Dread Necromancer, Level 20

[Necroticplague]

What happens if a DN isn't a humanoid when they hit level 20? Do they still get the lich template, even though they aren't a valid target for it? Would they not get the lich template (because they don't qualify), but still get the other parts of that class feature (undead, no con, reroll HD)?

[sideswipe]

Look, the real problem here is that it refers you to page 307 of the Monster Manual. In the absence of that text, if all we had was "becomes a lich", then yes, you would be correct. However, what we do have is mechanics that tell us to add ONLY the undead traits found on page 307, and NOT the lich traits on page 165 (which INCLUDES the undead traits on 307, plus some extras).

When it comes to RAW discussions, what's in the text is what matters. That's how an objective, dispassionate discussion of rules works. Your snide tone of dismissal of "you act like it's a magical phrase" contributes nothing constructive to such a discussion, and conveys a sense of empty arrogance to the reader that really makes me think that you do not understand the minutiae of a dissection of RAW.

I am not advocating that a DM not give a level 20 DN the lich template. I believe that was the intent of the rules, and the DN is a class otherwise narrow enough in focus that it doesn't really hurt game balance to give it to them, especially at level 20, when game balance (especially for spellcasters) is largely a joke anyways. The difference being that I am capable of a level of objective perspective where I can step back, look solely at what is in print in the rules and say "yes, the RAW only grant the undead traits on page 307 of the Monster Manual and give the DN a phylactery. They do not inherit the lich template on page 165." I say this because that is what is in the text.

This is what RAW means. Rules As Written. And in an in-depth discussion of RAW, only what is WRITTEN matters. D&D is a game. It has rules. And those rules are a system. "Common Sense" does not hold up in such a discussion, because the rules of a system need to be explicit to prevent exploits and loopholes, and more importantly, to provide clarity for "proper" function (the word "proper" gets quotes there because I personally maintain that D&D is a game that thrives on variation and houserules. As long as your group is having fun, there is no "wrong" way to play). The OP was asking for what the "official" answer was in regards to this issue, not what "common sense" dictates. So everyone who wants to jump in with their 2 cents about how "lich" meaning "lich template" should somehow just be a fact we should accept is WRONG. Everyone here who says that people are just "looking too much into it" is WRONG. Because that is not how a RAW discussion works. You back up what you claim to be true with FACTS. You provide citations for your facts, this means page numbers, so that anyone else who doubts you can check your sources. And nothing that isn't printed in black and white in an official source is true.

Do such discussions get a little anal-retentive and detail-oriented? Yes. But they're also usually technically correct. The intent of such discussion is usually to find flaws in the system, either for exploitation or for potential correction (although with this system, now 2 editions in WotC's past, I think it's safe to say that the ship has sailed), or for clarification on how something mechanically works. If such an in-depth discussion is not something you are willing to engage in, then don't post. But for crying out loud, nothing constructive is added by jumping in and saying "it's common sense", or "it works if you don't look too deeply at it". Saying things like "the rules don't say you don't get it, so that means you do" is even worse, because that's Munchkin Fallacy.

So unless you've got some ACTUAL TEXT that explicitly states that the lich template is applied, then either acknowledge that the RAW does not apply it (even if you think that such was an oversight or a mistake on WotC's part), or stop posting in the discussion. If you have some actual RAW support for your point, the please, by all means, provide it, along with all appropriate citations. I love in-depth discussions. No vitriol or malice on my part, I love to argue and debate. I'd be really interested to see if there was actually some conflicting rules. But only what is WRITTEN IN THE BOOK (to include errata) constitutes Proof.

hear hear. well said.

[danzibr]

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.

Why do people say this?

[atemu1234]

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.

Yes, depending on what you were doing.

[SinsI]

According to MM, "A Lich is an undead spellcaster, who has used its magical powers to unnaturally extend its life".
"Lich template" is only one of the ways to become a Lich, and quite a restrictive one - Drakoliches and Dread Necromancers are some of the other ones.
I don't see any problem with that - D&D is full of alternative rules and methods. You can easily create a Lich Monster Class as an alternative to the template and it would be just as viable.

[sideswipe]

Look, if you're seriously claiming that the fact that "lich" has a lowercase L proves your point, you have stopped making arguments at all. Just give up.

actually in a RAW debate with something as specific as thi sthat make a whole lot of difference. if it was a Noun for the Lich template then it would be capitalised. since it is not then it is an adjective, which is indications that it is a descriptive term. which in turn means it is more likely to be fluff text then a Rules application.

again i am going to say that it is the intent to give you the lich template probably, but in RAW it does not for quite a few reasons.

grammer is the difference between-

I helped my Uncle Jack, off his horse.
And
I helped my uncle jack off his horse.

[sideswipe]

For another comment on the lich versus Lich thing, while we here on the forums like to capitalize it, the MM does not.

In the MM, lich = a specific template. Then it states the properties of a lich. To state someone is a lich without those properties contradicts the MM.

i just checked my monster manual, what you have stated is half true. in all parts of FLUFF text the lich is not capitalised. however, in all instances of rules including what you just quoted it IS capitalised.

[danzibr]

i just checked my monster manual, what you have stated is half true. in all parts of FLUFF text the lich is not capitalised. however, in all instances of rules including what you just quoted it IS capitalised.

Huh. Where are you seeing this? I only see it capitalized in titles and at the beginning of sentences.

btw I love your sig.

[sideswipe]

Huh. Where are you seeing this? I only see it capitalized in titles and at the beginning of sentences.

btw I love your sig.

i guess it may be that "lich" is the first word of that sentance. but still it is capitalised there...

Spoiler

Show

i could go into a silly side discussion that you can never gain the lich template due to an awkwardly placed capital letter that means that you are granted the lich template which gives nothing where as the Lich template grants everything but has no method of applying it, or vice versa depending on how it reads but im not digressing more.

and thank you

[danzibr]

i guess it may be that "lich" is the first word of that sentance. but still it is capitalised there...

Spoiler

Show

i could go into a silly side discussion that you can never gain the lich template due to an awkwardly placed capital letter that means that you are granted the lich template which gives nothing where as the Lich template grants everything but has no method of applying it, or vice versa depending on how it reads but im not digressing more.

and thank you

Uhh... I mean, coming at the start of a sentence, of course it's capitalized. I don't get your point.

But even in the crunch, it's all lower case.

[sideswipe]

Uhh... I mean, coming at the start of a sentence, of course it's capitalized. I don't get your point.

But even in the crunch, it's all lower case.

the spoiler point was a jokey one. it can be ignored

[RedMage125]

First off, sideswipe, I love everything you've posted. Even the cheeky bits.

Spoiler

Show

Grammar saves lives:
Let's eat, Grandma!
Let's eat Grandma!

Also, I want to "like" all your posts relevant to the point.

Ya know, I feel my last two posts contributed to the conversation, yet were totally ignored. If this thread has been reduced to RedMage v. Bravo, I'll just step out.

I apologize if you have felt ignored. I felt that your points were more elaborately discussed elsewhere, and did not feel the need to re-hash what had already been said. That is not to denigrate your contribution, but rather that I felt that I had nothing to say that had not already been said.

The issue is that if "becomes a lich" doesn't mean acquiring the lich template, what exactly does it mean? It's part of the rules text, not separated in any way, and it has a coherent meaning within the rules. Saying that it should be considered flavor text only, because it could be worded in a way more consistent with other PrCs, seems like a pretty big stretch.

I mean, if you had the ability:
"Martial Skillz (Ex): A 20th level Dread Necromancer has power attack and cleave."
Would you say that this is moot because it didn't use the phrasing:
"gains the Power Attack and Cleave feats"?

This is a tangent with no real contribution. If you can find an actual example of text like this that shows that the RAW has been printed this way, then it could be relevant to our discussion. As it is, all examples of specific feats being granted use the words "you gain X feat".

Why do people say this?

That is in reference to the much-touted "Necromancer Handbook" that can probably be found with a Google search. you'll get a thread on the WotC boards.
And on that note...

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.

I really hope you're just being cheeky. If so, then it gave me a chuckle. That Handbook has some good advice, but the claim that DN is "only 8 levels long" on the premise that the rest of the class sucks too much to take any more of is silly. It's a decent Tier 3 class. And while the level 8 ability is pretty dern awesome, I wouldn't want to give up my higher level spells by multiclassing anywhere else. Plus, the flavor for it is great. I've got a great concept for one that unfortunately I did not get to play because the Navy gave me new orders in another state.

Well, no, we would obviously look at the next sentence "he can make melee attacks (page XX)", and conclude that all the capstone gave him was the ability to make melee attacks.

If you're done strawmanning, I thought I asked you to stop with the passive-aggressive personal attacks. I'm willing to debate politely if you are.

Why would the section to explain the new type point to the template? That sentence is about the type changing, the fact that it points to a new type doesn't mean anything.

Why would the class ability that YOU claim adds a template point to the template?

If it adds the template, it should point to the template, this particular template includes all changes of type in it. The Lich template says "the creatures type changes to undead". That means that any creature which gains the lich template already gains all the undead traits from page 317 of the Monster Manual. So IF the lich template was being indicated, the text pointing to the undead type entry on the glossary (page 317) would be redundant, because the template already directs one there by virtue of changing type in the template.

Look, I'll create an example to highlight what I am saying. If a Prestige class said "you become a celestial. Your type changes to Outsider, and you gain all benefits of the outsider type (see page 313 of the Monster Manual)", would you honestly argue that you gain the Celestial Creature template, and try and argue that you get Smite Evil and DR and resistances based on your HD? Or no, because that template doesn't change one's type to Outsider, would you try and argue for the even more powerful Half-Celestial template? Or would you read that as what the text says, which is "your type changes to outsider"?

You do understand that the RAW isn't on your side here, right? The only unambiguous ruling (general case) on bonus feats is from the MM, where the description of bonus feats states that you don't need to meet the prerequisites for them.

Again, condescending tone. And I looked at the entry you spoke of. It does not support your claim as well as you'd like me to believe. (Also, in the future, for proper debating purposes, please cite the page number when claiming citation from RAW)
Monster Manual, page 7, under the "Feats" entry for monsters says this: "Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites."
Most creatures do not have class levels, but they get feats based off Hit Dice, in the same progression that players do (1st, 3rd, 6th, etc). Any feats apart from that are bonus feats unique to that creature type. So...they work in the same manner as a racial bonus feat. The Muckdweller race (Serpent kingdoms) gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, such a character could still use the feat, even if he chose a class that didn't have a +1 BAB at first level, because it is a racial trait, much like elven weapon proficiencies, halfling luck bonus to saves, dwarven stonecunning, etc. They even specify (bolded part) that you cannot change those bonus feats, because those are the racial traits.

Also, my point isn't about what the rule is for Monks, Fighters, or bonus feats. It's about assuming things based on the presence, absence, or contents of clarifying text being a terrible idea.

I'm sorry, but this is not a problem with me. It's with your perception. As sideswipe and I have both pointed out, this is how a RAW discussion works. If you don't want to engage in debate that works that way, don't get into detailed RAW discussions.

You mean, it hinges on assuming English words mean the things the mean? The horror! You are assuming that D&D is consistently written in a "game language" that has unambiguous meanings. That's just ... not true. For example, the Factotum uses "encounter" to define when it gets IP, despite the fact that the rules don't actually define an encounter.

So...things in D&D can only mean what they mean in the English language? So no Evil variant paladins (such as Tyranny and Slaughter from Unearthed Arcana) can exist because "paladin" in English means "knight renowned for heroism and chivalry" or "champion of a noble cause".
I guess warlocks can only mean "oath-breakers".
Druids have no business turning into animals, since the word refers to specific priests of real-world Celtic peoples who could not do that.
Clerics without a deity should not be allowed, since "cleric" specifically means a member of a clergy.
Medusae should not be a race of monsters because "Medusa" was a specific named individual (one of three Gorgon sisters) in Greek mythology.

Do you see why that breaks down?

YOU assume that D&D is somehow NOT written in a "game language".

Side Note: For an example of a game that is written in a "game language", look at a MTG card designed in the last five or ten years. All of those cards are written in a formal language where the only words and phrases used have a concrete game meaning.

So you think that the same company that produces both of those games decided one game needed formal "game language", but the other one could just fly with loose, ambiguous wording?

What the hell do you think "becomes a lich" means? Lich is a term with game meaning, specifically the lich template. The phrase "becomes an X" means that you start out as something else and then become an X.

SinsI brought up a great point, something I touched on in my last post, and my response to him below will answer this.

Becomes a lich is therefore the common form of the game term "acquires the lich template."

You have yet to provide text from any RAW source that explicitly says this statement is true.

Your argument only makes any sense at all if you assume both that the game is written with perfect efficiency and in a perfectly unambiguous language. Spoilers: Neither of those things are true.

Once again, you seem to not understand what sideswipe and I have been saying about what a detailed RAW discussion is all about. RAW discussions are all about anal-retentive, detail-ridden, nitpicky breakdowns of minutiae and technicalities. So yes. A RAW discussion only accepts as absolutely true what is written in concise verbage in the text. Perfectly unambiguous language is necessary to prove something as FACT in a RAW discussion.

If that is a manner of discussion you are not comfortable participating in, please feel free to concede the point and bow out. Otherwise, support your claims with RAW quotes that say what you claim in unambiguous language.

For that matter, do you also believe that any Dread Necromancer with two arms and two legs gets the capstone because the phrase "a dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature" doesn't cite to the rules for the humanoid type?

You mean like a Mind Flayer? Correct, a Mind Flayer is an Aberration, not a humanoid, and does not gain the benefits.

What happens if a DN isn't a humanoid when they hit level 20? Do they still get the lich template, even though they aren't a valid target for it? Would they not get the lich template (because they don't qualify), but still get the other parts of that class feature (undead, no con, reroll HD)?

They get nothing, because the undead type is still a part of that same capstone ability, and it specifically says that a creature who is not a humanoid does not gain the "Lich Transformation" ability at all.

According to MM, "A Lich is an undead spellcaster, who has used its magical powers to unnaturally extend its life".
"Lich template" is only one of the ways to become a Lich, and quite a restrictive one - Drakoliches and Dread Necromancers are some of the other ones.
I don't see any problem with that - D&D is full of alternative rules and methods. You can easily create a Lich Monster Class as an alternative to the template and it would be just as viable.

This is an excellent point, and one I kind of touched on earlier.

A level 11+ Wizard, Sorcerer or Cleric with the lich template is a kind of lich.
A Dracolich is a template that can make a dragon into a draconic lich.
A level 10 Walker in the Wastes becomes a dry lich.
An Alhoon is a Mind Flayer template that basically allows the lich template from the Monster Manual to apply to a mind flayer, even though it is not a humanoid. Still must meet spellcasting prerequisites though.
And a level 20 Dread Necromancer is another kind.

All of these liches are different, but share many qualities. Most have a fear aura (dry lich does not). Most have a paralyzing touch (Dread Necro and dry lich do not). Dread Necro and Alhoon have a touch attack that does damage to living creatures with negative energy. All have damage reduction (only dracolich is not "bludgeoning and magic", but since most dragons have DR/magic anyway and keep that trait, it's almost a moot point). All of them have a phylactery in some form or another.

Like I pointed out before, the fear aura, charnel touch, DR...combined with being an undead creature with a phylactery...these make a being who is very similar to a lich with the template. So I think, perhaps, that SinsI may have the truth of it. A truth that keeps to the RAW (that DN's do not get the template) while still keeping to the fluff of being a "lich".

I think it's an acceptable compromise. I know that's just an opinion, but it sounds pretty good.

[danzibr]

I apologize if you have felt ignored. I felt that your points were more elaborately discussed elsewhere, and did not feel the need to re-hash what had already been said. That is not to denigrate your contribution, but rather that I felt that I had nothing to say that had not already been said.

Hmm, well thanks RedMage!

I read the whole thread and didn't pick up on the definition bit. I'll have to peruse it again...

And after a quick check, lich is not in the D&D glossary. We only have the lich = the specific template to go off of, but it seems sufficient.

[ZamielVanWeber]

What happens if a DN isn't a humanoid when they hit level 20? Do they still get the lich template, even though they aren't a valid target for it? Would they not get the lich template (because they don't qualify), but still get the other parts of that class feature (undead, no con, reroll HD)?

If it applies the lich template then a non-humanoid gets nothing. It if simply grants undead type it would change their type to undead. The template lists nothing that would allow it to illegally apply the lich template (unlike Death Master).

[atemu1234]

If it applies the lich template then a non-humanoid gets nothing. It if simply grants undead type it would change their type to undead. The template lists nothing that would allow it to illegally apply the lich template (unlike Death Master).

It might be partly me just ignoring RAW (I really don't care about this argument, either way), but I interpret it as applying the template. Though to be fair, I completely ignore alignment restrictions, and even allowed Ur-Priest to require Spell Focus (Any Alignment).

So I don't have a good track record with this.

[Necroticplague]

It might be partly me just ignoring RAW (I really don't care about this argument, either way), but I interpret it as applying the template. Though to be fair, I completely ignore alignment restrictions, and even allowed Ur-Priest to require Spell Focus (Any Alignment).

So I don't have a good track record with this.

How can it apply the template if you aren't a valid creature for it? Lich can only be applied to humanoids.

[atemu1234]

actually in a RAW debate with something as specific as thi sthat make a whole lot of difference. if it was a Noun for the Lich template then it would be capitalised. since it is not then it is an adjective, which is indications that it is a descriptive term. which in turn means it is more likely to be fluff text then a Rules application.

again i am going to say that it is the intent to give you the lich template probably, but in RAW it does not for quite a few reasons.

grammer is the difference between-

I helped my Uncle Jack, off his horse.
And
I helped my uncle jack off his horse.

That's punctuation, not capitalization.

[Brova]

but the claim that DN is "only 8 levels long" on the premise that the rest of the class sucks too much to take any more of is silly. It's a decent Tier 3 class. And while the level 8 ability is pretty dern awesome, I wouldn't want to give up my higher level spells by multiclassing anywhere else.

What? When people say the DN is 8 levels long, they mean that you should take a prestige class that advances casting after taking at levels of it. By level 8 you have all the class features you care about, so you take levels of Rainbow Servant or something.

If a Prestige class said "you become a celestial. Your type changes to Outsider, and you gain all benefits of the outsider type (see page 313 of the Monster Manual)", would you honestly argue that you gain the Celestial Creature template, and try and argue that you get Smite Evil and DR and resistances based on your HD?

No, because the argument I'm making is based on an important linguistic technicality. In the instance of the Celestial Creature template, the common form of "acquires the celestial creature template" isn't "becomes a celestial", it's "becomes a celestial creature" or possibly "becomes celestial". In this case, "celestial" is a game term for "good outsider" so at best you might be able to argue you should get the good subtype.

Monster Manual, page 7, under the "Feats" entry for monsters says this: "Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites."

The specific rule you want is on page 301: "(It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.)"

Also, you seem to agree anyway, so I'm not really sure why you're arguing.

So...things in D&D can only mean what they mean in the English language?

Nice strawman.

So you think that the same company that produces both of those games decided one game needed formal "game language", but the other one could just fly with loose, ambiguous wording?

Yes. You know the reason that I said "from the last five or ten years"? Because there was a point where MTG was written like D&D is. Where it did in fact explain things conversationally rather than spell them out in a "game language". And that was a pain, because MTG is a competitive game and the pressures on it to be clear, precise, and balanced are much stronger than the pressures on D&D. It's the same reason that the D&D team printed wishing for items and The Shadow Over The Sun as its broken stuff (things which destroy the entire game), and the MTG team printed Affinity and Jitte as its broken stuff (things which make certain strategies too good). The MTG team is more competent than the D&D team was, and that was before Mearls started running the show. /rant

A RAW discussion only accepts as absolutely true what is written in concise verbage in the text.

You mean like "becomes a lich". Okay, how about this. What if "becomes a lich" was the only text of the capstone. No cite to the lich template, but bit about becoming undead either. What does a level 20 DN get then. Nothing?

You mean like a Mind Flayer? Correct, a Mind Flayer is an Aberration, not a humanoid, and does not gain the benefits.

Ah, but much like the phrase "become a lich" the phrase "is not a humaniod" does not cite to any rules text. Why are we to assume that humanoid is being used in its game meaning but that lich is not?

[RedMage125]

What? When people say the DN is 8 levels long, they mean that you should take a prestige class that advances casting after taking at levels of it. By level 8 you have all the class features you care about, so you take levels of Rainbow Servant or something.

The rest of DN is still worth taking was my point. That Handbook had some good advice, but a great deal of it was very closed minded.

The specific rule you want is on page 301: "(It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.)"

That is under the section for making brand new monsters from scratch, which would mean making up racial traits for them. You either missed that or are trying to be deliberately deceptive by claiming that such is somehow a general rule for bonus feats.

Nice strawman.

I had to chuckle at this. You accusing me of that is laughable in light of your posts up to this point. That wasn't a strawman, that was me highlighting a few examples of other things in D&D that DON'T mean what they do in English. I am well aware that you were not arguing for those.

You mean like "becomes a lich". Okay, how about this. What if "becomes a lich" was the only text of the capstone. No cite to the lich template, but bit about becoming undead either. What does a level 20 DN get then. Nothing?

That's the distinction between fluff and crunch. This is the point of the conversation.

Ah, but much like the phrase "become a lich" the phrase "is not a humaniod" does not cite to any rules text. Why are we to assume that humanoid is being used in its game meaning but that lich is not?

So either
A) DN does not apply the lich template, but the level 20 capstone specifies that a non-humanoid does not get the capstone ability, so a Mind Flayer DN20 is still not undead.
or
B) DN does grant the template, but since the template does not apply to aberrations, a Mind Flayer DN 20 is STILL not undead.

I don't understand why you would argue that a mind flayer WOULD receive the capstone benefits.

[Brova]

The rest of DN is still worth taking was my point. That Handbook had some good advice, but a great deal of it was very closed minded.

For what exactly? Light fortification and some extra ways to kill fools in melee? I'm not sold on that being better than even grabbing Incantatrix and some cool spells to persist via Arcane Disciple.

That is under the section for making brand new monsters from scratch, which would mean making up racial traits for them. You either missed that or are trying to be deliberately deceptive by claiming that such is somehow a general rule for bonus feats.

So where exactly do you think the general rule for bonus feats is? That refers to "bonus feats". In fact, every instance that refers to "bonus feats" in the MM is about getting them without the prerequisites, such as mindless creatures still getting bonus feats.

I had to chuckle at this. You accusing me of that is laughable in light of your posts up to this point. That wasn't a strawman, that was me highlighting a few examples of other things in D&D that DON'T mean what they do in English. I am well aware that you were not arguing for those.

You missed the boat on this one. Those are words that are being defined with game meaning. For example, while "druid" normally refers to a priest for a certain subset of religions, in D&D it refers to a class that turns into a bear. That's obviously distinct from an English phrase like "becomes a lich".

So either
A) DN does not apply the lich template, but the level 20 capstone specifies that a non-humanoid does not get the capstone ability, so a Mind Flayer DN20 is still not undead.
or
B) DN does grant the template, but since the template does not apply to aberrations, a Mind Flayer DN 20 is STILL not undead.

I don't understand why you would argue that a mind flayer WOULD receive the capstone benefits.

I don't, because I recognize that "not a humanoid" is a common English phrase for the game English phrase "does not have the humanoid type", just like "becomes a lich" is common English for the game English phrase "acquires the lich template". You can't have this both ways. Either "becomes a lich" not having a rules citation means it is using "lich" in the common sense of "undead spellcaster", and therefore "not a humanoid" is using "humanoid" in the common sense of "has two arms, two legs, etc" or the reverse. If your logic that DN 20 doesn't grant the lich template holds, it is necessarily true that the capstone applies to Mind Flayers, because they are "humanoid" in the common sense.

[RedMage125]

For what exactly? Light fortification and some extra ways to kill fools in melee? I'm not sold on that being better than even grabbing Incantatrix and some cool spells to persist via Arcane Disciple.

I didn't say those weren't good options, too. I'm just saying that acting like DN is "only" worth taking 8 levels of is closed-minded and overly harsh. And since we're talking about the capstone of the 20 level class here, I'm frankly surprised to see you advocating for the "8 level class" thing.

So where exactly do you think the general rule for bonus feats is? That refers to "bonus feats". In fact, every instance that refers to "bonus feats" in the MM is about getting them without the prerequisites, such as mindless creatures still getting bonus feats.

I've never expressed an issue with any kind of "general rule" on bonus feats, but the rule for FEATS in general is that you must meet the prerequisite. I don't know why you would assume that "bonus feats" (which simply means feats gained outside of the ones at 1,3,6,9,etc Hit Dice) are any different. The "general rule for bonus feats" follows all normal general rules for feats, the exception being that you get one outside the normal HD progression, as well as any other stipulations that apply (fighters must choose form a specific list, wizards must choose metamagic, item creation, etc.).
Plenty of races and monster types get bonus feats. Lycanthropes all get Iron Will, for example. The part you quoted is in the section on Making Monsters from scratch, so I have no idea why you would assume that what is printed there is some kind of "general rule" for feats gained. Making a Monster from scratch is very much akin to making a race from scratch, since monsters and players use the same basic rules. Other races get bonus feats, some of which they don't meet any prerequisites for(Muckdweller getting Weapon Finesse is a great example).

You missed the boat on this one. Those are words that are being defined with game meaning. For example, while "druid" normally refers to a priest for a certain subset of religions, in D&D it refers to a class that turns into a bear. That's obviously distinct from an English phrase like "becomes a lich".

Once again, the minutiae of a RAW discussion seems to be what you seem to be having a problem with here.

I don't, because I recognize that "not a humanoid" is a common English phrase for the game English phrase "does not have the humanoid type", just like "becomes a lich" is common English for the game English phrase "acquires the lich template". You can't have this both ways. Either "becomes a lich" not having a rules citation means it is using "lich" in the common sense of "undead spellcaster", and therefore "not a humanoid" is using "humanoid" in the common sense of "has two arms, two legs, etc" or the reverse. If your logic that DN 20 doesn't grant the lich template holds, it is necessarily true that the capstone applies to Mind Flayers, because they are "humanoid" in the common sense.

What? How do you get that? I am not arguing that we should use the "common sense" of the word humanoid. To the contrary, I have been saying that we should NOT be using "common sense of the word" in this discussion, because it is a RAW discussion. It is only by YOUR logic that a mind flayer would get benefit from the capstone, because mind flayers are only humanoid in the "common sense" of the word, and you argue that "becomes a lich" is the "common sense" of "acquires the lich template" (which is paradoxical because the lich template explicitly requires the humanoid type).
Let me ask you this. Would you allow Charm Person to work on a mind flayer? The text says "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."
Seriously, you're trying to tell me that my argument amounts to "if you DON'T use 'common sense of the word' regarding the template, then you HAVE to use the 'common sense of the word' regarding the word 'humanoid'". Which is nonsensical to me. Why would I adhere to a "common sense of the word" for :humanoid" if I don't for the phrase "becomes a lich"? Mind flayers are not humanoids, that much is very clear in the game. Aasimars are nearly identical to humans, but they are not "humanoids". A hill giant looks just like a size category large human (with down syndrome), and it is not a "humanoid" in any game term sense.

So let's look at it this way. Let's play a little game where for a brief moment, we open our minds and see what would happen if the other was right.
If we hypothetically suppose you are right, and we adhere to "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone. Then level 20 Dread Necros gain the lich template. This also means that Mind Flayer DNs gain the lich template as well, because "common sense of the word" for "humanoid" applies to them. But the lich template cannot be applied to a mind flayer (Alhoon is, by game definitions, a separate template from "lich"). So now we have a paradox of rules because a creature who is not a humanoid gained a humanoid-only template. Does it still gain the undead traits on page 317, then? If we're using the "common sense of the word" for "humanoid", then he doesn't get NO benefit from the capstone ability, right? What does a mind flayer DN get at level 20?
If we suppose I am right, and ignore any kind of "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone, what happens? Well, DN's just become Undead at level 20. So they are now an undead spellcaster with a phylactery, who has some DR/bludgeoning and magic, has a touch attack, and a fear aura. Very similar to a lich with the template, but not exactly the same, either. Also, mind flayers get nothing from the capstone because they are not "humanoids", they are aberrations.
Now, I get that you were playing Devil's Advocate with the mind flayer bit, because it seems to me that you believe the rules would allow a human DN20 to acquire the lich template, but that a mind flayer DN would get no benefit. But in order for the capstone to work 100% like you say it does, then you have to use "common sense of the word" for the phrase "becomes a lich", and ignore "common sense of the word" for "humanoid", applying only what the game term for "humanoid" is, which is inconsistent.

So we either A) only use "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone, which results in a rules paradox of non-humanoid-type DNs being able to acquire a humanoid-only template; B) Assume no "common sense of the word" anywhere in the language and we get rules-consistent results across the board, but a humanoid DN lacks the MM lich template (but remains an undead spellcaster with a phylactery, who has some DR/bludgeoning and magic, has a touch attack, and a fear aura); or C) We pick-and-choose when to apply "common sense of the word" and when not to, in order to avoid a rules paradox, and still get the template for our humanoid DNs.

From my perspective, B is the only acceptable route (for RAW discussion purposes) because it is the only consistent method which does not create a paradox of the rules. To cherry-pick when to apply the RAW and when not to is trying to twist the RAW for one's own gain.

Now, that is just from a strict-RAW perspective. I absolutely think that a DN should get the lich template, because it's not that overpowered (I have addressed earlier the issues regarding the LA, and how I think that at level 20, +4 is too harsh). I believe it is POSSIBLE that the Rules As Intended was to give the template, but I have no way to be sure. HOWEVER, I am able to separate my opinion from fact, and I acknowledge that applying the template would be a houserule. I am not so arrogant as to assume that just because I can CHOOSE to look at the RAW askance a certain way, that the RAW supports my opinions and houserules, and that they somehow hold objective weight in a RAW discussion. It takes a special kind of myopic hubris to argue that one's own opinions are somehow so vital and universal that they hold weight as fact. Thankfully, I don't go that far.

[nolongerchaos]

Alright, so it seems to me that the argument against gaining the lich template stems from the following:
1) the class ability notably lacks the text "acquires the lich template"
and, to a lesser extent:
2) the text leads us to the undead type, rather than the lich template.

Flipping through the MM however, I glanced at the Mohrg entry and the Create Spawn ability doesn't seem to explicitly state that spawn of a Zohrg gain the zombie template. Wow. It doesn't even reference the page number of the zombie template.

This seems to imply that abilities can apply specifically mentioned templates without the need to explicitly mention that a creature acquires a template after having already stating that it becomes that kind of creature, nor does it seem to be strictly necessary to refer to the page concerning the template. Well, that or by the exact same logic that the DN ability doesn't grant the lich template, Mohrgs have a Create Spawn ability that, again using the exact same "RAW", creates a unique, undefined variety of zombie, different from the entry in the MM since the MM template is not explicitly stated to be applied to Mohrg spawn, nor is it even referenced.

In related news, clearly even Core isn't uniform about whether or not things need to be explicitly spelled out regarding templates, given the discrepancy between the texts of Dragon Disciple and Mohrg.

[Necroticplague]

Alright, so it seems to me that the argument against gaining the lich template stems from the following:
1) the class ability notably lacks the text "acquires the lich template"
and, to a lesser extent:
2) the text leads us to the undead type, rather than the lich template.

And on this page:

3) Interpreting that it gains the template produces a dysfunction if the DN is not Humanoid.

[Brova]

For clarity, the simplest form of my argument. Both lich and humanoid have common meanings and game meanings. They are as follows:

Lich - Normal: An undead spellcaster.
Lich - Game: The lich template.
Humanoid - Normal: A creature with two arms, two legs, one head, etc.
Humanoid - Game: A creature of the humanoid type.

There are two pertinent sentences from the Dread Necromancer capstone class feature:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature."

Both of these sentences use a word with a game meaning and a normal meaning. Therefore, we have to choose one of those meanings when parsing them. In order to have a consistent interpretation, we have to use either the game meanings for both or the normal meanings for both.

If we chose the normal meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes an undead spellcaster."
2. "A dread necromancer who does not have two arms, two legs, one head, etc does not gain this class feature."

RedMage believes the first is correct, and that a Dread Necromancer merely becomes undead and has some lich-like traits at 20th level. Therefore it is necessarily true that he believes that anyone possessing of two arms, two legs, one head, etc (such as a Mind Flayer) gains the capstone.

If we chose the game meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and gains the lich template."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not of the humanoid type does not gain this class feature."

This is what I believe. In both cases, a common English word is used in the place of a rules English concept that is somewhat more complex.

There are other arguments I have advanced, but this seems to be the one RedMage is currently "debating".

What? How do you get that? I am not arguing that we should use the "common sense" of the word humanoid. To the contrary, I have been saying that we should NOT be using "common sense of the word" in this discussion, because it is a RAW discussion.

Okay, but you realize this is game over for your position, right? If we are going to use words in the game sense, lich means the lich template. You can't "become a lich" without the lich template from a game rules perspective. Just as you can't be "humanoid" without the humanoid type.

It is only by YOUR logic that a mind flayer would get benefit from the capstone, because mind flayers are only humanoid in the "common sense" of the word, and you argue that "becomes a lich" is the "common sense" of "acquires the lich template" (which is paradoxical because the lich template explicitly requires the humanoid type). Let me ask you this. Would you allow Charm Person to work on a mind flayer? The text says "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."

No, because "humanoid creature" is the normal English form of a rules concept - the humanoid type. You are the one who is arguing that normal English is interchangeable with rules English for the humanoid type but not the lich template.

So we either A) only use "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone, which results in a rules paradox of non-humanoid-type DNs being able to acquire a humanoid-only template

You are confusing the term of art "common sense" with the phrase "common sense". The first refers to specific things that we consider to be "obvious" or "simple". For example, it is common sense that you should not punch bears in the face. The second refers to the normal meaning of a phrase - the common sense rather than some, other, more obscure sense. For example, the common sense of the word bear is a large, furry mammal but the uncommon sense of the word bear is a slang term for a gay man. Perhaps "normal sense" is more useful than "common sense" for this usage.

[Brova]

And on this page:

3) Interpreting that it gains the template produces a dysfunction if the DN is not Humanoid.

Well, no. Because if you are parsing "becomes a lich" as "gains the lich template", you also parse "not a humanoid" as "doesn't have the humanoid type".{scrubbed}

[nolongerchaos]

And on this page:

3) Interpreting that it gains the template produces a dysfunction if the DN is not Humanoid.

How is this even part of discussion?

A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature.

[Necroticplague]

How is this even part of discussion?

Derp, I missed that part. Never mind.

EDIT: and then I read what Brova said, clears that issue up solidly.

[danzibr]

How is this even part of discussion?

There are two pertinent sentences from the Dread Necromancer capstone class feature:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature."

[...]

Now, I was in favor of the DN gaining the lich template from the beginning (with a shred of doubt), but now I have no doubt.

It's as simple as lich = thing with specific template, become a lich = gain the specific template (I mean, it might take convincing to get there, but this is really what is boils down to). The first = is due to the definition found in MM, and the second = is due to how ``become'' is used in D&D (and, well, regular English too).

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[RedMage125]

Okay, but you realize this is game over for your position, right? If we are going to use words in the game sense, lich means the lich template. You can't "become a lich" without the lich template from a game rules perspective. Just as you can't be "humanoid" without the humanoid type.

Negative. And once again, since you did not respond to it last time I said it, you have provided no RAW quotes to support the text that I have put in bold. You are ASSUMING that it is somehow a "given" of the argument from a starting point.

And also, you can become a lich without the lich template from the Monster Manual.
Dracolich template
Alhoon template
Dry Lich template (aka capstone of Walker in the Wastes PrC)
And finally, capstone of Dread Necromancer.

All of these are a kind of "lich".

No, because "humanoid creature" is the normal English form of a rules concept - the humanoid type. You are the one who is arguing that normal English is interchangeable with rules English for the humanoid type but not the lich template.

I am absolutely not, and spelled it out for you in my last post. I am arguing that "normal English" is NOT interchangeable with "rules English". I even broke it down in 3 separate scenarios. How you continue to misinterpret that is beyond me. My point, which is that "becomes a lich" is NOT interchangeable with the rules text "acquires the lich template" is also that the term "humanoid" refers only to the game term and things that the game terms refer to as "humanoids". Mind Flayers are not called "humanoids" in the game terms, so I am NOT using "normal English" interchangeably. You are claiming I am, which is a strawman.

You are confusing the term of art "common sense" with the phrase "common sense". The first refers to specific things that we consider to be "obvious" or "simple". For example, it is common sense that you should not punch bears in the face. The second refers to the normal meaning of a phrase - the common sense rather than some, other, more obscure sense. For example, the common sense of the word bear is a large, furry mammal but the uncommon sense of the word bear is a slang term for a gay man. Perhaps "normal sense" is more useful than "common sense" for this usage.

You are confusing what it means to have a RAW discussion with what it means to have a "normal discussion" where Common Sense can and should apply. Sideswipe and I have spelled it out for you on a number of occasions, and you don't even respond to those bits of the posts.

Once again: RAW discussions are all about anal-retentive, detail-ridden, nitpicky breakdowns of minutiae and technicalities. So yes. A RAW discussion only accepts as absolutely true what is written in concise verbage in the text. Perfectly unambiguous language is necessary to prove something as FACT in a RAW discussion.

If that is a manner of discussion you are not comfortable participating in, please feel free to concede the point and bow out. Otherwise, support your claims with RAW quotes that say what you claim in unambiguous language.

You are trying to have a "normal discussion" and include "common sense" and "normal (common) sense of the word/phrase", which, one more time, HAVE NO PLACE in a RAW discussion. If you are willing to actually adhere to the mores of a detailed RAW discussion, please do so, and cite your sources. If that's not how you want to discuss and argue things, then don't get into RAW discussions. I am not telling you "accept I am right or leave". If you CAN provide such proof and RAW quotes to back up your argument, please do so. But your unending tirade of "common sense dictates..." is not constructive to a RAW discussion.

Oh, and regarding your last post, you've been reported for ad hominem attacks. Seriously, if you can't disagree with someone or debate without accusing someone of "failing reading comprehension", it says more about you than it does about the opponent you are attacking.

[RedMage125]

You added more ot the post after I hit "resond" so here's the rest of the response:

For clarity, the simplest form of my argument. Both lich and humanoid have common meanings and game meanings. They are as follows:

Lich - Normal: An undead spellcaster.
Lich - Game: The lich template.
Humanoid - Normal: A creature with two arms, two legs, one head, etc.
Humanoid - Game: A creature of the humanoid type.

There are two pertinent sentences from the Dread Necromancer capstone class feature:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature."

Both of these sentences use a word with a game meaning and a normal meaning. Therefore, we have to choose one of those meanings when parsing them. In order to have a consistent interpretation, we have to use either the game meanings for both or the normal meanings for both.

If we chose the normal meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes an undead spellcaster."
2. "A dread necromancer who does not have two arms, two legs, one head, etc does not gain this class feature."

RedMage believes the first is correct, and that a Dread Necromancer merely becomes undead and has some lich-like traits at 20th level. Therefore it is necessarily true that he believes that anyone possessing of two arms, two legs, one head, etc (such as a Mind Flayer) gains the capstone.

Please stop Strawmanning my points. That is not what I am saying, I have EXPLICITLY said on at least 3 occasions now that I do not believe this.

If we chose the game meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and gains the lich template."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not of the humanoid type does not gain this class feature."

This is what I believe.

And now we arrive at the meat of the problem. This is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. Doesn't make it a fact of RAW.

In both cases, a common English word is used in the place of a rules English concept that is somewhat more complex.

Only by you. My stance does not necessitate mixing of "common English" and "rules English". Complexity in rules terminology is a good thing for RAW discussion.
What gets me is that you flat out admit that your stance requires you to mix "common English" with "rules English", and you still think that holds weight in a RAW discussion.

There are other arguments I have advanced, but this seems to be the one RedMage is currently "debating".

Again, by putting the word "debating" in quotes you are being unnecessarily condescending. I have asked you to stop on numerous occasions. You have not. Please debate objectively and dispassionately like a mature adult.

To the point:
First off, you have your definitions messed up, because "Lich" in non-D&D terms is simply "a dead body" (Mirriam-Webster dictionary)
This is to use the same "normal" terminology that defines a "humanoid" as a creature with 2 arms, 2 legs, one head, etc.

In game terms, "humanoid" refers to creatures of the humanoid type, and "lich" refers to an undead spellcaster (which may be a level 10 Walker in the Wastes, a spellcaster with the lich template form the Monster Manual, a dragon with the Dracolich template, a mind flayer with the Alhoon template, a humanoid with the Baelnorn template, or a level 20 Dread Necromancer).

You are switching "normal terminology" with "game terminology", claiming you are not, and then intentionally misrepresenting my standpoint, in an attempt to lend more credence to your argument(in this most recent case flat-out claiming I am saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have been saying).

What I am saying (for those of you who might mistakenly believe Brova and what he claims about my points) is this:

In game terms:
1) "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich." Is only a part of the RAW text. The rest of it says "Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the traits of the undead type (see page 317 of the Monster Manual). She no longer has a Constitution score, all her existing Hit Dice become d12s, and she must reroll her hit points. A dread necromancer need not pay experience points or gold to create her phylactery". Dread Necromancer does not explicitly gain the lich template, but does explicitly gain the undead type. Extra mention of loss of CON score and re-rolling hit points is pertinent, because from a game mechanic perspective, very few creatures (PCs especially) are statted out as living and then make the transition to undead.
2) "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature." Without using "normal parlance" of the word "humanoid", let's examine the Mind Flayer. Is it called a "humanoid" by the game? No? Then it receives no benefit.

I am not advocating that we ASSUME that "humanoid" means "creature of the humanoid type" while NOT ASSUMING "lich" means "lich template". That would be hypocritical (which would seem to be the basis for Brova's denigration of my points). I read just read "humanoid". Okay, now, assuming I don't already know the system, let's look at the stat block for a Mind Flayer, does it say "humanoid" anywhere there? No? Looks like Mind Flayers receive no benefit. Well, just to be sure, let's look at the stat block for an Elf. Does it say "humanoid" anywhere in there? Yes? Okay, they're good for the Lich transformation ability.

If you DO apply the template, because you believe "common usage" is more important than game terms or because you think "common usage" holds any weight in game terms, then you either apply "common usage" of the word "humanoid", or you are being inconsistent. If you DO apply "common usage" then, you have a rules paradox where a mind flayer can acquire the lich template.

OR you could completely reject "common usage" and go only off the text. Then you don't get the lich template, but neither do you get a rules paradox with mind flayers with the lich template, either/