Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I remember a time when I though the idea of anybody being crazy enough to work for a lich, EHP or supervillain was unrealistic. Now I could write their dialogue.
General Discussion
- Thread starter Beoric
- Start date
- Status
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I forget, do 1e Liches have phylacteries?
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yes, although I don't think the re-spawning aspect was mentioned. And EGG defines a phylactery in the DMG as "An arm wrapping with a container holding religious writings, thus a form of amulet or charm," which suggests it is likely attached to the lich, so not really much of a safety feature.
That being said, I am pretty sure I was aware of the re-spawning trope before 3e came out. It must have come from somewhere, but not sure where.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Where is that written in 0e or 1e? It isn't in the lich entry in the MM, which says, "The lich passes from a state of humanity to a non-human, non-living existence through force of will. It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery." I did word searches in the MM and DMG and found nothing.
It is mentioned in the 2e Monstrous Manual, which says, "In order to ensure the final destruction of a lich, its body must be wholly annihilated and its phylactery must be sought out and destroyed in some manner."
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Did Gygax ever make use of the phylactery in his modules? The only lich I can think of (besides Acererak) was in D2 and I don't think that lich had a phylactery.
I remember that article by Lakofka. I saw it when it was in the Best of Dragon.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
The phylactery magic item seems to be based mainly on the English definition of the word ("a small leather box containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law."), and it has direct bearing on the effects of said magic item (wasn't it a phylactery of faithfulness, which would warn you if you were going to do something that would break your clerical values?). From my brief Google search, it appears that 'phylactery' means amulet in Greek. This is probably what Gary was going for with the description of the lich in the MM.
I would surmise that the lich's phylactery didn't really become a thing until later in 1e. The evidence doesn't seem to show that Gygax embraced the idea that Lakofka expressed in Dragon #26. I wonder if the idea became more important in 2e with the removal of demons and devils. I remember reading that they upped the power of giants and dragons, in an attempt to make them high level replacements for demons and devils. Liches would also work, with the added benefit of reviving one of their attributes---the fact that the demon or devil wasn't permanently destroyed if killed in the prime material plane. You destroyed their physical form, but now you have an angry immortal being that wants revenge. You get the same thing with liches and their phylacteries, without the demonic 'taint' that Lorraine Williams seemed to have hated.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Is this a 1e thing? We encountered this last week in Barrowmaze. The guys dispatched a trio of vampires and followed their gaseous forms back to their coffins to stake them permanently, but questions in the group caused a quick check of the 3.5e MM where it says nothing about coffins and now I'm wondering if that's just a rule we carried over from our older campaigns...
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't think anyone means any offence. I'm mostly curious if lich's and vampires fall under one of those weird D&D 'common law' categories.
Bad comparison maybe; but sorta like people saying gelatanEous or JubIlex instead of the correct names as written.
Although, I will fucking cut you if you come to my table spouting off palAHdin or caLvery or fucking "I hide in the foIlage".
Bad comparison maybe; but sorta like people saying gelatanEous or JubIlex instead of the correct names as written.
Although, I will fucking cut you if you come to my table spouting off palAHdin or caLvery or fucking "I hide in the foIlage".
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I just reviewed the Vampire entry on the d20 SRD (not ideal but close enough for non-union work). It's there. It's not expressly spelled out though.
There have always been multiple ways to slay vampires (stakes, the sun, etc). Vampires have fast healing and will immediately turn gaseous at 0 hp. The entry mentions the coffin under the fast healing entry, as that's where they are forced to go to recover if brought to 0 hp.
Here's one for you. Halberds aren't reach weapons in 3.x
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
nice. weird common-law blind spots.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Gary seemed to like to keep things unsaid. It's like he was thinking that his readers should be able to figure out things for themselves. Who does he thing he is!?!
I'm reminded of this when reading reviews of modules like D2* and D3. Those modules were very open ended and left to the DM to implement. My 12 year old self** was certainly not up to the task.
* Oops! The lich in our previous discussion was actually in D1, not D2 or G3.
** I recently scanned Dragondoom, my 13 year old response to Dragonlance, into a PDF. It's awful. I almost want to publish it and ask Bryce to review it, because sometimes I'm a right, evil BASTARD.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I rediscovered one of those in a pile of papers the other day. Like 20 or 30 levels of dungeon, (totally rad) illustrations for every single room in (probably scented. Cherry errr Red is the best you guys!) marker. There's been a lot of attention given to idiot-savant/childlike-mind modules published on dtrpg. I'm trying to resist...
I was wondering. I read about him first in that GDQ mega module that just sorta fudged G3 and D1 together. I havn't reread it since I collected the original adventures.
I would have loved to have done a word search for phylactery on a PDF of H4 this morning. god DAMN the man who shut down the Trove!
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I got curious and googled the history of liches and their phylacteries and I found this.
Well researched but...ugh. Nope. Wasn't meant to be anti-Semitic, sorry.
Anyway, yes, it appears the phylactery as a means of the Lich to resist a final death didn't become a thing until 2nd edition.
Well researched but...ugh. Nope. Wasn't meant to be anti-Semitic, sorry.
Anyway, yes, it appears the phylactery as a means of the Lich to resist a final death didn't become a thing until 2nd edition.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Heh. I've been trying to find any rule in 1e that expressly states that various polearms must be used two handed. Back in 1979, a lot of named weapons weren't obviously two handed weapons - that it, you needed to already know what a weapon was in order to know how it was wielded. Length was only of limited use, since spears and tridents can be used one-handed IRL. What did your average kid in 1979 know about a bec de corbin?
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Or who knew that the Lucerne Hammer wasn't really a hammer, so clerics can't use it after all.
Unlike SOME people I know (*ahem* @squeen), I loved Unearthed Arcana especially since it had a whole section on the polearms.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
@EOTB, I am curious, which edition of D&D do you play? Were you one of those pro-2e people (like @PrinceofNothing)?
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
That is the most reviled section of the much reviled book. Considered filler by many. I'm a big fan personally as well. I really liked the illustrations and wished there were similarly sized illustrations of all the other weapons in the D&D cannon
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
It is!?! Shame people, SHAME. I can see being mad at the munchkin crap at the beginning with the PC races and the new classes, but the polearms? That section is fooking awesome.
- Status