So, I'm mapping out a Lich Lair and while I was doing it, a thought occurred to me.
Would he have a clone room? A hidden area where he stores clones of himself from when he was alive. He'd keep copies of his spell book and items here too.
Obviously, as a Lich he's pretty much immortal. However, if his phylactery were ever destroyed he'd want some way of safeguarding his soul.
So, my question is,
"In your opinion, if a Lich had a clone of themselves from when they were alive, would their soul go into their clone when the phylactery was destroyed?"
If that was the case, then they'd then be free to attempt the ritual for Lichdom all over again. It would be a real kicker for the party when that Lich, that they thought they'd destroyed, came back with a plan and a thirst for revenge.
There is no reason why you could not do this - it is your campaign and your lore, and I cannot think of anything official which would really say “no” (and if such an official thing did exist, you can happily ignore it as the DM).
That said, be wary of “gotcha” moments - this should feel like it is part of the story and was always planned, not like something shoehorned in just to annoy the party (operative phrase being “feel like” - you clearly did plan it by posting here, but your players will not know that in the heat of the moment). I would probably try to work this into some kind of story element - a race against time where the Clone is trying to gather items and such for the lich ritual and the party has to stop it before it can ascend again.
Also, this should go without saying, but one clone is fun - multiple clones feels like you are just annoying your players for the sake of annoying them.
Good point. Maybe have portraits or busts of the Lich, when he was alive, throughout the lair so the party will be able to recognise him.
Maybe even have the clone hire the party, by accident, to help him find the components he's looking for. A nice way to reveal what he's up to and also gives the party a chance to stop him.
+1 to caerwyn’s post. You can do it, but only do it once. More than that would just be annoying.
I would also think about what the clone knows. Does the soul in the phylactery know what the lich knew? Or is there a gap between when the loch dies, phylactery is destroyed and clone animates? So which order does that happen? And what information gets passed between them? I don’t think there’s a RAW on it, so you’ll need to figure that out.
Good point. Maybe have portraits or busts of the Lich, when he was alive, throughout the lair so the party will be able to recognise him.
Maybe even have the clone hire the party, by accident, to help him find the components he's looking for. A nice way to reveal what he's up to and also gives the party a chance to stop him.
If you want to use visual clues ahead of time, make them something that the party has to pay attention to and which do not feel like “general atmospheric description added for flavour that we will forget.” The best way to do this would be making the phylactery itself a portrait of the lich, so the description of the person’s human form is combined with an event—destroying the phylactery—the party will be sure to remember. Plus, who doesn’t appreciate a reference to 19th century literature in their D&D game?
Sounds good. A portrait of the lich as it was in life, with a silver frame covered in runes. Destroy the frame and the young image on the picture withers and rots to become the visage of the lich instead.
If a lich could create clones and transfer their soul into the clone, why wouldn't they keep transferring their body from clone to clone rather than become a lich?
As a clone, the magic-user would be able to move around in polite society, which is something a lich would have problems doing.
It's worth noting lichs the rules don't say a lich instantly dies if their phylactery is destroyed. They no longer revive when killed and can't " eat" but still need to be fought. In lore I'm also pretty confident they can make a new phylactery or have multiple as I think acererak does in the old tomb of horrors does and I believe there was an older edition spell for it.
If a lich could create clones and transfer their soul into the clone, why wouldn't they keep transferring their body from clone to clone rather than become a lich?
As a clone, the magic-user would be able to move around in polite society, which is something a lich would have problems doing.
As for why people wouldn't use clones, I think there are some risks in the lore, things like making a clone from a clone causes degeneration over time and making multiple clones at once risked multiple awakening and attempting to kill each other. This was never in the rules its just mentioned in the back stories of people who use the spell like Manshoon.
Undead also arguably can't make clones because they're not really alive so may not qualify as a " living creature". You can't clone the dead so you may not be able to clone the undead. So lichs would be the main option for any one who is already undead or is under some kind of fiend deal that forfiets their soul.
There is no reason why you could not do this - it is your campaign and your lore, and I cannot think of anything official which would really say “no” (and if such an official thing did exist, you can happily ignore it as the DM).
That said, be wary of “gotcha” moments - this should feel like it is part of the story and was always planned, not like something shoehorned in just to annoy the party (operative phrase being “feel like” - you clearly did plan it by posting here, but your players will not know that in the heat of the moment). I would probably try to work this into some kind of story element - a race against time where the Clone is trying to gather items and such for the lich ritual and the party has to stop it before it can ascend again.
Also, this should go without saying, but one clone is fun - multiple clones feels like you are just annoying your players for the sake of annoying them.
Multiple clones could be fun if you start a clone war where they all try to kill each other.... It's also fine to have epilogues where the villain survives some how, a few published adventures do that but it's probably not great to constantly make the players play through that.
Short version:
Bosses don't have to die when they are killed.
Lichs don't have to die when their phylactery is destroyed.
If a lich could create clones and transfer their soul into the clone, why wouldn't they keep transferring their body from clone to clone rather than become a lich?
As a clone, the magic-user would be able to move around in polite society, which is something a lich would have problems doing.
This. I mean its your story and table. But it don't make a whole lot of sense for a wizard to go through the long process to find the ritual to become a lich if they could just clone themselves.
What would make for a better story IMO is that the wizard planned to clone himself to be immortal, and one of his clone iterations decided to go the path of lichdom instead. Would get the same result you want (I guess), but makes the rationale make more sense.
I agree with other posters, but I would take a slightly different tack when suggesting this is a suboptimal choice. To wit, what's the narratological reason for subverting your players' victory? Your wording is, "it would be a real kicker." What are you hoping to get out of kicking your players? Because the answer to that question is the answer to how you do this well... If you want the story to continue, then it's just a matter of telegraphing that this lich is so crazy prepared that the initial fight may not be the final confrontation. If you just want to make your players angry, you don't need D&D to do that...
I would discount all the above asking “why would you choose to become a lich when you can just use clone to be immortal?” Becoming a lich is not about immortality - not fully. It is about transcending beyond mortal limitations and ascending to a form with witch one can channel energies that would destroy a mortal body. They are fundamentally different forms of immortality with different goals, and, present company aside, I cannot imagine many players would have difficulty grasping the distinction.
I agree with other posters, but I would take a slightly different tack when suggesting this is a suboptimal choice. To wit, what's the narratological reason for subverting your players' victory? Your wording is, "it would be a real kicker." What are you hoping to get out of kicking your players? Because the answer to that question is the answer to how you do this well... If you want the story to continue, then it's just a matter of telegraphing that this lich is so crazy prepared that the initial fight may not be the final confrontation. If you just want to make your players angry, you don't need D&D to do that...
The lich actually kept the clone, never having actually used it. He's a hoarder. I was curious if a Lich possessing a clone of their living self would be able to use it if they were killed and their phylactery destroyed.
He followed the path of Lichdom to research spells beyond level 9. Theoretically such spells are possible and were cast in the past, before Mystra put a ban on any spellcaster performing higher level spells.
The lich will not actually attack the players initially. Although they will have the fight their way to the Lich's chamber. He will make a proposition to the wizard to assist him in his research and find a way to break or bypass the ban Mystra put on spellcasting.
Edit: To answer your question about kicking my players.
The characters are the heroes, the combats are designed to be unique every time and to make them feel awesome and to come out on top despite the overwhelming odds.
However, as DM I like to have my fun too. The looks on their faces, and the determination to bring down a foe that they believed they had vanquished, will show that they are emotionally invested and that I'm doing a good job as a DM.
Kicking my players isn't something I do often. It's just a twist that he happened to have this clone. It is entirely possible that they will find the clone and destroy it. Which would mean I will never use it. Of course it depends on the players.
I would discount all the above asking “why would you choose to become a lich when you can just use clone to be immortal?” Becoming a lich is not about immortality - not fully. It is about transcending beyond mortal limitations and ascending to a form with witch one can channel energies that would destroy a mortal body. They are fundamentally different forms of immortality with different goals, and, present company aside, I cannot imagine many players would have difficulty grasping the distinction.
I guess there is the cost involved. Clone is a repeating cost. Where as Lichdom is a one off fee and you exist forever.
If your clones are discovered then they are easily destroyed. Just break the seal.
I also imagine the vessel in a clone spell is more fragile than a phylactery. I guess you could have a metal vessel created, which would be sturdier. Then just disguise it as something mundane, like a pillar or an alter.
Hiding a phylactery is easier than hiding a 2000gp vessel which can fit a humanoid inside. Due to the jar being more obvious.
I would say it would depend on the individual. Also the risk of cellular degeneration after generations of using a clone. The clone bodies are getting weaker. The last one died of disease. An undead body wouldn't have that problem.
I would discount all the above asking “why would you choose to become a lich when you can just use clone to be immortal?” Becoming a lich is not about immortality - not fully. It is about transcending beyond mortal limitations and ascending to a form with witch one can channel energies that would destroy a mortal body. They are fundamentally different forms of immortality with different goals, and, present company aside, I cannot imagine many players would have difficulty grasping the distinction.
I guess there is the cost involved. Clone is a repeating cost. Where as Lichdom is a one off fee and you exist forever.
If your clones are discovered then they are easily destroyed. Just break the seal.
I also imagine the vessel in a clone spell is more fragile than a phylactery. I guess you could have a metal vessel created, which would be sturdier. Then just disguise it as something mundane, like a pillar or an alter.
Hiding a phylactery is easier than hiding a 2000gp vessel which can fit a humanoid inside. Due to the jar being more obvious.
I would say it would depend on the individual. Also the risk of cellular degeneration after generations of using a clone. The clone bodies are getting weaker. The last one died of disease. An undead body wouldn't have that problem.
Lmao, you could imagine like 20 minutes of a session where players just popping open can after can of clones. Maybe the barbarian drinks one I dunno
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'm mapping out a Lich Lair and while I was doing it, a thought occurred to me.
Would he have a clone room? A hidden area where he stores clones of himself from when he was alive. He'd keep copies of his spell book and items here too.
Obviously, as a Lich he's pretty much immortal. However, if his phylactery were ever destroyed he'd want some way of safeguarding his soul.
So, my question is,
"In your opinion, if a Lich had a clone of themselves from when they were alive, would their soul go into their clone when the phylactery was destroyed?"
If that was the case, then they'd then be free to attempt the ritual for Lichdom all over again. It would be a real kicker for the party when that Lich, that they thought they'd destroyed, came back with a plan and a thirst for revenge.
There is no reason why you could not do this - it is your campaign and your lore, and I cannot think of anything official which would really say “no” (and if such an official thing did exist, you can happily ignore it as the DM).
That said, be wary of “gotcha” moments - this should feel like it is part of the story and was always planned, not like something shoehorned in just to annoy the party (operative phrase being “feel like” - you clearly did plan it by posting here, but your players will not know that in the heat of the moment). I would probably try to work this into some kind of story element - a race against time where the Clone is trying to gather items and such for the lich ritual and the party has to stop it before it can ascend again.
Also, this should go without saying, but one clone is fun - multiple clones feels like you are just annoying your players for the sake of annoying them.
Good point. Maybe have portraits or busts of the Lich, when he was alive, throughout the lair so the party will be able to recognise him.
Maybe even have the clone hire the party, by accident, to help him find the components he's looking for. A nice way to reveal what he's up to and also gives the party a chance to stop him.
+1 to caerwyn’s post. You can do it, but only do it once. More than that would just be annoying.
I would also think about what the clone knows. Does the soul in the phylactery know what the lich knew? Or is there a gap between when the loch dies, phylactery is destroyed and clone animates? So which order does that happen? And what information gets passed between them? I don’t think there’s a RAW on it, so you’ll need to figure that out.
If you want to use visual clues ahead of time, make them something that the party has to pay attention to and which do not feel like “general atmospheric description added for flavour that we will forget.” The best way to do this would be making the phylactery itself a portrait of the lich, so the description of the person’s human form is combined with an event—destroying the phylactery—the party will be sure to remember. Plus, who doesn’t appreciate a reference to 19th century literature in their D&D game?
Sounds good. A portrait of the lich as it was in life, with a silver frame covered in runes. Destroy the frame and the young image on the picture withers and rots to become the visage of the lich instead.
If a lich could create clones and transfer their soul into the clone, why wouldn't they keep transferring their body from clone to clone rather than become a lich?
As a clone, the magic-user would be able to move around in polite society, which is something a lich would have problems doing.
It's worth noting lichs the rules don't say a lich instantly dies if their phylactery is destroyed. They no longer revive when killed and can't " eat" but still need to be fought. In lore I'm also pretty confident they can make a new phylactery or have multiple as I think acererak does in the old tomb of horrors does and I believe there was an older edition spell for it.
As for why people wouldn't use clones, I think there are some risks in the lore, things like making a clone from a clone causes degeneration over time and making multiple clones at once risked multiple awakening and attempting to kill each other. This was never in the rules its just mentioned in the back stories of people who use the spell like Manshoon.
Undead also arguably can't make clones because they're not really alive so may not qualify as a " living creature". You can't clone the dead so you may not be able to clone the undead. So lichs would be the main option for any one who is already undead or is under some kind of fiend deal that forfiets their soul.
Multiple clones could be fun if you start a clone war where they all try to kill each other....
It's also fine to have epilogues where the villain survives some how, a few published adventures do that but it's probably not great to constantly make the players play through that.
Short version:
This. I mean its your story and table. But it don't make a whole lot of sense for a wizard to go through the long process to find the ritual to become a lich if they could just clone themselves.
What would make for a better story IMO is that the wizard planned to clone himself to be immortal, and one of his clone iterations decided to go the path of lichdom instead. Would get the same result you want (I guess), but makes the rationale make more sense.
I agree with other posters, but I would take a slightly different tack when suggesting this is a suboptimal choice. To wit, what's the narratological reason for subverting your players' victory? Your wording is, "it would be a real kicker." What are you hoping to get out of kicking your players? Because the answer to that question is the answer to how you do this well... If you want the story to continue, then it's just a matter of telegraphing that this lich is so crazy prepared that the initial fight may not be the final confrontation. If you just want to make your players angry, you don't need D&D to do that...
I would discount all the above asking “why would you choose to become a lich when you can just use clone to be immortal?” Becoming a lich is not about immortality - not fully. It is about transcending beyond mortal limitations and ascending to a form with witch one can channel energies that would destroy a mortal body. They are fundamentally different forms of immortality with different goals, and, present company aside, I cannot imagine many players would have difficulty grasping the distinction.
The lich actually kept the clone, never having actually used it. He's a hoarder. I was curious if a Lich possessing a clone of their living self would be able to use it if they were killed and their phylactery destroyed.
He followed the path of Lichdom to research spells beyond level 9. Theoretically such spells are possible and were cast in the past, before Mystra put a ban on any spellcaster performing higher level spells.
The lich will not actually attack the players initially. Although they will have the fight their way to the Lich's chamber. He will make a proposition to the wizard to assist him in his research and find a way to break or bypass the ban Mystra put on spellcasting.
Edit: To answer your question about kicking my players.
The characters are the heroes, the combats are designed to be unique every time and to make them feel awesome and to come out on top despite the overwhelming odds.
However, as DM I like to have my fun too. The looks on their faces, and the determination to bring down a foe that they believed they had vanquished, will show that they are emotionally invested and that I'm doing a good job as a DM.
Kicking my players isn't something I do often. It's just a twist that he happened to have this clone. It is entirely possible that they will find the clone and destroy it. Which would mean I will never use it. Of course it depends on the players.
I guess there is the cost involved. Clone is a repeating cost. Where as Lichdom is a one off fee and you exist forever.
If your clones are discovered then they are easily destroyed. Just break the seal.
I also imagine the vessel in a clone spell is more fragile than a phylactery. I guess you could have a metal vessel created, which would be sturdier. Then just disguise it as something mundane, like a pillar or an alter.
Hiding a phylactery is easier than hiding a 2000gp vessel which can fit a humanoid inside. Due to the jar being more obvious.
I would say it would depend on the individual. Also the risk of cellular degeneration after generations of using a clone. The clone bodies are getting weaker. The last one died of disease. An undead body wouldn't have that problem.
Lmao, you could imagine like 20 minutes of a session where players just popping open can after can of clones. Maybe the barbarian drinks one I dunno