Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5548274" data-attributes="member: 1165">I'm not sure which editions you were talking about previously, but I didn't find this to be the case. They were wizards with minor additional powers (and unkillable). In 3.x I don't think they were even worth the CR adjustment, although in 3.x they did have some pretty gnarly damage reduction.True, but that's not the edition's fault.A lich is an NPC and should be a named one, since they are rare. There shouldn't be such a thing as a &quot;standard lich&quot;. At minimum, you could make a mage-flavored NPC and give them some special undead powers.But of course you can (and should) go further. Any lich may have had hundreds of years to work on obscure rituals and new spells. As a result, any lich will be a surprising encounter. Worse if the PCs stumble upon their lair. When you've had hundreds of years to build defenses (and have had to test them many times) they get scary.Picture a trap combat encounter: an encounter where the traps are obvious and not hidden (well, not most of them) but are instead taking an active role in the fight. A rogue or arcanist might be spending their time taking down the traps rather than fighting the lich, keeping the lich &quot;alive&quot; longer. Alternatively, they might focus on the lich, but then must withstand the power of the arcane machine made by said lich.I guess I'm saying I see little point of beefing up their &quot;lich theme&quot; and would rather treat them as individuals. I would also avoid the lich template; it seems kind of weak and uninspired anyway, although stealing a few ideas (like their paralyzing touch) isn't a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 5548274, member: 1165"] I'm not sure which editions you were talking about previously, but I didn't find this to be the case. They were wizards with minor additional powers (and unkillable). In 3.x I don't think they were even worth the CR adjustment, although in 3.x they did have some pretty gnarly damage reduction. True, but that's not the edition's fault. A lich is an NPC and should be a named one, since they are rare. There shouldn't be such a thing as a "standard lich". At [i]minimum[/i], you could make a mage-flavored NPC and give them some special undead powers. But of course you can (and should) go further. Any lich may have had hundreds of years to work on obscure rituals and new spells. As a result, any lich will be a surprising encounter. Worse if the PCs stumble upon their lair. When you've had hundreds of years to build defenses (and have had to test them many times) they get scary. Picture a trap combat encounter: an encounter where the traps are obvious and not hidden (well, not most of them) but are instead taking an active role in the fight. A rogue or arcanist might be spending their time taking down the traps rather than fighting the lich, keeping the lich "alive" longer. Alternatively, they might focus on the lich, but then must withstand the power of the arcane machine made by said lich. I guess I'm saying I see little point of beefing up their "lich theme" and would rather treat them as individuals. I would also avoid the lich template; it seems kind of weak and uninspired anyway, although stealing a few ideas (like their paralyzing touch) isn't a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification