it would be tricky to reflect Metamagic on an NPC block as a concise feature.
Actually it doesn't need to be difficult; I've adapted a few sorcerer builds into monster stat-blocks for running enemies/NPCs, and all I usually do is bake metamagic into one or more spells. For example, a spell that normally only targets one creature can be tweaked to target two (Twinned Spell), you could boost the monster's ranges a bit (Distant Spell), and so-on.
Most monsters don't usually last beyond a single fight, so you don't want to worry too much about tracking resources, plus you normally calculate Challenge Rating on the basis of only three rounds of combat anyway, so it's unlikely they'd run out of sorcery points in that time, so why worry about it?
Not that I think lich makes sense as a sorcerer sub-class; Wizard feels the better fit, especially since every Wizard is pretty much a wannabe lich. 😂
not a subclass, but an entire origin for the sorcerer. also i have a wizard character and the wannabe lich thing is wrong.
I don’t think there is an absolute rule that Undead can’t have descendants. There are a few examples (not necessarily D&D ones) of Dhampirs being conceived by the “conventional” process, so you could use that as a precedent for fertile liches.
Alternatively, a lich might bless/curse a favoured/hated bloodline with sorcerous powers.
Or, for Terry Pratchett fans, you could argue that heredity doesn’t always work the expected way (e.g. Susan Sto Helit). Perhaps a lich adopted a child, and their child mysteriously exhibits some of the lich’s powers.
There is also the Van Helsing Movie about Dracula's Children. All born dead. that's why he wants the Frankenstein research. If we have soul forged, its not to difficult to do the same in correlation to a sorcerer with a lich ancestry. Problem is they too would be undead and you'd have to explain their ability to age (and not decay) despite being undead. Otherwise you'd have to explain why there are a bunch of newborn undead roaming around. Especially if you recall Interview with a vampire. There was a girl who became a vampire and never aged, and her hair never changes when she tried to change it. I would suspect unless an Artificer or wizard was able to rectify this, your sorcerer with lich heraldry would be an undead infant with all the weaknesses of the undead parent. And since it never lived it would know nothing from a previous life it never had. So thats how it would work and to make it work in this way youd have a lot of lore building so to speak to address this.
so, my idea is that the lich creates an artificial child with their own dna as well as the other components. meaning the artificial child would be able to use necrotic magic and would be rotting. so an artificial zombie.
I mean, sure, understanding "DNA" is often not a thing in D&D. The various chimera monsters etc. and the way lineages and plane touched entities function, most of that isn't biologically "realistic" and doesn't make sense from a "DNA" based world. I'd look at spells like clone or use the other character options I and other put out there already and just say the lich wanted to make a child and did so through necromancy. Everything in a back story need not be accomplished through spell slots etc. It's unclear whether you're doing this for a character concept or an NPC/monster. I mean as a story concept, sure it's fine. If you're the DM you sort of get to make any story you want for the stuff in your world. If this is a PC, make sure this makes sense with how necromancy works in your DMs world, if it even matters. But don't bother with "DNA", a word like "relic" (which are literally preserved remains) has more of a D&D backstory feel. So I'd say the Lich used some sort of relic of itself to create the "child". That's really all you need to get to the important stuff of how and what did this child grow into and its place in the world.
First and foremost, it’s important to remember that NPC rules are very different from player rules. NPCs are not required to follow the same rules. You can refer to the codices for NPC or monster creation rules. In some setups, Liches are often considered suitable for the wizard class because they typically have the ability to prepare spells and can alter the spells they’ve prepared according to the current scenario. I was one of those who thought this way. There are detailed Liches in some story scenarios; you can look at them and draw your own conclusions. Ultimately, it is a narrative that should be chosen by the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the rotting lich dna would mean the sorcerer would be rotting a bit.
not a subclass, but an entire origin for the sorcerer. also i have a wizard character and the wannabe lich thing is wrong.
There is also the Van Helsing Movie about Dracula's Children. All born dead. that's why he wants the Frankenstein research. If we have soul forged, its not to difficult to do the same in correlation to a sorcerer with a lich ancestry. Problem is they too would be undead and you'd have to explain their ability to age (and not decay) despite being undead. Otherwise you'd have to explain why there are a bunch of newborn undead roaming around. Especially if you recall Interview with a vampire. There was a girl who became a vampire and never aged, and her hair never changes when she tried to change it. I would suspect unless an Artificer or wizard was able to rectify this, your sorcerer with lich heraldry would be an undead infant with all the weaknesses of the undead parent. And since it never lived it would know nothing from a previous life it never had. So thats how it would work and to make it work in this way youd have a lot of lore building so to speak to address this.
so, my idea is that the lich creates an artificial child with their own dna as well as the other components. meaning the artificial child would be able to use necrotic magic and would be rotting. so an artificial zombie.
low level necrotic cleric spells for necromancy
also the artificial child would canonically be soulless.
I mean, sure, understanding "DNA" is often not a thing in D&D. The various chimera monsters etc. and the way lineages and plane touched entities function, most of that isn't biologically "realistic" and doesn't make sense from a "DNA" based world. I'd look at spells like clone or use the other character options I and other put out there already and just say the lich wanted to make a child and did so through necromancy. Everything in a back story need not be accomplished through spell slots etc. It's unclear whether you're doing this for a character concept or an NPC/monster. I mean as a story concept, sure it's fine. If you're the DM you sort of get to make any story you want for the stuff in your world. If this is a PC, make sure this makes sense with how necromancy works in your DMs world, if it even matters. But don't bother with "DNA", a word like "relic" (which are literally preserved remains) has more of a D&D backstory feel. So I'd say the Lich used some sort of relic of itself to create the "child". That's really all you need to get to the important stuff of how and what did this child grow into and its place in the world.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Pointy hat did this already... It was really good.
https://youtu.be/6J_Cyzs_Okk?si=7XijOhUCPCM165Iy
First and foremost, it’s important to remember that NPC rules are very different from player rules. NPCs are not required to follow the same rules. You can refer to the codices for NPC or monster creation rules. In some setups, Liches are often considered suitable for the wizard class because they typically have the ability to prepare spells and can alter the spells they’ve prepared according to the current scenario. I was one of those who thought this way. There are detailed Liches in some story scenarios; you can look at them and draw your own conclusions. Ultimately, it is a narrative that should be chosen by the DM.