Lich and Phylactery

[Nargrakhan]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

[Snake-Aes]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

Any lich can create a phylactery, and no rule says they can't make another if the current one goes boom.

And there are two specifics on epics: An epic spell that gives you more phylacteries, and demi-liches. These have a bunch of gems that they use in some nasty spells, and also work as phylacteries.

[Ancalagon]

Stupid question, but can't a Lich - especially an epic level Lich - just create a new phylactery?

In principle yes. The issue is just if that's possible in OotS-World as well. Since, well, if Xykon lost his phylactery permanently it'd escalate things in a very dramatic way.

[Laughing Dragon]

So, a Lich CAN have more than one Phylactery! That answers an important question. Because if they COULDN'T, then the best tatictal situation now would be for O'Chul to try to escape with Xykon's Phylactery and do some serious plotting to take out Xykon. Step one of such a plot would be to destroy the Phylactery just before the critical melee, minimizing the chance that another could be created in time to prevent Xykon's demise.

Spoiler

Show

As it now stands however, O'Chul will destroy the Phylactery and go after Xykon ... probably to meet his death.

[Kaytara]

In principle yes. The issue is just if that's possible in OotS-World as well. Since, well, if Xykon lost his phylactery permanently it'd escalate things in a very dramatic way.

Which is why I'm betting that it WILL be permanent. :D Also, if it's not permanent, rebuilding it would still take Xykon what, several months? Still a long time to be vulnerable, and since there are only two more Gates remaining, the whole story may be over in a few months, anyway - so Rich may as well houserule it to be permanent.

[SoC175]

Well, destroying the Phylactery (which will actually be very difficult for O'Chul (overcomming hardness 20 with his improvised weapon) will only matter if they can slay Xykon before he finished creating a replacement.

Xykon doesn't fear the loss of his phylactery as long as it's not coupled with a threat to his current body, he made that clear when Redcloak tried to threat him with destroying it in SoD.

Well, if O'Chul destroys it and Xykon starts right away that's a timeframe of 120 days to destroy him (120,000 gp, one day per gp to create)

[Meridian]

When a person becomes a Lich, he binds his soul into a Phylactery. I'm not familiar with D&D Liches more than what I could read from 3.5 Monster Manual, but I would suppose that technically you have to destroy the Lich's body (meaning the actual, physical form of the Lich) and release his soul (destroy the Phylactery).

I could make a hypothesis that once a Phylactery is destroyed, the Lich's soul will be transferred back into his body until he creates a new one. I'm going a bit hazy here, but would it be possible for a Lich to NOT create a Phylactery, instead housing his soul actually inside his body? Of course that would be foolish, but possible, maybe?

This would also explain what happens to the soul once the Phylactery is destroyed..

[Snake-Aes]

it is possible. While Xykon is un-alive, the phylactery is just an expensive trinket with stupid hardness.

[Volkov]

Actually libris mortis specifically states that once a lich loses it's phylactery, it cannot build a new one. So unless Tsusiko, Jirik, or Redcloak are willing to use revive undead each time he croaks, or if he wishes to become a demi-lich, he's dead for good.

[SoC175]

I could make a hypothesis that once a Phylactery is destroyed, the Lich's soul will be transferred back into his body until he creates a new one.

The soul is in the lich's body by default and only retreats into the Phylactery if the body is destroyed and only until a new body has been formed.

Without a Phylactery a lich's soul will proceed to the afterlife if the body is destroyed, it doesn't matter in which order you destroy body and phylactery, you just need both destroyed at the same time.

[Meridian]

The soul is in the lich's body by default and only retreats into the Phylactery if the body is destroyed and only until a new body has been formed.

Without a Phylactery a lich's soul will proceed to the afterlife if the body is destroyed, it doesn't matter in which order you destroy body and phylactery, you just need both destroyed at the same time.

Ah, I see. It work that way, then. As said, my knowledge is based on Monster Manual. Thanks for the clarification.

[Krazax]

The soul is in the lich's body by default and only retreats into the Phylactery if the body is destroyed and only until a new body has been formed.

Without a Phylactery a lich's soul will proceed to the afterlife if the body is destroyed, it doesn't matter in which order you destroy body and phylactery, you just need both destroyed at the same time.

Yeah gotta destroy them both, destroying the Phylactery while the Lich is still alive, just takes away his Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. Although I am uncertain as to the afterlife part. I'd have to do some re-reading, but what I could have sworn was destroying both meant the Lich's essence/life force is utterly annihilated/dispersed. As in, no after life. As in no chance for reincarnate or resurrection etc.

As in... Gone Daddy Gone.


Course.. 3.+ could have changed all that. I'll have to pull some books out tonight. Personally I like the old 2nd Edition Van Richten's guides more than the 3.0 version. There are just huge differences in power levels between the 2nd ed and 3rd ed lichs. 2nd Ed was for epic bosses, 3rd they turned undead into player characters, so they got toned down dramatically.

I think it was the Gnome Chef Lich from Libris Mortis that really made me loathe the 3rd Ed version. I wouldn't doubt Rich probably prefers the old style as well. Most writers do prefer a more 'epic' master villain.

[vampire2948]

What if O-Chul throws it into the Snarl-Rift?

Is the entire lich's soul stored in it? If it is...then I assume the soul and necklace would cease to exist.

Problems for our favourite undead sorceror? I think so.


Vampire2948,

[Lamech]

Actually libris mortis specifically states that once a lich loses it's phylactery, it cannot build a new one. So unless Tsusiko, Jirik, or Redcloak are willing to use revive undead each time he croaks, or if he wishes to become a demi-lich, he's dead for good.

He'll have to become a demi-lich? Like the demi-gods of gods? Hahaha... owned. Whaa? No? More powerful?
Umm... it turns out demi-liches are immune to almost everything and can inflict perma-deaths pretty much at will. And have large stat boosts. And have 8 of those hidey-holes for their souls. And don't need to keep magic items close by. Umm... DONT DO IT O-CHUL

[shadzar]

What if O-Chul throws it into the Snarl-Rift?

Is the entire lich's soul stored in it? If it is...then I assume the soul and necklace would cease to exist.

Problems for our favourite undead sorceror? I think so.


Vampire2948,

The phylactery houses the soul when a body is not present for it. Upon creation of a body, the phylactery just becomes and empty "box" that the soul can return to through the use of the arcane writings placed on it, and rituals performed to turn it into a phylactery.

None that I know of outside of the One Ring have been destroyed and caused the destruction of the lich themselves.

So it just means X is pretty screwed if it gets destroyed and he learns nothing of it, thinking he still has that safety net and can be reckless.

[Volkov]

Yeah gotta destroy them both, destroying the Phylactery while the Lich is still alive, just takes away his Get-Out-of-Death-Free card. Although I am uncertain as to the afterlife part. I'd have to do some re-reading, but what I could have sworn was destroying both meant the Lich's essence/life force is utterly annihilated/dispersed. As in, no after life. As in no chance for reincarnate or resurrection etc.

As in... Gone Daddy Gone.


Course.. 3.+ could have changed all that. I'll have to pull some books out tonight. Personally I like the old 2nd Edition Van Richten's guides more than the 3.0 version. There are just huge differences in power levels between the 2nd ed and 3rd ed lichs. 2nd Ed was for epic bosses, 3rd they turned undead into player characters, so they got toned down dramatically.

I think it was the Gnome Chef Lich from Libris Mortis that really made me loathe the 3rd Ed version. I wouldn't doubt Rich probably prefers the old style as well. Most writers do prefer a more 'epic' master villain.

No the Revive Undead spell can bring back a destroyed lich/demilich like any other undead. They just lose a level.

[NerfTW]

What makes everyone think Red Cloak's "recall" spell was anywhere near Azure City? For all we know, it sent him back to his homelands.

There's a chance Xykon won't know Red Cloak lost the phylactery. This might be a way of making sure Xykon isn't seen as invincible for the last half of the story. He won't know he doesn't have a phylactery to fall back on, while the Order might. It would make for an interesting dynamic.

[Callista]

There's no reason he wouldn't have multiple Word of Recalls in play at any one time. A decent Cleric player using that spell would prepare at least two--one to escape far away; one to return to a nearby familiar location.

[Simanos]

Actually libris mortis specifically states that once a lich loses it's phylactery, it cannot build a new one. So unless Tsusiko, Jirik, or Redcloak are willing to use revive undead each time he croaks, or if he wishes to become a demi-lich, he's dead for good.

Really? Where does it say that? What does it say exactly?

Personally I dislike epic levels and prefer adventure in lower levels. I would never have generic liches as opponents in my campaign. It would always be a named one with backstory and depending on my predisposition I could even (house)rule that destroying the phylactery would automatically destroy the lich (for some of them, not necessarily all) if it suit my current purposes and made the players feel nice. First rule is having fun.

[WarriorTribble]

If I might go on a tangent, couldn't Xykon simply repair his phylactery? I mean O-Chul might break it, but I don't see how he could destroy the remains. Not to mention while I could see Xykon working 60 days (is this right?) to fix the thing, I just can't see him stay put for 120 days to make another one.

Course, the problem is (SoD spoilers)

Spoiler

Show

since Redcloak is the one who made the thing in the first place, Xykon will probably have to get his help to do either option. I wonder if our skeletal sorcerer could swallow his pride to do that.

[appending_doom]

Broken magic items lose all of their magical properties. He can only "repair" the item if it received damage but was not actually broken.

That is, he can "repair" a destroyed phylactery if and only if he can make a replacement at all.

[Borris]

When you destroy a magic item, it loses all its magic. You can repair a +2 flaming sword that has been sundered (through uses of Make Whole, for example), but it will only be a masterwork sword. To get the magical properties back, you have to enchant the item all over again. Carfting an item takes 1 day per 1000 gp of the cost, so a 120,000 gp phylactery would take 120 days.

But as has been clarified in Libirs Mortis, a lich only has one phylactery, crafted at the time it attains lichdom. As long as the phylactery exists, the lich's soul will get back to it if its body is destroyed, and slowly regenerate. If the phylactery is destoyed, though, the lich has only one life left (like pretty much everyone else).

Can O-Chul break the phylactery? I'm sure he can. Any self-respected two-handed weapon takes the Power Attack feat at some point. And since the phylactery is an unattended object, it's pretty much impossible to miss. Besides, we've already seen that Xykon's crown radiated evil, and I'm pretty sure the amulet that housed Xykon's very soul not too long ago will be even more evil. Chance are O-Chul can use his other Smite Evil to deal even more damage. With hardness 20 and 40 hp, O-Chul needs to deal 60 points of damage in one hit, or two hits of 40. Assuming a Base Attack Bonus of +12, a Str of 16, and 8 paladin levels, a maximum strength Power Attack Smite would deal 1d8+36 ≈ 40. On subsequent attacks (without Smite), O-Chul would deal an average of 32 points of damage, so he can destroy the phylactry in 3 hits. A single full attack if he's lucky.

[Theodoriph]

The phylactery houses the soul when a body is not present for it. Upon creation of a body, the phylactery just becomes and empty "box" that the soul can return to through the use of the arcane writings placed on it, and rituals performed to turn it into a phylactery.

None that I know of outside of the One Ring have been destroyed and caused the destruction of the lich themselves.

So it just means X is pretty screwed if it gets destroyed and he learns nothing of it, thinking he still has that safety net and can be reckless.

The One Ring wasn't a phylactery, not according to the meaning of phylactery in D&D (and Sauron wasn't a lich). They worked in very different ways.

[shadzar]

The One Ring wasn't a phylactery, not according to the meaning of phylactery in D&D (and Sauron wasn't a lich). They worked in very different ways.

Close enough relation wouldn't you say? Since Middle Earth isn't Abeir, Toril, Krynn, Oerth, etc.

They are analogous of each other.

[brant167]

Our group always ruled that once a phylactery is destroyed the lich becomes alive, as in living breathing coffee drinking mammal, again. It’s far from what’s RAW but could be interesting if it happened that way in oots.

[Hydro Globus]

Can O-Chul break the phylactery? I'm sure he can.

The question is, can an unenchanted improvised weapon break it?

(I'm pretty sure it couldn't in 3.0, but I think the rules changed since then).

[Theodoriph]

Just thought I'd weigh in on the phylactery thing.


According to the Monster Manual, a lich should be able to create another phylactery for two reasons:

1) A phylactery isn't anything special according to the MM. It's just like crafting any other wondrous item. And since multiples of other wondrous items can be created, there's no reason you couldn't create another phylactery.

2) If a phylactery were special, the Monster Manual surely would have made note of it. That kind of thing is fairly important to know when plotting to destroy a lich.

Thus, from the Monster Manual, the safe conclusion is that a lich can make another one.


According to Libris Mortis, a lich cannot create more than one phylactery. Someone asked for a quote. It says, "A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one."


Of course, the problem is, Libris Mortis does not necessarily overrule the Monster Manual. It all depends on what books and rules the DM (re: Rich) preferred when constructing the campaign.

So...wait and see.



Personally, O'Chul destroying it and dying would be fitting, but it would also mean that Xykon couldn't die until near the end of the comic (unless RC finds someone else for his scheme), which would give him a kind of plot immunity.

(Of course, Rich could have surprising plot twists involved, in which case, the above can be ignored)

[Gaiyamato]

Phylacteries like any item can have additional enchantments placed on them.
They can even have an Arcane Mark so that Red Cloak could simply recall the phylactery to wherever his location is (assuming he can somehow cast instant summons). Alternatively it could have insane hardness or hp, even regenerate damage. It could explode with wards etc. Heck it could summon demons or undead to defend it.
Only if it were a base ordinary phylactery would it be so easy to destroy.

But this is O'Chul we are talking about. He surely has some ability to trash things. lol.

[Laughing Dragon]

Xykon is nothing if not in it for the long haul ... meaning that IF the phylactery is destroyed and IF he CAN make a new one, then he will suck it up for 120 days and do it. He will be extremely pissed about it, and probably be out of sorts for at least half a decade ... but he will do what it takes to survive.

I had thought of the idea that Redcloak might not tell him that the phylactery had been destroyed, it would make for an interesting dynamic.

Spoiler

Show

Xykon: The OOTS are coming, have we got everything prepared?
Redcloak: Sir, I'm afraid I have some bad news.
Xykon: MitD is weapy over O'Chul again?
Redcloak: No, fortunately for us he's moved on to "Denial" but it is something related to O'Chul.
Xykon: Are you going to tell me? We don't have time for a game of 20 questions.
Redcloak: Well sir you remember when he escaped and stabbed out my eye?
Xykon: Yes. He came at me in his underwear, swinging a bent metal bar, and he was all "You will now pay for your evil deeds." I was laughing so hard I almost couldn't kill him.
Redcloak: Well, between then and when he stabbed out my eye he destroyed your phylactery.
Xykon: ... Ha, ha, ha. You almost had me punked there. It might have worked except that you forgot to take it off.
Redcloak: Oh, you mean this? No, this is just my unholy symbol. After the incident with the elf, then O'Chul, then MitD depression, I just didn't want to tell you one more piece of bad news. So I made a new unholy symbol that looked just like the old one.
Xykon: You deceitful little ...
>>door bangs open<<
Roy: You will now pay for your evil deeds, Xykon.
Xykon: You know ... that just doesn't seem that funny the second time around.
Redcloak: Bye ... Word of Recall
Xykon:

The one ring was never a phylactery, it actually permanently housed a portion of Sauron's soul/being/essence. That's how it could act, at least in a limited fashion, of its own volition. Unlike Voldemort however, Sauron could not survive when a (significant) portion of his soul/being/essence was destroyed. Besides, Sauron was never a mortal to begin with ... he was a member of the "higher" race of beings called the Valar.

[Ancalagon]

In fact, Sauron "only" was one of the Maiar (one of the lesser "gods" or "angels")... Melkor was (is?) a Vala.