Phylactery + Bag of Holding + Piercing Weapon = ?

[GuardianLurker]

A couple of thoughts :

1) While it's strictly a house rule, I'd feel comfortable restricting phylacteries to the same plane as the lich. This would have a side effect of requiring a lich to take its phylactery along with it when it planar travels, and negating the accidentally-on-purpose-lost-forever scenario.

2) What would the effects of having multiple phylacteries be? Is it possible?

3) Never forget the value of decoys.

4) It used to be that a lich's phylactery was essentially the same as a magic jar. While I don't have the MM in front of me, if this is still true, it also puts a distance limit on the lich.

5) And if you allow extra-planar phylacteries, the most secure plane (as far as the lich is concerned) is deep within the Negative Energy Plane.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The Phylactery holds the life energy of the Lich. That life energy according to the rules is what reforms a Lich. If the Phylactery is lost forever as the rules for Bag of Holding say when pierced then how can that energy reform the Lich where it was slain at?

Energy like everything else must travel to get somewhere.

Where does it say that?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Unless the rules say the Phylactery is immune to all damage the Negative Plane would drain it of all its evergy adn destroy it like it destroys everything else.

Unless of course the Lich did something to protect it first.

5) And if you allow extra-planar phylacteries, the most secure plane (as far as the lich is concerned) is deep within the Negative Energy Plane.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

The Phylactery holds the life energy of the Lich. That life energy according to the rules is what reforms a Lich. If the Phylactery is lost forever as the rules for Bag of Holding say when pierced then how can that energy reform the Lich where it was slain at?

Energy like everything else must travel to get somewhere.

So, in other words, it doesn't say that anywhere.

Not that you don't have a good arguement that I wouldn't use myself against such a situation, but... According to a power-munchkin-rules-lawyer point of view of everything I can find in the rules, it is perfectly legal for a Lich to do just this.

The rules don't really say anything about how the life force restores the lich, nor does it make any reference to limitations of distance or plane that this can be accomplished from. It only says that you need to create a phylactery to become a lich, that the lich's life force is stored therein and that the phylactery must be found and destroyed to truly "kill" a lich.

Anything else is rules interpretation, which are variable from game to game and DM to DM.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Not it isnt. A munchkin would have to explain how a Lich can use a device lost forever.

If something is lost forever from everyone as the specific rules of the Bag of Holding say then a Lich cannot use it to reform.

That is 100% exactly as written by the rules.

If you want to be a major rules lawyer you could rule that anything "lost forever" is effectively destroyed and rule that a Lich that has this done to her Phylactery will be instantly killed by the destruction of her Phylactery. Simply because if something exists somewhere no matter how lost it is eventually given the infinite nature of time and the universe someone WILL eventually find it. The only way something can truly be lost forever is if it no longer exists.

So, in other words, it doesn't say that anywhere.

Not that you don't have a good arguement that I wouldn't use myself against such a situation, but... According to a power-munchkin-rules-lawyer point of view of everything I can find in the rules, it is perfectly legal for a Lich to do just this.

The rules don't really say anything about how the life force restores the lich, nor does it make any reference to limitations of distance or plane that this can be accomplished from. It only says that you need to create a phylactery to become a lich, that the lich's life force is stored therein and that the phylactery must be found and destroyed to truly "kill" a lich.

Anything else is rules interpretation, which are variable from game to game and DM to DM.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

As a side question why would a rules lawyer muchkin argue this? If he is that means he wants to have his own character become a lich.

Since one of the most basic rules in DnD 3E is that one cannot be an evil character it is really impossible to be a rules lawyer while playing an evil character.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

If you want to be a major rules lawyer you could rule that anything "lost forever" is effectively destroyed and rule that a Lich that has this done to her Phylactery will be instantly killed by the destruction of her Phylactery. Simply because if something exists somewhere no matter how lost it is eventually given the infinite nature of time and the universe someone WILL eventually find it. The only way something can truly be lost forever is if it no longer exists.

That I could agree with, but are you sure about the effective destrustion? If they meant "destroyed", why not just say destroyed instead of "lost forever". That implies the objects still exist, but are simply unattainable. Perhaps they could still be retrieved by the likes of Wish spells or Divine Intervention?

The Bag of Holding description simply states that the contents of a burst bag are lost forever, and doesn't elaborate. It does say, however that a Bag of Holding placed inside a Portable Hole (or vice versa) opens a rift to the Astral Plane. the bag and the hole (and presumably all the contents) are "sucked into the void and forever lost". Does this mean forever lost on the Astral Plane or what? Is this the same that happens when a Bag is burst?

I don't really know. I think question really just boils down to...

"What does the DM say?"
or
"What does the Sage say?"

It looks like the rules are vague enough that it can be argued one way just as easily as the other.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

As a side question why would a rules lawyer muchkin argue this? If he is that means he wants to have his own character become a lich.

Since one of the most basic rules in DnD 3E is that one cannot be an evil character it is really impossible to be a rules lawyer while playing an evil character.

HAH! Surely you jest...

That is most certainly NOT a rule of D&D... Any edition. In my experience those who want to be evil characters are the worst munchkin rules lawyers of the bunch.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Page 89 of PHB

The first six alignments from LG to CN are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villians.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me. A player character cannot be evil from a purely rules lawyer point of view.

HAH! Surely you jest...

That is most certainly NOT a rule of D&D... Any edition. In my experience those who want to be evil characters are the worst munchkin rules lawyers of the bunch.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Forever means forever. If it is recoverable via a wish then obviously then its not forever.

That I could agree with, but are you sure about the effective destrustion? If they meant "destroyed", why not just say destroyed instead of "lost forever". That implies the objects still exist, but are simply unattainable. Perhaps they could still be retrieved by the likes of Wish spells or Divine Intervention?

The Bag of Holding description simply states that the contents of a burst bag are lost forever, and doesn't elaborate. It does say, however that a Bag of Holding placed inside a Portable Hole (or vice versa) opens a rift to the Astral Plane. the bag and the hole (and presumably all the contents) are "sucked into the void and forever lost". Does this mean forever lost on the Astral Plane or what? Is this the same that happens when a Bag is burst?

I don't really know. I think question really just boils down to...

"What does the DM say?"
or
"What does the Sage say?"

It looks like the rules are vague enough that it can be argued one way just as easily as the other.