Caus it says it use the normal trigger of counterspell and shield. So, if you use subtle spell, he technically cant react.

Quote from VersusChaos >>

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

I'm not understanding your point regarding the weakness of the Lich in this edition. The new version of counterspell is still effective, and it can be used by the Lich every turn. So, what exactly is the issue? A player whom the Lich counterspells must succeed on a DC 20 Constitution saving throw or lose the spell. That means that the spell will be countered in most instances. I'm also confused when you imply that using counterspell against a Lich is ineffective because the Lich can use a legendary resistance to succeed on its saving throw. That's exactly what legendary resistance is for, and the spell caster just used a reaction to force the Lich to expend a very limited use of legendary resistance (very good trade). You're simultaneously arguing that in the context of counterspell the Lich is both too strong and too weak.

As to your notes about health. Just fyi, the average hit points increase is the result of no longer having certain damage immunities, which required a commensurate change in the stat block to stop the Lich's CR from changing.

The use of counterspell is not something a PC will do at any time just for the fun. Its to stop something really dangerous, as a last ditch countermeasure to stop something really deadly to happen, cause counterspell come with a cost for pc, unlike for this lich who can do it for free. And now, it will not save anything since the liche will just say "Yeah, no." I rarely saw a creature consuming all their 3 legendary res, so now that they have 5, this seems even more unlikely to happen.

I prefear a creature with res and immunity that give it some flavor than a creature with ton of HP who just dont want to die and last 3 more turns of just blasting and making the barbarian useless by constantly paralysing him and denie all the spells of the wizard except if he took resilient.

 You're making several assumptions here. First, you assume that when fighting a lich a player will withhold counterspell for impactful moments. You cannot impute your expectations to every party (any DM knows this well), but even if you are correct, this point fails. If the players use counterspell only when something deadly will happen, then there is no issue. The players attempted to use counterspell to stop something deadly rather than something less dangerous. That would be a proper use for counterspell. However, a player may very well attempt to counterspell anything the lich does, especially if the DM doesn't telegraph the nature of the spell. In that case, you would simply be wrong. Second, you assume that the lich will not expend all of its legendary resistances based on your own anecdotal experience. No generalizations can be made from personal experiences. Third, you assume that [a barbarian] will constantly be Paralyzed by the Lich and that [a wizard] will be denied the use of their Spellcasting. Both of these assumptions require that the aforementioned players fail their saving throws against the lich's abilities and that the lich uses a prescribed series of abilities. You are mistaking a difficulty encounter for an unfair or unbalanced encounter. Do not go down a rabbit hole of "what ifs" and concluded based on those imaginary scenarios that a general stat block is flawed.

Your preference for immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage likewise has no bearing on what a general stat block should contain. Players that are prepared to fight a lich will likely have access to magical damage, making the lich's previous immunities superfluous. This has been demonstrated again and again through playtesting—DMs rarely present their players with challenges beyond their ability to combat. Plus, I'll inquire on behalf of your concern for [a barbarian]: who's most likely to be unable to deal magical damage to a lich? Immunities and resistances are abstractions of durability. It is more efficient to condense the benefits of those immunities and resistances into Hit Points when thematically appropriate. Here, the lich's Hit Points are higher to account for the lost benefits of those immunities. So, you will find that the Lich's overall difficulty has not substantially changed.

Quote from theron >>

Why does this thing hit for less damage than the Archmage, a CR12???? If you are going to just give spellcasters uber powerful cantrips at least be consistent. He attacks 3 times for 31 damage each so 93 damage total. Archmage hits 4 times for 27 damage each time so 104 damage. This thing is almost 10 CR higher, sure it is double the health but still it seems like this so called ultimate spell caster just got weaker in exchange for more health and damage resistance/immunity. I just want to understand, what exactly is the formula since they no longer give us DM's a guide on how to judge CR. This thing hits for rather pathetic damage when the CR6 mage also makes 3 attacks for 16 damage each. so based on that, the difference between CR6 and CR21 spellcasters just double damage and triple health, but somehow the CR12 spellcaster has more damage and half the health??? what exactly is the math supposed to look like? Yes i know with legendary actions the Lich does more damage, but frankly the fact that a Lich that loses initiative to an Archmage will lose in a fight, or might win with I think 3 HP left, is freaking ridiculous. Legendary actions do not make up for this either, especially since with the range of attacks Drain life might never even get to be used since it is only 20 foot range. The lich also lost the magic resistance ability, which the archmage has. Oh and the super powerful lair actions are gone as well. So yeah, if you want to be an almighty wizard just remember, becoming a Lich somehow means your attacks have less range and you get 1 less attack, and you get some legendary resistance instead of straight magic resistance so hopefully you only have to make 4 saving throws in a day, better off using clone to live forever instead. Oh and they no longer have resistance to Turn Undead, so Clerics have fun making them burn legendary resistance without even needing to use a spell slot, since they don't have magic resistance anymore either Turn Undead as a level 20 cleric is a 50% chance of success roughly. I think I would take the 170 HP of the archmage to not be extra weak to paladins and clerics, not to mention I would usually rather just always have advantage on basically all saves instead of 4 legendary resistances. Just become a legendary Archmage instead, and have your legendary action be casting 1 extra arcane burst like the demilich has, and you will out damage the lich. 

I won't comment on the lack of spells since that is clearly the path they are taking and frankly if you are using a Lich they should probably be entirely custom designed by the DM anyways IMO, but the fact that they went out of their way to change how NPC spellcasters are supposed to function means that I at least want consistency. As it is, I would be more scared of an Archmage with legendary resistances and the Lich's legendary actions than I am of the actual lich. Why does becoming a lich somehow make them weaker? Funny enough the Chain Lightning spell is arguably better damage than the actual attack of the lich, since it could hit for 45 damage against up to 4 people instead of just 31 against 3 people. Sadly its only a once per day, instead of the old lich who could spam the thing because it actually had spell slots and upcast it to hit even more targets potentially. This might be the only spellcaster that got weaker overall compared to the 2014 version, sure it got like triple the health, but it lost in damage by a significant amount, and every other spellcaster got buffed which makes the lich look weaker by comparison.

EDIT: also how does the AC work? because a random magic skeleton having 20 AC is kind of insane, since he is literally better than plate armor even though is DEX is mediocre. Can he cast mage armor on top of it, how about robe of the archmage would that technically work or no? Also he somehow can be killed by a regular non magical dagger now, despite of his magic bones somehow giving him insane AC, so that's kind of odd. Oh but the Demilich does get resistance to all weapons magical or not, so you might also be better off being a demilich instead of a Lich as well. Demilich also gets immunity to psychic damage for no apparent reason, which the actual Lich doesn't have. Demilich is also immune to stun unlike the regular lich. Demilich also has potentially higher damage since it can spam its attack as a legendary action, which for some reason the regular lich cannot and can just inherently fly without needing concentration so over all demilich is probably just more dangerous and more powerful than an actual lich, and the Demilich apparently doesn't need a spirit jar and is just always going to come back to life unless someone can use wish, so unless an enemy wizard or sorcerer has wish the Demilich is fully immortal with no weaknesses depending on party composition.

 Lots to unpack here. First of all, the Lich's damage output is close to 150 with legendary actions depending on what option you take, and the archmage is 108. So that whole point is moot. Secondly, the Lich never did have Magic Resistance. Go back and read the 2014 stat block. Thirdly, the CR represents the challenge to the party, not a hypothetical fight between a lich and archmage. Which the lich would win anyway, because you forgot it deals 100 damage in a turn, can Counterspell the Archmage, and then Power Word Kill. Archmage is dead in 2 rounds easily. But that is neither here nor there as that's not what CR represents.

As for being more scared of the Archmage with LR, again, they don't have that - that is something you just made up, so that's moot. Btw it literally did not lose damage output, it gained significant damage output in 2024, as well as HP.

hmmm,  no longer resistant or immune to non-magical attacks.

It will forever be "phylactery".  Spirit Jar can go take a dump. 

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

 

Quote from SharptoothNecromancer >>

this thing is great, I just wish they didn't change phylactery to "Spirit Jar" it sounded cooler in 5e.

 

I'd seen some complaints in the forums that "phylactery" is a word with religious connotations. Further discussion pointed out that the word also had existed and was used independently, but I'd guess WotC became aware of the point and decided that much like "ki" (which is a concept in active belief systems, even if works of fiction from the same regions as those beliefs have freely used it as a general purpose "magic force") they'd rather shift it to a neutral description.

 Are they going to bring back the alternate names for Demons and Devils then? If they're being consistent they should.

Something I forgot to point out the relevance of before is the underrated benefit of the inevitable siphon regional effect. If you're fighting a lich, a common big bad, at the appropriate level, it's probably gotten to a point where the players are unlikely to ever die naturally unless their soul is destroyed since they should all have clones and several options for resurrection in high level play.

The lich tells those high level players who believe they are invincible and can simply keep coming back "Sorry, but I'm actually gonna be draining your soul and unless you're willing to risk never being able to use wish again or forking over 25,000 gold, you're just gone forever now."