelatanEous or JubIlex instead of the correct names as written.
Although, I will fucking cut you if you come to my table spouting off palAHdin or caLvery or fucking "I hide in the foIlage".
Bad comparison maybe; but sorta like people saying gelatanEous or JubIlex instead of the correct names as written.
Although, I will fucking cut you if you come to my table spouting off palAHdin or caLvery or fucking "I hide in the foIlage".
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I just reviewed the Vampire entry on the d20 SRD (not ideal but close enough for non-union work). It's there. It's not expressly spelled out though.
There have always been multiple ways to slay vampires (stakes, the sun, etc). Vampires have fast healing and will immediately turn gaseous at 0 hp. The entry mentions the coffin under the fast healing entry, as that's where they are forced to go to recover if brought to 0 hp.
Here's one for you. Halberds aren't reach weapons in 3.x
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
nice. weird common-law blind spots.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Gary seemed to like to keep things unsaid. It's like he was thinking that his readers should be able to figure out things for themselves. Who does he thing he is!?!
I'm reminded of this when reading reviews of modules like D2* and D3. Those modules were very open ended and left to the DM to implement. My 12 year old self** was certainly not up to the task.
* Oops! The lich in our previous discussion was actually in D1, not D2 or G3.
** I recently scanned Dragondoom, my 13 year old response to Dragonlance, into a PDF. It's awful. I almost want to publish it and ask Bryce to review it, because sometimes I'm a right, evil BASTARD.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I rediscovered one of those in a pile of papers the other day. Like 20 or 30 levels of dungeon, (totally rad) illustrations for every single room in (probably scented. Cherry errr Red is the best you guys!) marker. There's been a lot of attention given to idiot-savant/childlike-mind modules published on dtrpg. I'm trying to resist...
I was wondering. I read about him first in that GDQ mega module that just sorta fudged G3 and D1 together. I havn't reread it since I collected the original adventures.
I would have loved to have done a word search for phylactery on a PDF of H4 this morning. god DAMN the man who shut down the Trove!
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I got curious and googled the history of liches and their phylacteries and I found this.
Well researched but...ugh. Nope. Wasn't meant to be anti-Semitic, sorry.
Anyway, yes, it appears the phylactery as a means of the Lich to resist a final death didn't become a thing until 2nd edition.
Well researched but...ugh. Nope. Wasn't meant to be anti-Semitic, sorry.
Anyway, yes, it appears the phylactery as a means of the Lich to resist a final death didn't become a thing until 2nd edition.