Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azaar" data-source="post: 1893743" data-attributes="member: 1988">Alzrius wrote:Note that I also said typically.  I was mentioning the original core classes, since that's what the Monster Manual mentions, focusing mostly on wizard and sorcerer.  That's not me trying to say they're the only ones that can fit, just going by the generalities of the template.  Heck, I stretched by adding druid to the list, because druids typically don't pursue such a path (now, an ex-druid/blighter... that might be another story).As to the list of spells... I view it as adding flavor to the pursuit of lichdom.  If I were to DM such a situation, I would make certain that I came up with a list of spells required for it.  I feel that it would add to the experience, not detract from it.  But I'm not going to make up a list that they wind up can't qualify for.  I'm willing to work with the prospective lich-to-be and work something out with them.Alzrius wrote:And quite honestly, they (rangers and hexblades) shouldn't be, but that's just my interpretation of it.  If they want to get 11 levels of cleric/wizard/sorcerer/warmage/wu jen/whatever, then I won't argue the point so much.  But a straight-classed ranger or hexblade, to my mind, shouldn't be eligible to pursue lichdom.  But that's another issue entirely, and likely for another thread.I'll stick by my opinion that the warlock, despite not casting spells per se, can pursue lichdom.  If I'm proved wrong... well, that's something I'll likely house-rule to allow.</blockquote>

Verification