Why would anyone become a lich?

[green slime]

IIRC, the RAW don't specify the need to drink blood. Sure, vampires CAN do it to do Con drain, and it's certainly part of the common conception of the bloodsucker, but there are no mechanical detriments for not doing so.

Well there is a surprise for you. It is a Monster, in a monster book, provided for DM's as a source of entertainment for their (the DM's) player's to confront and best.

Not really as a source for PCs. If the monster manual was primarily meant as a source for PC races, it would contain such stipulations, as vampiric urges for blood are a part of vampiric "folklore". Of course, we could waste money by demanding that the designers include every such information for DM's whom cannot read a book without the d20 logo or those that lack the imagination to implement such mechanics themselves. Or we could play Vampire: the Masquerade. Perhaps, just perhaps, introducing such mechanics into a d20 monster manual would provide a layer of complexity that is neither neccessary or wanted? Those who want it, can easily do their own thing!

Would you seriosuly allow a player to introduce a PC concept into your game with a vampire who never sucks blood?!? And this abstinence would have no consequences whatsoever?

The RAW isn't the be all end all of a campaign. The RAW doesn't provide the FUN, it is a tool.

 

[green slime]

Slimey, we really need to get a grasp on the wherewithal that a high-level wizard possesses.

I believe the FRCS sourcebook has 2nd-level spell that acts as an uber-sunblock.

You may, "we" do not. Please, do not patronize. It is rude.

Not everyone has access to FRCS' spell lists. Some may not even allow such.

 

[Testament]

On the issue of Phylactery, nothing beats putting it on the moon.

Think about it. Take a high level party. How often do they go to other planes? Heaps. How often do they go to the moon? NEVER!

 

[DMH]

Think about it. Take a high level party. How often do they go to other planes? Heaps. How often do they go to the moon? NEVER!

And when the lich is slain and its soul is sent into the Phylactery? With no corpses around to take control of, the lich will sit in there forever. Of course it might just litter the area with the bodies of its foes.

And if you are looking for a place, why not make a fire immune room and place it in the sun or a gravity immune room for a black hole?

 

[green slime]

And when the lich is slain and its soul is sent into the Phylactery? With no corpses around to take control of, the lich will sit in there forever. Of course it might just litter the area with the bodies of its foes.

And if you are looking for a place, why not make a fire immune room and place it in the sun or a gravity immune room for a black hole?

Yeah I thought of that, but the Lich entry no longer states it takes over nearby dead bodies. It just sort of reforms in a number of days. Go figure. Lost a lot of flavour there, if you ask me.

 

[Felon]

Gotta be human blood in my opinion. Vampirism isn't supposed to be a pleasant experience for the Vampire. More often than not it is construed as a curse.

That's certainly a very subjective call. In D&D plenty of vampires are portrayed as enjoying their predatory existence, particularly folks who were evil prior to acquiring the template. In City of the Spider Queen, for instance, one of the drow is a vampire, and there's a footnote specifically stating that in the event that she's killed her boss will resurrect her, at which point she'll seek to become a vamp again as soon as possible.

I think too often in these discussions people get caught up in the bonuses and abilities of template creatures such as the Vampire without giving any real thought to how horrible such an existence would be.

What some people get caught up with--like myself--is simple pragmatism. I never get this attitude of condemning players for "powergaming" because that's not the way the character would think. Looking at the total package, ability score bonuses, abilities, and yes even the downsides is exactly what an unemtional, super-intelligent, power-mad, immortality-driven wizard would do. And they may not mind what ordinary folk would deem a horrible existence. We're not talking about people who have "sane' life goals, like getting a ball-busting wife, 2.5 spoiled kids, a boring-but-secure job, a completely ubiquitous house in the suburbs, and the biggest, ugliest SUV they can afford so their friends will be jealous of them. Maybe the wizard will suddenly discover that he really did miss sunbathing on his terrace, but that's after the fact.

Wizards traditionally become Liches to continue their magical research. They aren't interested in stat bonuses...

You're expressing a penchant for talking in absolutes. Which wizards aren't interested in stat bonuses? I certainly bet some would like to know they could shrug off a barbarian's grapple attempt.

In the modern world, perhaps. But we tend to live in very high population densities. Pseudo-medieval worlds have far smaller populations, so it is far more difficult to find an anonymous person. Harder still to find a string of anonymous people and have nobody notice.

Well, D&D towns & cities as depicted in the DMG (and reflected in campaign settings) actually have massive populations compared to actual medieval worlds. And in both cases there are no shortage of mendicants. And even more importantly, the disconnected and isolated nature of a pseudo-medieval community would help ensure that popping around the countryside would be a foolproof method of keeping the larders stocked.

And all of that aside, what if the wizard just killed monsters for blood? Who's gonna complain about a few less kobolds? What are the kobolds gonna do about it?

The way I see it, if I were to be an undead, I'd want to be the Lich. The Vampire has too many weaknesses that can be exploited, even with good planning, which is bound to go awry.

Well, conventional power-play wisdom is that it's better to have lots of strengths along with weaknesses that can be compensated for than to be mediocre.

The closer analogy - do you want to lose your lower leg and be economically middle class - or be quadraplegic, yet fabulously wealthy? I wouldn't choose either, of course - but if forced into a choice, I'll take the prosthetic and the 9-to-5, please.

If I could cast a few spells and suddenly regain full mobility 24/7? No problem. I'll steer clear of anti-magic fields, or better yet make provisions for them.

Here's my analogy. Every play Champions? If so, do you really think a character who chooses to take no Disadvantages and just sticks with a base 100 pts is better off than the fellow who takes the full 150 pt. allotment of Disads? Or even equal for that matter?

And yes my friends, that is how I think many wizards would examine their immortality options--as a math problem, an exercise in cold logic. As powergaming, if you will.

 

[Sejs]

You're expressing a penchant for talking in absolutes. Which wizards aren't interested in stat bonuses? I certainly bet some would like to know they could shrug off a barbarian's grapple attempt.

Like, say, by pumping said barbarian full of negative energy and paralyzing him for the rest of his life with a touch attack?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's my analogy. Every play Champions? If so, do you really think a character who chooses to take no Disadvantages and just sticks with a base 100 pts is better off than the fellow who takes the full 150 pt. allotment of Disads? Or even equal for that matter?

I am not familiar with Champions, but I know that a lot of systems that use edges and flaws fail to maintain the balance. It is to easy to min/max. (minimizing the effects of the flaw for your character concept and maximizing the effects of the edges). Especially since most roleplaying games assume a party of characters, it is very easy to specialice without really hurting the group. (Well, I get all the edges for Ranged Combat, but I will suck in the Charisma and Knowledge area - but sure someone else will max these areas, right?)

But especially Sunlight Vulnerability, Coffin Dependance, Blood Needs and the Wooden Stake problem are flaws I would want to avoid as a Wizard.
Even if you can freely teleport to distant regions to get a weak kobold and suck its life - if you have to do that every day, it takes to much effort. You could build up a supply line that makes it a lot easier, but this makes you an easy target - and still needs effort.
And the whole Coffin deal doesn´t work well, either - it´s to easy to follow your gaseous form (or possibly capture it!), and kill you in your coffin. And if you´re destroyed, you stay dead, no reforming or something like that.
As a Lich, you simply reform somewhere else, probably far out of reach of your enemies.

 

[Piratecat]

And maybe liches should take a penalty to alchemy check since they can't smell any longer.

On the contrary, liches certainly can smell. That's why they use Glade Fresh-scent plug-ins to freshen up their lairs. When you're an evil undead megalomaniac, no one wants that embarrassing "just started to rot" odor.

 

[Tiberius]

Would you seriosuly allow a player to introduce a PC concept into your game with a vampire who never sucks blood?!? And this abstinence would have no consequences whatsoever?

The RAW isn't the be all end all of a campaign. The RAW doesn't provide the FUN, it is a tool.

Had one of my PCs become a vampire in some fashion, I would probably not penalize them for a lack of bloodsucking. My game was very much by-the-book, and as I said the vampire writeup does not specify the need. For those of you who are about to counter with "But the PC races don't specify the need to eat, either!", I would point out that the starvation rules in the DMG inflict nonlethal damage, to which undead are immune. So even if vampires do, in fact, need to feed, there is no penalty for a vampire who refuses to do so. Effectively, then, they do not need to feed.