Previous thread: >>46302320
The greatest gladiator match in the history of the underworld.
Lich versus vamp.
Decay versus night!
Son of Crypt versus Bat of Graveyard!
>>46328032
Could a lich have vampire minions?
Is it possible?
>>46328616
No, a dracolich was a dragon originally:
>"More than a powerful form of undead, a dracolich is a dragon who has voluntarily tied its soul to a phylactery, freeing itself from death. A type of lich, the creature's spirit can possess any dead serpentine body, usually their original form, and retain all the powers and abilities of the former body. That means a dracolich has the supernatural fear aura, spells, and breath weapon it had in life, plus the terrible might of the undead."
>>46328632
Liches are traditionally masters of death and undeath in almost any given setting, as they are extraordinarily powerful necromancers, so my bet would be yes.
Vampires may be the socialites and the manipulators, predators and hunters in the dark and lords of the night.. but of all the undead, the Lich is the master of the dead.
>>46328712
Vampires on suicide watch!
>>46328587
As someone who fucking loves vampires to a fault, I'd still say that it's pretty obvious that liches are objectively superior.
>>46328712
>>46328789
Ok, so let's say that liches are indeed superior.
But then the question is: can a vamp defeat one?
Is the destruction of the phylactery the only way for a vampire to annihilate a lich?
>>46328898
Yes.
>>46328898
Well, Lich and Phylactery must stay in the same plane in some versions. Sending a lich/phylactery somewhere else severes the connection.
Would you say Sauron is a Lich?
>>46329044
Though considering the challenge is supposedly between two equivalently powered casters(because if the vampire isn't also a spellcaster, the Lich wins without a second though), if the Vampire has the means to shunt the Lich into another plane, the Lich is fully capable of just coming back.
Honestly, I'd hand this to the Lich because, all else being equal, the Vampire has a laundry list of weaknesses the Lich could abuse, which there really isn't an equal thing for him to give the Vampire any kind of edge.
>>46329058
>Would you say Sauron is a Lich?
Yes. Kinda.
But Morgoth is the ultimate lich - the best, ever.
>>46329058
He lacks undead part, plus less of a wizard and more of a deity, so I'd say no.
>>46328898
>>46329044
The connection is only severed until the Lich comes back. The best bet for the Vampire would be to trick or force the Lich into another plane and then kill him there before he can go back to his native Plane.
>>46329058
More like a demigod who just made a ring his powersource.
>>46328587
All right, here's a question: in Vampire: the Masquerade, if you commit Diablerie on another vampire, you suck the victim's soul out of his / her body, too (so not just the blood).
What if this kind of vampire sucks out the blood of a lich - wouldn't that count as a classic Diablerie?
That would surely destroy the liche's soul, even if (s)he had a phylactery.
>>46329291
>The connection is only severed until the Lich comes back
Well, send the lich on some plane and the phylactery to some other plane afterwards. That way he loses his immortality as long as he does not find the plane where you sent the phylactery.
>>46329314
Do liches even have blood?
>>46329044
He can have more than one and a smart Lich will at least have one per plane, so even if you kill him away from his native plane he could still have a back up where ever you sent him.
>>46329314
>That would surely destroy the liche's soul, even if (s)he had a phylactery.
No, because even if a Lich had blood it's soul isn't in it's body, they would still need to find the Phylactery.
>>46329471
>He can have more than one
Oh, I did not know that. I always though there can only be one phylactery since it contains the subjects soul.
But going the harry potter way of splitting your might be a thing. Never thought of that being done in other settings
>>46329466
>Do liches even have blood?
Fuck.
Young liches, maybe?
>>46329501
You can even have multiples in D&D, Rowling isn't even half as creative as people think.
It takes a long time and costs a fuckton of gold but if you're already an immortal wizard, what else are you gonna spend your dosh on?
>>46329497
>No, because even if a Lich had blood it's soul isn't in it's body, they would still need to find the Phylactery.
There's a connection between the body and the soul.
The soul is just in another place, but the connection is still there.
Diablerie could work because of this.
>>46329466
That would require you to actually first defeat the Lich, then find the phylactery, reach it through any defenses it has and finally destroy the Lich again if you're not fast enough and it has regenerated, only this time it's desperate, angry and knows exactly what you can do.
Easier said than done. But anything is possible, of course.
>>46329621
Can a vampire drain a soul that is actually thousands of miles away from it's target? Especially a target that's heart hasn't had any fluid in it for thousands of years?
You're reaching really hard, friend. Unless you can drain the blood of the box he put it in, I don't think you have an argument.
>>46329621
First of all, you can't commit diablerie on non-vampires as far as I know. I've never heard it mentioned or much less it happening in any White Wolf book.
Secondly, I heavily doubt a vampire could suck the soul out from the Lich's phylactery which can be hundreds of miles away and warded with insanely powerful magics.
Thirdly, the lich can just decide to abandon ship at any moment to regenerate back at his phylactery and plot his revenge.
Hmm, the biggest upside a Lich has in a direct confrontation is his magic, right?
That can be easily dealt with by Antimagic Field
>>46328587
The biggest problem is actually adventurers.
Vampires must feed. They don't have a choice. Ergo, they're going to attract a HUGE amount of attention from every sentient near their lair.
Liches do not have this issue.
Liches and vampires are equally tired and overdone, so I hope both of them die.
>>46329058
Sauron is a god.
>>46329813
Not really.
Liches are also supernaturally strong as well, and in fact actually stronger than vampires. An antimagic field will reduce the powers of the vampire even further than those of a lich, rendering it easily killed.
>>46329813
Yes. The Lich's biggest weaknesses are also his greatest strengths, namely is magic and his phylactery.
The thing is, liches are smart and in 10 cases out of 10, smarter than you, so good luck getting them to just walk into one. Also, most liches tend to have very powerful minions, like death knights, constructs or incorporeal undead hanging around.
There are no weak or stupid liches, because the process of attaining lichdom is hard, hard work that end badly for the would-be evil overlord in most cases. So while they're less common than vampires or other undead, they're always guaranteed to be a fucking terror.
>>46329678
Assuming his phylactery isn't submerged in holy way(wrapped in plastic wrap so it doesn't leak in of course) mixed with garlic, in a room with crosses on every square inch.
>>46329856
He's the servant of morgoth, so he's more like a priest on 'roids than an actual god.
>>46329978
No, he's a Maiar, a spirit who pre-dates Arda and took part in its creation. The differences between a Maiar and Valar is sort of vague, and may, as I understand it, simply be a matter of power and importance.
>>46329878
Where are they supernaturally strong to the point of being stronger than a Vampire?
>Lich
Abilities
Increase from the base creature as follows: Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +2. Being undead, a lich has no Constitution score.
Skills
Liches have a +8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot checks. Otherwise same as the base creature.
Feats
None
>Vampire
Abilities
Increase from the base creature as follows: Str +6, Dex +4, Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +4. As an undead creature, a vampire has no Constitution score.
Skills
Vampires have a +8 racial bonus on Bluff, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot checks. Otherwise same as the base creature.
Feats
Vampires gain Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes, assuming the base creature meets the prerequisites and doesn’t already have these feats.
Also both lose all Supernatural and Spell-llike abilities, that leaves the Lich with 2 Extraordinary abilities (+4 turn resistance and immunitiy to cold, electricity, polymorph and mind affecting stuff)
while the Vampire retains 5 Ex abilities (Blood drain, Fast healing, resistance to cold and electricity, spider climb and +4 turn resistance)
So, except the fast healing both, the liches and Vampires Su Sl and Ex abilities are pretty much useless.
That'd leave the Vampire with more Feats and better Ability score bonuses
>>46329919
I assumed the contesting Vampire and Lich were of equal powerlevel only differing in the template.
If you were to pit a random Vampire against a random lich I'd almost always bet on the lich of course.
>>46329924
That's stupid.
Assume it's inside an underground fortress, guarded by magical constructs, hordes of cultists both living and undead, enslaved monsters, devilish traps and arcane wards, maybe a beholder and a mind flayer with whom the lich plays poker every friday night, a death knight or three, and a horde of undead, not forgetting of course the possible apprentices or lieutenants the lich may have, while the phylactery itself is warded against all kinds of magic that would detect it or harm it.
And then consider that all of that is a fake and the real phylactery is hidden somewhere else and you'll never find it.
Liches know what awaits them if their phylactery is destroyed, and they are very intelligent, and very keen on protecting them, so it's not going to be a walk in the park to reach it. Most of the time, killing the lich itself is the easier part of the task and destroying the phylactery.. well, that's where it gets interesting.
>These two threads
Man it's been seven years since DJ P made vampires an endangered species, took them long enough to come back from their coffins.
>>46330064
>took them long enough to come back from their coffins
Taking longer still for Phylactery to return to the board. Liches get stiches.
>>46330035
If you compare a lich and a vampire who are of equal power and both spellcasters, it's going to be a very brutal fight, but in the end I'd still bet the lich. Liches simply don't suffer from such weaknesses as having to feed, being harmed by the sun and so on, and they can cheat and have basically infinite respawns. Even if the vampire has better stats, (if you want to assume D&D)they mean nothing to powerful spellcasters.
So while the vampire may have more powers in D&D, it doesn't factor in much, because the fight will end as soon as the Lich uses Sunburst which instagibs all vampires in the AoE. And the shocker? The lich can suicide while doing this, he doesn't give a fuck. He'll come back to try again.
Why are you all assuming the vampire isn't a wizard?
>>46329497
But what would happen if a Vampire ate a phylactery?
>>46329512
The most important thing to do for a corpse for preservation (other than removing the digestive tract) is getting rid of the blood. I would imagine most liches spend some time hanging upside down with a hole in their neck.
>>46330035
>only comparing the benefit and not the penalties
Dude, the gains aren't worth the curse with vamps.
>>46330209
He'd break his fangs, most likely, and be the world's first vampire containing a phylactery in his atrophies stomach.
>>46330192
Because it doesn't matter. The lich wins a fight anyway due to weaknesses inherent to vampires. If you wanted to actually kill a lich as a vampire, you'd send a vampire rogue do to the job silently. It would probably take a few decades, but undead have all the time, right?
>>46330284
Why send a rogue when undead are immune to sneak attacks?
>>46330284
>be the world's first vampire containing a phylactery in his atrophies stomach.
Or a sweet unique hiding place for the Lich's phylactery
>>46330284
He'd also have to get the Lich and his phylactery closer to each other. If he gives the Lich time to respawn, hell set up vampire defenses and they're pretty much screwed.
>>46330346
Because the point is that he can actually get close enough to do something rather than vaporized on the spot.
It's still a shit shoot though.
>>46330346
>Why send a rogue when undead are immune to sneak attacks?
You don't play rogues, do you?
>>46330253
You can pretty much counter any of the negative sides of vampirism if you are a spellcaster
>>46330154
>because the fight will end as soon as the Lich uses Sunburst which instagibs all vampires in the AoE
Well, if antimagic field does not acount for that, counterspelling or dispel magic does.
Also I don't know if Vampires really have to feed, the srd does not list anything about it.
>>46330396
>Also I don't know if Vampires really have to feed, the srd does not list anything about it.
Libra Mortis says they are diet dependent. They need the living to function. They are just parasites of civilization and dependent on it, they really haven't ascended beyond mortal concerns.
Vamps are not socialites by choice but by necessity.
>>46329569
I don't know that Harry Potter was meant to be a creative story, more than less it was written to be a decent one, which it was. It didn't break new ground, but used, very well, tropes that were already established.
My argument might be a chicken and the egg argument, and I've gotten so used to the existence of Harry Potter I can't appreciate it's creativity.
>>46330396
Or amplify them, and all liches are also spell casters.So...
>>46329140
The pro-vampire answer is that vampires have traded their souls to the devil for their infernal power, whereas liches have hidden theirs away to avoid the divine/diabolic punishment for their transgressions.
So a Vampire sends the Lich over to the underworld even temporarily and then the problem is solved.
>>46330396
And why would a lich walk into an antimagic field again?
The fact simply is that vampires have multiple glaring weaknesses that can be exploited rather easily, while liches have no such things. In certain editions of D&D, they may not get as many special abilities or modifiers, but the fact that they have no drawbacks either while retaining a very dependable source of immortality just makes them more versatile and able to utilize tactics that vampires can't. Like playing time, using the environment, casting spells like Sunburst, being able to walk around during day..
And if the vampire has researched some spell that lets him walk during the day as well? Well, Dispel Magic is a wizard spell.
If it comes to powerful spellcasters, I don't see them walking into a fight unprepared, or unable to escape if necessary.
When it comes to gladiators, I don't see them seriously fighting to the death.
Its hard for me to imagine a powerful vampire and a powerful lich fighting. I feel like they'd be more likely to ally up, or trying to manipulate each other to do their bidding in some way.
If they came to blows, they'd probably be like two powerful kingdoms next to each other, too afraid to come to blows. So they'd coldwar each other until one caved.
If the lich is really seclusive, what reason would it have to fight the vampire at all?
On a side note, what are the forms of immortality for "non evil"? Are there any tropes for similar "good" beings? Surely its not just "evil" things that see value in long life.
>>46330625
Despite what people might tell you, vampires, revenants, liches and ghosts can be good aligned, it's just pretty fucking rare. Then you have baelnorns, which are like liches but elvish and faggot hippies as well.
>>46330625
Actually, I can totally imagine a non-wizard-lich gladiator and a vampire fighting to the death. They'd have swathes of fodder soldiers under each of them, and they'd mow through the enemy's, before coming to blows with one another.
They'd totally fight to the "death", and come back to fight again.
>>46330652
Whenever people bring up hating faggot hippy elves, I jump to thinking about Dwarf Fortress elves, that are also faggot hippy elves, except they eat whatever dead they kill, because they don't waste. I like it when they have a single clear reason for being hated.
>>46330585
>And why would a lich walk into an antimagic field again?
He doesn't need to. But his spells could not harm the Vampire, and spells is pretty much all a Lich has in the offensive department.
Sunburst would likely not affect the area inside the Antimagic field.
I mean the Vampire probably puts as much thought into his weaknesses as a lich does into his phylactery.
People say "Sunburst gg no re" without considering the vampire has any answer for it.
>>46330625
Guess you are right
>>46330652
Well in D&D Vampires and Liches must be evil aligned. At least according to srd
I think comparing things to a Lich kinda makes things very unimportant, since to have a somewhat fair base both participants have to be some sort of powerful spellcaster. And that alone overshadowes pretty much both templates.
I love how in all these types of comparizons, the lich is a wizard.
Liches can be priests too. And that would make the lich much, much more terrifying.
>>46330625
'Good' immortality is usually associated with divine justice or guardianship. So you remain as long as you stick to the noble task assigned to you, and might be returned to existence as often as deemed necessary.
But for a good person, heaven itself is also available, which is inherently the greatest possible reward. So there's not a lot of immortal good beings kicking around, as they'd all rather go to heaven.
Sometimes mighty heroes get sent back from heaven to do good in the world, but that's always a temporary thing, same with being sent back to earn your way into heaven.
>>46328587
>>46328587
Alright.
>*A* Lich VS. *A* Vampire.
Which Lich vs. which vampire. Even if we assume some 'equal' matchup (They're both equally dedicated wizards! Especially here, because then things become moot cuz 'lel alchemy so blood to water' or 'kek he can just imitate the vamp powers with a simple spell'). Without that information it's like asking 'men vs women' then clarifying 'ok, they both have hats on' on /pol/.
If you're asking lichdom vs vampiredom in a fight against the other, and you compare which one has more/better powers that affect the others then it's vampire (oh but wait, what setting? and also, how are we quantifying the value on these spells? just counting the number that work?, that doesn't seem right. Hmm... just how valuable is infinite lives with no range limit exactly? Prep time?)
People end up laying back on stats and averages, or on flat level comparison, neither of which is going to give you the answer you're after. You're better off asking a different question.
>But since you're asking, personally I'd take the Lich 9 times out of 10.
I side with Defense, and there's nothing quite like limitless redos, with no limit on the distance from your respawn. It's too valuable and probably the only thing on either power list that *A* wizard couldn't easily replicate.
>*heavy slobbery breathing* but it can't even be on another plane of existence, vampire would find it before he was kilt
plz no
All of that said, I look forward to following this argument through the next 45 threads it spins into.
>>46330797
I should expand.
These guys are meant to be buddies if they interact. Neither of them has *particularly* effective inherent offensive abilities against the other, though one does a fair quantity of *lesser* advantages (yes lesser, see replicable/mostly ineffective blah blah). And only one has decent (I'm downplaying how good it is) inherent defense against the other.
If you take the question and make it about the normies, it becomes a question of 'do you want more bonus stuff to pulp and travel around (at the cost of a few weaknesses, that may fade. though you remain killable under the right circumstances. Also maintenance) or do you want infinite lives with few inherent buffs (with the understanding that there is a single condition under which you die for realz)?'
I take ultimate defense over the offensive and stat buff, cuz really when you're both *immortal*, it comes down to who is more immortal. Lich takes that. No maintenance, re spawns like a G without limitations, and no extra weaknesses.
If we stray away from the traditional, Vampires seem very much like liches that prefer having biology.
>>46330750
Like Orcs are "always evil" right?
>>46331220
I like "always violent" better.
>>46331220
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm
It's less about morales and actually a measurable thing in D&D. The ritual for becoming a Lich requires evil acts and shit.
They can tend to villages surrounding their tower, caring about good weather to allow for good crops, play poker every tuesday with the elders of the villages discussing stuff and all arround be a nice fellow. They will still ping on detect evil.
I like me some nice liches, but that doesn't change the way they are defined in D&D.
>>46330353
>it's actually a stalemate
In this particular scenario the lich can't kill the vamp without risking his phylactery in the process, and the vamp can't kill the lich because it will reform around the phylactery inside him.
Now, for the sake of self preservation they get to team up and be superpals!
>or the lich immediately suicides and wreks that vamps anus from the inside.
Jesus, all these people arguing about the phylactery. Why are we assuming that the vamp finds the thing? That's like assuming the fight takes place in an open field during the day.
>>46330652
>>46330750
Archliches and Baelnorns use separate entries from Liches.
When you use Lich individually, it refers to an evil existence.
Archliches are the same effective species as Lich but of nonevil alignment.
>>46330538
No. What? no. How?
Even if it worked that way, how are you negating it's spell casting ability, what stops it from porting back? Are you actually implying that 'lel the vamp can just team up with a god'? because that's stupid.
While I'm at it, people seem confused. The lich can be on a separate plane than the phylactery just fine. He just can't die there or it's game over. It only works as a reincarnate when he dies on the same plane it's on (or a plane with a portal open to the plane it's on).
Sure we could argue that one can port the other into the positive energy plane or team up with a diety, but why that's boring as hell.
>>46331220
What, you think Gruumsh made his species with free will?
>>46328587
What about a Vampire Lich?
>>46330791
>Lich priest
>sees vamp
>casts turn evil
>both he and the vampire run around screaming
>>46331667
Manshoon? almost, kind of?
>>46331706
Fucking hilarious
>>46329831
But Vamps can turn heroes into powerful undead thralls pretty easily. It might be less of a draw back then a resource.
>>46329831
>Liches do not have this issue.
Depends on setting. Sometimes liches need to devour a soul every few weeks to maintain their intellect.
>>46331706
I think you mean turn undead, friend.
>>46331615
>>46331300
>All of fantasy =! D&D
>>46332227
The "lich" is a monster specifically created for D&D by the original authors of D&D and has no presence in fantasy before D&D. In broader context, the word "lich" is an archaic word for "corpse" and not a monster.
Talking about D&D when talking about liches is the only way to make the conversation make any sense, just like beholders, mind flayers, and the like. It is A D&D Thing.
>>46332227
Look up a bit in a chain, I never said it was so in every setting but made it clear from the beginning that I was talking about D&D
what would be the third undead after liches and vampires?
>>46332397
You're wrong. Liches have existed far longer than D&D. Look it up.
>>46332676
Wraith, or maybe an awakened Demi lich
>>46330064
link to the second thread?
>>46332682
I did look it up, and it is exactly as I said. There were other monsters from which Gygax drew inspiration, but they were not liches, and before D&D ABSOLUTELY NOBODY used the word "lich" to describe a monster instead of an ordinary dead body.
Try again.
>>46332871
>Bram Stoker invented vampires because before that they weren't called that. Strigoi and so on are completely different creatures because they weren't explicitly called vampires.
See how silly that sounds?
>>46333016
Not that guy, but what are some things that had the concept of a master mage putting his soul in a container to achieve immortality?
>>46330396
>You can pretty much counter any of the negative sides of vampirism if you are a spellcaster
Which is still advantage to the Lich, because the vampire spent several spell slots covering base weaknesses, which all things being requital, means the Lich now has the spell advantage in a spell casting fight.
>>46333068
Well, I would only cover the weaknesses as they become relevant, meaning the lich has most likely expended a spell as well.
Or just counterspell what the Lich throws at you meaning you remain equal in terms of castings.
Or just use an antimagic field so pretty much any spell the Lich flings at you is useless and thus can not exploit your weaknesses.
Or, couldn't the vampire make enchanted items to cover his weaknesses? Like, the Lich always protects his Phylactery with the most intricate measures but somehow the Vampire mage leaves his weaknesses 100% in tact?
And when the Lich has no slots left he can only retreat since the Vampire has better stats.
>>46333194
>Well, I would only cover the weaknesses as they become relevant,
Except now the vampire had the weaknesses AND is forced to staying on the defense, which still benefits the Lich.
>>46333062
None. The closest thing is Koschei the Deathless, but he was not a mage and not undead.
>>46333194
>Or just counterspell what the Lich throws at you meaning you remain equal in terms of castings.
and liche counterspells you spells. Pointless argument.
> antimagic field
Can't it be dispelled?
>enchanted items.
You waste items slots to cover you weakness isntead of getting an additional action per turn or something.
>>46333317
Well, by the time he has covered all weaknesses he and the Lich have most likely exchanged equal spell slots, so he can go on the offense or stay in the defense or do whatever.
The thing is, once all spell slots are expended the Vampire has the upper hand due to his higher number of inate abilitie score bonuses and feats. That leaves the Lich with two choices, retreating or probably dying giving the vampire more time to search for the Phylactery.
The Vampire pretty much only has to try to keep spell slots equal, and once both run out he has the upper hand.
Also you did not adress the antimagic field and enchanted items he could use to cover his weaknesses.
>>46333467
>Pointless argument.
not at all, when spells are exchanged at a 1:1 basis the Vampire has the better bonuses at the end, see above, or here >>46330035
>Can't it be dispelled?
From the srd:
>Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.
Looking further to Disjunction:
>You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field
So you have a 11% chance at getting rid of it (I'm assuming both to have spell caster level of 11 since that is the minimum requirement for a Lich)
>You waste items slots to cover you weakness isntead of getting an additional action per turn or something.
Fair point I guess.
>>46333565
>not at all, when spells are exchanged at a 1:1 basis the Vampire has the better bonuses at the end
The difference is, the Lich is going to be using his spells offensively, where the Vampire is going to be using them to patch up his innate weaknesses as they come up.
They expend spells on a 1:1 basis, but the Lich is getting more out of each slot than the Vampire is, if that makes sense.
>>46333789
Not sure, how does the Lich get more value out of his spell if it get's countered or the weakness it tries to exploit is being patched up?
Also the Vampire still heals at the start of each round, so he can take damage now and then without worrying too much about it.
>>46333852
Because in order to "counter" it, the weakness has to come up, which means the Vamprie is being disabled somehow, if not taking heavy damage.
If the Vampire has to keep spending his turns healing and/or patching up his weaknesses, he never has a chance to go on the offensive. If he doesn't go on the offensive, the Lich will win if only because he's the only one dealing damage.
Maybe an example will illustrate better.
Let's say you're playing SMT and you're fighting a boss.
First turn, the boss nails you with some heavy hitting attack. You COULD attack him, but then he'll just murder you next turn, so you spend your turn healing up.
Now the boss is up again...and immediately nails you again, forcing you to keep healing.
If this continues, you will eventually lose, because you can't win if you're taking any kind of offensive action, and you can only play defense for so long(in this case, until your MP/items run out).
Honestly, this is even worse for the Vampire because if by some miracle he DOES win with this defensive strategy, the Lich respawns and can change his strategy for next time, whereas he just needs to kill the Vampire once, if either because the Vampire dies right there, or he can follow the mist to the coffin and stake the Vampire before he has a chance to regain his strength, assuming he doesn't just drag the coffin outside and crack it open when the sun comes up to be a dick about it.
>>46333565
>>46333565
>Anti-magic field
Great. Now the lich just walks away and waits until you come out to fight. You wasted a spell slot and gained nothing.
>Enchanted items to counteract weaknesses
You're still fucked during the day as soon as the lich gets dispel magic through, so you're practically playing russian roulette
>Innate ability scores and feats
Yay, you got like.. increased strength and darkvision? Dodge? And that's your big secret weapon? Liches have damage reduction, so your vampiric strength isn't going to matter for shit.
The fact is that a vampire will have to patch up for his weaknesses, because he has them. His advantages aren't going to come into play against a lich, because most of them revolve around manipulating living creatures or being able to drain them of their blood.
>>46333852
The Lich can end the combat with a single spell, either Dispel Magic to suppress any enchantments or magical items that grant immunity to sunlight or with Sunburst for instagibs. The question is only when the vampire fails to counterspell or when the lich beats the vampire's caster level check. The vampire on the other hand doesn't have an instant win condition AND he doesn't respawn.
>>46332180
yes, yes i do.
>>46334036
Well if he counterspells he does not take any damage (if the counterspell is successfull of course)
I mean I see your point, but you won't really take damage, since you patch up your weakness (or counterspell what he throws at you) right as it comes up through ready action. Or you could use an offensive spell dealing damage and hoping it breaks his concentration.
>>46334194
>Great. Now the lich just walks away and waits until you come out to fight. You wasted a spell slot and gained nothing.
If he waits for me to come to fight I can rest to regain the slot before doing so.
Also, assuming I'm always on the search for his phylactery I can just continue searching for it if he goes away everytime I cast antimagic field.
>Yay, you got like.. increased strength and darkvision? Dodge? And that's your big secret weapon? Liches have damage reduction, so your vampiric strength isn't going to matter for shit.
Yeah they have damage reduction 15/bludgioning and magic. So use a Bludgioning weapon.
About the sunburst thing, again not sure if it works within the antimagic field, assuming I have it up, if I don't have one up I'd either ready an action to break his concentration while he is casting with a spell of my own or using counterspell, or maybe postpone the fight until I have one up. And if the Lich doesn't face me if I have a field up I can pretty much go about my buisness I guess.
>>46334194
>Great. Now the lich just walks away and waits until you come out to fight. You wasted a spell slot and gained nothing.
you can make an anti-magci field centered on you.
Once I killed a powerful lich this way. (He was flying. I teletrasported above him and used the anti magic. Falling he entered in my range and had to fall too.)
The BBEG had spells ignored the ant-magic field cause master felt it was a little bit like cheating
>>46334452
The lich can literally just stand there and wait for the shell to end, for years if need be.
>>46334452
>Also, assuming I'm always on the search for his phylactery I can just continue searching for it if he goes away everytime I cast antimagic field.
What if he's carrying his phylactery, and you keep letting him get away with it when you cast antimagic field in order to be able to keep looking for it.
>>46334513
See >>46334474 the field is centered on you, so you could go chasing after the Lich if he is close enough, or just, like I said, continue searching for the phylactery unhindered
>>46334452
How exactly are you looking for his phylactery in the middle of a fight? If you're fighting the lich in his lair, you're facing off against more than just an undead spellcaster. Likewise, the lich wouldn't want to fight a vampire in it's own lair - the home-ground advantage tends to be pretty big when talking undead power-players.
If you're just staying on the defensive casting anti-magic field all the time, you're running through spells awfully quickly, as the lich will know what the spell does and how long it lasts, he's a wizard too, you know? It simply isn't a valid strategy, as the lich can force you to burn your spells on the defense and he only needs to succeed once.
If you were to run a fight between two optimized spellcasters, one lich, one vampire with both having equal levels in the same class, I'll bet you that the lich will win almost every single time.
But mechanical banter isn't really interesting or productive until someone comes up with some raw, objective numbers or runs an encounter with select parameters, and I sure as hell don't have time to start doing that.
So I'll just say that if you really wanted to kill a lich as a vampire, like stated above, you'd send a rogue to do it, not a spellcaster.
>>46334543
or if its not even on the planet. It just needs to be on the same plane. Bitch could scour until the sun consumes the solar system. Doesn't help if it's ten galaxies over.
>>46334546
Ok now your face to face with a guy with DR 15/blunt and MAGIC and who most likely still has some weapons that, while not magic, can still do serious damage, especially alchemy related stuff, and this is all ignoring the fact that this guys gonna have a guard of incredibly powerful undead near him that, if he's smart, will be melee or ranged machines.
>>46334581
This is pretty much right. The only way vamp wins is if he has the phylactery within his reach. Something tells me that no lich is just going to sit by and let that happen (if they even let slip where it is in the first place).
Direct confrontation can't even happen until that condition is met because infinite lives is too massive an advantage for the vamp to counter in any meaningful way. Subterfuge, minions, and delay tactics are his only hope and unfortunately for him, the lich can actively counter quite a bit of what he's capable of.
tl;dr - Its going to be a stalemate most of the time because they're both too smart to fuck up immortality easily. Otherwise it's either a specific vamp is smart enough to get his hands on the phylactery somehow, or a specific lich is determined/lucky enough to get a 1shot through vamps avoidy bullshit
>>46334543
Then, since the plane is not infinitely big but I have pretty much infinite time at my hand I have only the liches pockets unchecked.
>>46334581
>lich walks away
>middle of a fight
He just abandoned whatever site the fight was happening on. Deal with his minions if there are any there (AM field does the job for most things he'd have I think)
>you're running through spells awfully quickly
One casting lasts 10 minutes per caster level
>So I'll just say that if you really wanted to kill a lich as a vampire, like stated above, you'd send a rogue to do it, not a spellcaster.
Isn't the general opinion that spellcasters do pretty much all things the non caster classes better?
>>46334591
How is he getting his phylactery onto another planet? Let alone ten galaxies over? I know that was probalby an exageration, but teleport for example has a reach of 100 miles per CL, I don't see the Lich getting to another celestial body with that.
>>46334645
Well Vampires usually too have minions. Also inside the field Supernatural and spell-like abilities too lose their effects, stripping the lich off his DR.
>>46334702
Yeah, pretty much my opinion. Mostly the 11 Levels of spellcaster matter more that what kind of template they cose to gain immortality from.
>>46334860
>teleport for example has a reach of 100 miles per CL
Greater Teleport has no range limit.
>>46334860
He's using a different teleport. like Greater. that has no range. Regardless... What if that bitch is in orbit.
>>46334860
Yep. Talking about guys that are so powerful at this point that the inherent benefits of their form of immortality are nothing compared to their other strengths.
That said, phylactery on it's own is waay better than vamp junk imo
Hmm, couldn't a 11th level caster just use wish to wish the phylacery to his position?
>>46335005
>That said, phylactery on it's own is waay better than vamp junk imo
Yeah I think I do agree with that. I most probably would choose Lichdom myself if given the choice between these two. It just seemed many people would give the Vamp almost no chance at all.
>>46333016
John William Polidori used the name Vampyre 80 years before Bram Stoker, but he was definitely the one to invent vampires as "charismatic, hypnotic immortal blood-drinkers". Before him, vampyre meant what a modern day person would call a zombie, i.e. a moving corpse that hungered for flesh.
(And zombi were bodies enchanted by bokor, who are basically voodoo warlocks. They performed manual labor, and did not eat anything.)
>>46333337
Koschei absolutely has magic powers in mythology, and his withered ugly appearance is easily equatable to undead, so it's certainly possible to identify him as the archetype from which liches are built.
However, he is definitely not called a lich.
>>46334860
Well I'm pretty sure that the dr isn't magical as far as I'm aware of, more the fact that he's a skeleton than anything else.
>>46334452
Just out of curiosity, What's your first language?
>>46335079
There where many kinds of vampire myths before stoker.
>>46335141
Don't know that fella, guess I'll go read about him now.
>>46335237
It's listed as a Supernatural ability, and supernatural abilities get borked in a field. But, yeah GM fiat and a bit common sense may overrule that. Even then, just use a bludgeoning weapon or just go halfswording with your sword.
>>46335280
Kraut, why?I'm a bit sleepy and hurried a few posts.
Any glaring mistakes? I'm always willing to improve
>>46330715
Dorf Fort ones are hated for being hypocrites. They sell wood, plants and animals like any other race, as if saying "if it's harvested by elven hand, it doesn't have any rights anymore". They have their "special" tree-friendly way of getting wood, but I doubt there's a way to clone animals like that. They also don't care about anything that isn't a tree, ignoring gleefully the corpses around a fortress and even buying said corpses from players, but the second you put a log or a wooden barrel for trade, they start fuming and cursing your ancestors while mourning for the poor tree. Elves man.
>>46335358
Not really- the word is "bludgeoning", as in the act of using a bludgeon. It's a weird word, bordering on archaic.
Your English is excellent, I just wanted to see if I guessed right.
>>46328664
If a kobold became a lich, could it later become a dracolich?
>>46335618
Yeah, was not entirely sure if I wrote that correct but didn't bother to check.
What would be a less archaic word? Blunt? I just took it off the d20srd lich page.
>Your English is excellent
Nice to hear that.
>>46335641
Dracoliches aren't dragon + lich. There are ways for kobolds in 3e to get the dragon type, at which point it could be made into a dracolich, but the two are very different.
>>46335237
Regular skellies don't get DR just because they're skellies. There's definitely something magical about a lich's DR.
>Mordenkainen's Disjunction
>Bigby's Clenched Fist Sunburst Sunburst Sunburst Sunburst Sunburst
gg no re ez
>>46335821
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/skeleton
>A skeleton loses the base creature's defensive abilities and gains DR 5/bludgeoning and immunity to cold. It also gains all of the standard immunities and traits possessed by undead creatures.
They literally get DR just for being a skeleton
>>46329831
>Liches do not have this issue.
see >>46309044
>>46335855
The vast majority of edition's liches do not have this issue.
>>46335914
it was an issue in 1e and 2e, and not an issue in 3e, 4e and 5e - but in 5e they need to feed a diet of souls to their phylactery instead, which is a similar issue. that's not a vast majority.
(i am aware there are other editions aside from those 5, but to my knowledge none of them were very specific about the ecology of liches)
Level 11 seems a bit low for the kind of trans-dimensional adventures people ITT talk about. I'm thinking a 1v1 fight, these guys would just reform/retreat when the going got too tough. But more likely, they wage a shadow war against each other, with the lich trying to hide his phylactery and the vamp just blending in with mortal society. It would come down to who's got the better information gathering skills more than anything else, and since we're assuming both to be casters for balance's sake (because really, a caster being better than a non-caster is hardly indicative of anything related to template, this being D&D), they'll both have ample time and tools to do so.
If we then assume (like most people ITT) that the lich will spend most of his time fixing his perfect phylactery hideout, then I think we need to consider how the vampire spends that time, because hiding among mortals is pretty effortless. If he can perhaps leverage that into some kind of advantage, like gaining the trust of a party of murderhobos, or convince a more powerful wizard to scry to location of the phylactery or something, then we might have a real challenge.
>>46335849
>You can cast 3 spells in a row
Alright man.
Also:
>11th level caster
>any of those spells
but to be fair, I didn't check antimagic field before either, it is also too high for a 11th level caster.
>>46336072
>He doesn't have meta-magic feats
>>46335849
>counterspell
:^)
>>46335851
Right, but that's not DR 5/magic, which apparently the lich gets.
If it's NOT 5/magic, then it's pretty worthless. Honestly, if the vamp can survive/counterspell all the spell slots of the lich, then he has the edge in physical combat. Wouldn't even need levels in fighter, his strength score is a lot better.
>>46335718
Bludgeoning is the word they use for the damage type in D&D. Blunt would be the more typical modern word- as in, 'blunt trauma to the head' for someone who's been smacked in the skull with a cricket bat.
>>46336124
Too bad vamp will run out of spells first because they had to ward against their crippling weaknesses :^)
>sunburst gg no re
>>46334474
Liches don't die if they're killed in an AMF.
They respawn as normal - it would be suppressed only if the AMF was held over their phylactery, but even then, not actually stopped.
>>46336116
The vampire can have those as well. I'm not sure why you guys all assume that the vamp isn't an equal spellcaster to the lich. That's the premise of the fight after all.
>>46335849
>>46336116
Way too stupidly OP for what should be viewed as the baseline of a lich. Not to mention its fairly odd to be thinking about metamagic with already high level spells.
>>46336158
Epic level vampires don't have crippling weaknesses though :^)
Fact: Vampire template have higher ECR than Lich. Lich loses.
>>46336174
Vamp's higher ECL means they will be a less effective caster if even. They don't apply for spell duration/power.
>>46336066
>>46336072
>11th level
yea lets just assume something for no reason other than I wanna.
>>46336210
That doesn't follow at all. A higher level adjustment is strictly a penalty. Additionally, epic vampires most assuredly keep their crippling weaknesses. There -are- various excessively variant turbo vampires floating around in odd places (Van Richten's Guide to the Vampire, a vampire lord template in 3.0) but this is presumably a vampire vs lich comparison, not a pseudo-turbo-vampire vs demilich comparison.
>>46336124
>physical combat
>wew
>>46336261
I'm going for the most baseline comparison.
The base creature being a 11th level caster for both templates, since that is the minimum required for a Lich.
>>46336261
11th level was being used as a baseline because that's the lowest level someone can become a lich.
>>46336261
If you want to assume level 24 or whatever, that's fine, but its not exactly a point to the lich -- the vampire could likewise demolish the lich with spells. 60d6 sun damage would wipe out a lich if the vampire cast it too.
>>46336191
And a baseline vampire is level 5, because that's the point at which you're powerful enough to become one.
Baseline lich versus baseline vampire is still an easy win for the lich.
>>46336174
At which point you just compare weaknesses - and the vampire has them.
>>46336210
Vampire Lord versus Demilich is a bit more interesting, as both are hardcore and very hard to put down, but even then - Demilich would probably take it due to their better ability to bunker down.
The Tomb of Horrors is the sort of thing they build around their decoy skulls.
>>46336229
lol, so you assume they compensate for ECL? Sorry buddy, that's not for it works: 2 level 11 wizards meet, are turned into a lich and a vampire, then are given 6 months of prep time before the fight is on. Yes, the vampires ECL will be higher than the lichs. That's the whole point of the argument, which template is better.
>>46336210
you mean ECL? also uh, so? without the phylactery lich doesn't die period. One bad role and vamps out for good.
:^)
>>46336337
Um, do you even understand what ecl is? a higher ecl makes you a shittier caster if you're the same level as the lower ecl you're dueling.
>>46336304
why are you doing that? because it benefits your position/fits your narrative?
>>46336331
>Baseline lich versus baseline vampire is still an easy win for the lich.
Yeah, and to balance that out people begun to use the same baseline creature to tack the template on.
>>46336331
>Baseline lich versus baseline vampire
Dude, nobody's talking about that, read the thread.
>you just compare weaknesses
And strengths, you idiot. It's just as dumb to ignore strengths as it is to ignore weaknesses.
>>46336386
No because the other comparison is uninteresting because every 11th level caster would kill every 5th level whatever.
That's not a feat of the lich, but of the difference between the baseline creature.
Also
>you
Most people until now have done that from some point in the last thread onwards.
>>46336321
>this kills the vampire
phylactery.
>this inconveniences the lich
>>46336314
Yea, but this is the thing people had a problem with in the last thread but reversed. You're picking a powerful vampire (see not average) and putting it against the weakest lich. It's equivalent to picking a battlefield that favors one combatant over the other, of course the favored one is going to win, because you set it up that way.
>>46336437
Yeah, I know, its an example. If you want a more direct comparison as to how turbo high level erases the distinction, the vampire could simply use Imprisonment.
>>46336337
Nobody gives a shit about which template has one point more in ability x. It's irrelevant.
What is relevant is infinite respawns vs crippling and obvious weaknesses
>>46336437
Well I think in the last thread it was agreed upon that in an fight between an average vampire vs an average lich the lich would win.
But the discussion then went more towards the template itself, comparing it when applied to the same creature.
>>46336356
You're assuming that the phylactery is impossible to find and destroy, which is what adventurers do all the time. It's a bit silly to have an argument over this when the lich-crowd always just falls back to "liches can be destroyed, because the phylactery is just impossible to find". That's not how it works in practice.
>>46336372
Has something been changed since I played then? level adjustment was only for XP as far as I remember it.
>>46336423
>And strengths, you idiot. It's just as dumb to ignore strengths as it is to ignore weaknesses.
Go on? Detail the unique strengths of the vampire.
Both are spellcasters - the only thing that matters is their reaction to being killed and their inherent weaknesses.
>>46336478
>>46336337
There's also that a lich's respawn involves him being destroyed, and later is reconstituted. His items are left behind and he's out of commission for one week. The vampire's reconstitution takes place when he's reduced to 0 hp (so greater turning, etc. permits no respawn), and his items are not ditched, and he's back in an hour.
>>46336394
>>46336423
No one is talking about that but they should be. Vamp fags are trying to skew things to favor them by picking the weakest lich they can and a stronger vampire. It's the same thing early lich fags were doing in the other thread with averages (since that value obviously favors the lich, who need to be tougher to turn).
It's like saying who's better men or women, then taking a 15 year old boy (cuz thats wen manhood for him) and comparing him to a 25 year old body building woman
>and strengths.
phylactery outweighs anything vamp is packing for this fight anyway.
>>46336503
Honestly, the problem with "average" is that vampires can run anywhere from "fanged shit-eater that level 1 guards kill before breakfast every morning" to "Dracula from Castlevania" in terms of power leve.
Meanwhile, even the weakest Lich is a power mid-tier spellcaster because that's the baseline requirement for becoming a Lich.
>>46336477
>touch
wew
>>46336386
otherwise you're just comparing who would win between a spellcaster vs a less powerful spellcaster/non-caster, in which case obviously the more powerful caster would win whether they are a lich or not, and them being a lich has very little to do with it.
so when people say "liches are more powerful than vampires" what they mean is "powerful spellcasters are more powerful than vampires, assuming those vampires are not also powerful spellcasters".
>>46336478
>It's irrelevant
...because it doesn't favor your favorite, the lich.
>crippling and obvious weaknesses
Nothing a few magic items can't compensate for. Now you're gonna tell me "well the lich has those as well!", but no, he spent that time setting up traps for his phylactery location and summoning beasts to guard it. He only has a finite amount of time before the fight starts, which the vampire can also spend doing shit, like for example gathering items.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The weaknesses are easily compensated for, just like how the phylactery (being the principle weakness of the lich) is easily compensated for.
>>46336583
Yeah, I am fully aware. That's why I'm in favor of them both being 11th level casters for the comparison
>>46336543
>phylactery outweighs anything vamp is packing for this fight anyway.
While being a vampire is definitely better for the majority of PCs, hence the higher LA (and note that say a level 8 vampire could potentially get a level 16 spawn controlled), a vampire's way easier to deal with if you know what to expect. So I'd say in general the vampire has a massive advantage in adventures, but the lich has a massive advantage in 1v1. He may not use damaging spells at all -- and a vampire can only mist away if reduced to 0 HP.
That being said, loss of all items is a serious blow to a lich too.
>>46336506
If the vamp can just find the phylactery without trouble, there is nothing preventing th lich from finding the vamp while he is sleeping and then taking him to see a nice sunrise. You can't skew the fight into the vamps favour by assuming the phylactery is being left unguarded in the lich's skull-shaped fortress of doom with just a sign that says "plz no take"
>>46336503
Right, I don't mean use the average, cuz that skews things in the opposite direction. need to find a level that doesn't auto favor one or the other.
>>46336506
This works both ways senpai. where are you bedding down? maybe the lich finds that and brings it down during the day. Difference is, you've got extras to worry about in addition to the discovery
>>46336602
Most of a vampire's weaknesses cannot be compensated for directly. They are not at all easy to deal with. The main one is sunlight, and so a darkness spell will work, but touching a higher level light spell instantly negates the darkness spell. That includes if someone just plain walks by with the higher level light spell.
For holy symbols, running water, and especially fucking invitations, there's no particular magic item or spell that directly handles it other than the obvious (a spell that evaporates the water, etc).
>>46336524
If they run out of spells (which all spellcasters eventually do), then it's down to hand to hand. I'm sure you'll tell me that the lich just saves a nice teleport for last so he can start up the next morning, but that can be interrupted. Anyway, point being that ANY advantage should be accounted for, not just dismissed because it doesn't fit your narrative.
>>46336543
>they should be.
In your opinion.
>picking the weakest lich
No, that would be you trying to pick the weakest possible vampire. Dude, we can go with level 25 character if you wanted. The difference will be even smaller.
>phylactery outweighs anything vamp is packing for this fight anyway
See, you're refusing to acknowledge the factors involved by just going "lol phylactery, lich always wins". That's just intellectually lazy and a bad way to debate your point.
>>46336524
but anon! +stats
theyve got like some extra strength. and mistform. That totally beats out infinite redos eryday
>>46336602
The vampire has to sleep and feed, lich doesn't. The vamp also has to carry the wards against his weakness with him, while the lich's weakness is three thousand miles to the south inside a death trap dungeon.
>>46336542
>implying
>>46336641
Of course he won't find the phylactery without trouble. I'm just saying it should be possible, at least when they're both level 11 scrubs.
It's just lazy to claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE, just no way when adventurers do this all the time.
Anyway, yes, the lich COULD sneak up and kill the vampire when he slept. That's a valid tactic. This is a theoretical fight, so you can't just discard stuff like that. I'd say that the vampire is just as wary of this happening as the lich is about his phylactery though.
>>46336602
I... what?
you critisize the guy for ignoring something technical, then are like he could use slots or items to cover weaknesses! thereby reducing his combat effectiveness and losing the argument for you.
>>46336705
There's basically no way that they'd stand around til they ran out of spells. Aint going to happen.
>>46336696
Of course it works both ways, the vampire's weaknesses are always well established. The issue is that you're refusing to accept that a phylactery can be compromised.
Anyway, I'd say the safest place to rest in among human servants, preferably strong ones. It's not like it's easy to find a vampire either.
>>46335358
>There where many kinds of vampire myths before stoker.
Yes, but before John William Polidori, absolutely none of them had vampires that look like still-living humans (they looked like rotting corpses), and the vampires didn't drink blood (they ate flesh whole), and the vampires were not aristocratic (they were monstrous), and so on and so forth.
The archetypes of the modern vampire were forged wholesale by John William Polidori and his Lord Ruthven.
>>46336602
The phylactery isn't a weakness, merely an asset. The weaknesses of a vampire however, are nearly impossible to compensate for except on a case by case basis.
>>46336636
Fair point, but a the blow is void given the infinite time frame here
>>46336847
Hm? No, the modern myth is based off Celtic and Romanian mythology, which absolutely did have fuckable, humanlike vampires, sometimes even breedable ones.
Quit this historical revisionism BS.
>>46336705
He doesn't need to save a teleport, he can lose the fist fight, then optimize his rotation for the next bout.
>my opinion
yea, I do like this kind of hypothetical to at least be balanced. but whatever.
>picking the weakest
you're the one saying base level
>phylactery
Man this shit is getting boring. I'm saying that because I read the thread and it's incredibly obvious that nothing the vamp is packing matches this advantage. If you see something, point it out.
>>46336840
It is, however, much more difficult to find a phylactery than a sleeping vampire, because the lich doesn't necessarily advertize where his phylactery is and doesn't even have to be anywhere near it, while the vampire has to return to his haven regularly. I'm not saying the phylactery impossible to find, but it'll take a long time, especially without a trail to follow. Finding a vampire that is not in torpor is much easier as there is more clues, resulting from feeding, traffic, etc.
>>46336782
This is fair. But it doesn't advance the argument for either side, and is also the reason I'm saying it's a stalemate with too many variables.
Liches are a league of their own.
Only a master-tier vampire could hope to fight a lich, and even then the victory is far from secure.
Your average vampire can coast for their existance on basic vampire traits (strength, innate abilities).
A lich has to work to get to where they were. They are more powerful in their current form, but they are respectably powerful mages in their own right.
>>46336840
I've never once said the phylactery can't be compromised, that would be retarded.
My argument is, finding it is objectively harder than finding a sleeping vampire. which is why that point goes to the lich
>>46336733
Yes, you're certainly assuming a lot about the lich's powers of hiding shit away, but you're not really considering what a vampire of equal power can spend his time doing when the lich is busy doing that.
See, this is what it breaks down to. You guys just assume that that's a free action for the lich, fixing his hideout place and then having time to spare, all the while the vampire is just sitting on his ass and waiting. Building a giant death dungeon takes time, time the vampire can spend doing something else. It's the same principle behind XP costs for things like spells in D&D. They're meant to represent the time committed in doing something, time you could have spent slaying monsters and gaining XP, or finding new magical items.
Anyway, I will admit that D&D vampires are sort of ridiculous in all their weaknesses. I mean, garlic? Seriously? On the other hand, it appears that they don't actually just die in sunlight, merely get disoriented. So there's that.
I need to head to bed, have fun guys.
>>46336993
A lot of it is also that you can keep a vampire from doing ANYTHING on you if you know that you should fear vampires, and the lich could take the time to vampire proof his castle, surrounding villages, etc., while the only advantage knowing a lich is gunning for you is that you aren't going to waste your time versus the many spells they're immune to.
>>46336918
No, it ain't. Look up the history of the word vampyre and what they referred to.
Striga were conflated with the modern image of a vampire, but they were separate creatures. They were less corpse like, more like evil shapeshifters that sucked blood.
And absolutely nothing like them appears in celtic mythology which I am quite well learned in. The Dearg-Dul is a creation of Montague Summers, and has no mythological basis. The leannán sà will drink the blood of their lover, but they share nothing in common with vampires beyond that.
>>46337021
Nah, its a fair point, its nearly impossible to find a phylactery of a lich if he tries at all. My rule of thumb is that you should assume you will never find a lich's phylactery and plan accordingly.
>>46337021
What am I assuming incorrectly? If your vamp, by some miracle, manages to acquire a ring that allows him to daywalk, then he's one dispel magic away from being bbq. Meanwhile the lich's main weakness isn't even a part of the fight and could hidden anywhere.
>>46337021
what if the dungeon was already built man? these are already established people. What could the vamp possibly be doing with his time that makes any difference here? searching? you gonna search the whole prime material?
>>46336847
It's been a long time since I read Basil Coppers "The Vampire in Legend and Fact" but I tink in the first section there was mentioning of sucking blood and stuff like that.
Also, I just quickly checked what the oldest source of his book is i could find quickly, it is "Dissertations sur les apparitions des anges, des démons et des esprits. Et sur les revenans et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie et de Silerie" by Augustin(us) Calmet, and as you can see the term Vampire seems to be as old as 1746 (when that book was published).
There were many kind of legends that involved some kind of vampire, they where not all looking like rotting corpses and only eating flesh. The tales varied quite strongly.
Ah okay, reading >>46337054 you might know more about that than I do. But still the modern vampire is a mixture of many different creatures from different cultures that share the feeding on blood, like the Striga you mentioned.
>>46337021
No, they get desoriented and if they don't get out of the sunlight the next round they die.
>>46337054
>less corpse like
I'll be honest, as far as dead bodies that return to drink blood and be drop dead sexy are concerned, that makes me think "vampire." You were wondering where the modern idea of the vampire comes from, now you know. Likewise, the whole idea of the half vampire, vampire hunter, and even the Scholomance (where Dracula learned his abilities, in the book), comes from Romanian mythology.
> which I am quite well learned in.
Apparently not. There is one that must be back in its barrow by sunup, dances with handsome men (but draws blood with its claws rather than sharp teeth) and preys on them in the process.
Keep in mind that the *only* thing you have going for you is the sophistry argument, "oh well sure its a blood sucking undead creature that seduces people, but that's not a vampire, because, muh feelings!"
>>46337093
This is what I'm saying. It's comparing two immensely powerful baddies, but one has a target painted over his weak spot (even if it's shielded, you just need to burn through the shield to get at it), while the other has hidden it away in a location that *can* but is incredibly unlikely to be discovered and is also shielded.
I don't see how this is even happening. If they have to fight/can't team up/can't give up or lose interest then the only thing you can do is look at who's got the better chance. The hardy one without requirements to live or the one with upkeep and weaknesses.
>>46337171
Of course there's variations. In some areas vampyres were more vengeful things that only lived to kill, neither eating their victims or drinking blood. Mythology is never clearly straightforward.
>>46337178
>Apparently not. There is one that must be back in its barrow by sunup, dances with handsome men (but draws blood with its claws rather than sharp teeth) and preys on them in the process.
You mean the baobhan sith, which are a corruption of the bean sidhe. As far as I recall they just lured people to their deaths, I can't find any material indicating they drink blood that dates back before the modern day.
>Keep in mind that the *only* thing you have going for you is the sophistry argument, "oh well sure its a blood sucking undead creature that seduces people, but that's not a vampire, because, muh feelings!"
No, my point is that the first person to make vampires into blood sucking creatures was John William Polidori. Blood sucking creatures of varying states of attractiveness existed before then, but they weren't called vampires or even associated with vampires until "The Vampyre" was penned and became a huge hit. It is only after Polidori's story that the striga and such became associated with vampires, because he was the one to associate vampires with blood drinking.
Guys, it's a gladiatorial bout. It's not to the death. It's probably rigged too, so I'm willing to bet that the lich is willing to fake death since its form can be destroyed for the crowd's enjoyment, and since the vampire is much more likely to be a crowd favourite, what with not being a rotten corpse and all that. You're all talking death match when you ought to be talking business.
>>46337642
Original thread was death battle, was continuing with that logic, figured the title of this (continuation thread) was fanfare.
>>46337436
Okay. So everyone is aware that there were dead people who came back as (sometimes) sexable, fuggable blood sucking fiends. So in every imaginable way, vampires long predate Polidori, except they used a different name. Whoop de doo.
I would imagine the country of France amazes you due to them wanting to use different words for all manner of things.
>I can't find any material indicating they drink blood that dates back before the modern day.
How many centuries must pass before something is no longer "modern day?"
>>46336066
Shadow wars are a lot more interesting than 1v1 fights, especially because in 3.x, casters really don't have knock down drag out fights, they have rocket tag.
>>46337677
>Okay. So everyone is aware that there were dead people who came back as (sometimes) sexable, fuggable blood sucking fiends. So in every imaginable way, vampires long predate Polidori, except they used a different name. Whoop de doo.
I make the distinction of archetype and actual titles. You don't. Should we leave it at that?
>How many centuries must pass before something is no longer "modern day?"
I'd say at least one. I can't find anything before, like, 2004 with cheesy internet vampire sites claiming all manners of mythological creatures whether they drank blood or not.
Heavily depends how their immortality works.
>>46338024
Phrase it more in the proper /tg/ vernacular - "depends on setting".
Then even in D&D, depends on level, race, classes, spell selection, and a variety of random factors.
>>46330032
dude the lore says specifically "sauron is the dark apprentice of "morgoth", the first greater dark lord". doesn't matter what kind of spirit souron is, he serves morgoth.
>>46328587
if a lich and vamp take a stroll in the sun, vamp goes poof...lich sizzles and loses alot of power....doesn't go poof....winner, lich. (Also aren't liches necromancers that have acheived such mastery over undeath they themselves are undead? can't almost any lich have power to control just about any vampire?)
>>46330032
To use D&D terminology, its blatantly obvious that valar = deities, maiar = non deific outsiders.
>>46338276
Sauron serves only Sauron.
>>46338374
yes, but be careful because the vampire fags will jump on you saying that 'but vampires could control undead toooo'
>>46338498
Which is hilarious when you consider that one got his powers because he got bit by an overgrown tick and the other dedicated several decades to the mastery of undeath until he could basically make death his bitch and then improved his art over hundreds of years.
>>46338374
>Also aren't liches necromancers that have acheived such mastery over undeath they themselves are undead?
there's no requirement for liches to be necromancers or even wizards.
>>46338566
are you retarded? Citation fucking needed.
>>46338423
Wrong.
>>46338622
You never read anything by Tolkien, did you?
>>46338679
You've only read Lord of the Rings.
>>46338390
Why would you use D&D terminology to describe Tolkien's mythology?
>>46338276
He started out serving Aulë, joined and served Melkor/Morgoth, then acted on his own. Who he serves has no bearing on what he is, either, except morally.
>>46338740
=) keep being wrong and delusional
>>46328587
>varied evil creature vs varied evil creature, who wins?
"depends on the setting"
>>46338756
welcome to /tg/ we do dumb things for fun here
>>46338614
from van richten's guide to the lich (2e):
>While mages are considered the most likely candidates to fall prey to the lure of lichdom, it should not be forgotten that priests may walk the road to unlife as well. In most respects, the processes are similar. The priest must, like the mage, discover the ritual to lichdom, whether it is revealed by beings from unseen planes, unearthed from ancient scriptures where it lay hidden in riddles, or unveiled by an evil diety through prayer. The priest, too, must manufacture a phylactery and concoct a poisonous potion to go with it. However, the transformation for a priest is based in priestly magic, ritual, and ceremony. A ritual designed for a mage would afford certain doom to a cleric.
this is old hat, because cleric liches have been around since forever. but you don't even need magic to become a lich, because the guide also describes PSIONIC liches:
>Woe to the person who encounters a lich possessed of the secrets of the mind - who can, by hypnotic will alone, look into the depths of a human soul. These beasts are towers of iron fortitude, creating and driving their unlife not by magical means, but by the pure desire of their evil will to continue, to enlarge their mental prowess, to stand upon the pinnacle of all that is human and to look beyond at any cost to the rest of the world. The information about liches with these strange mesmeric abilities is very sparse. However, I have been able to knit together some few threads of knowledge into tenuous conclusions.
in 3e, the only prerequisites for becoming a lich are "Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher" - making lichdom avaliable to clerics, druids, even bards and rangers can apply.
>>46338994
Oh jesus man. commendable effort. but It's the same-ish thing. the cleric and druid would be even stronger with regards to the original dudes point (inherently extra strong against undead).
>bard and ranger (sort of?)
I guess that's a fair point, but such a vast majority aren't this that it makes it a whole lot less relavent
>>46338964
I'm afraid the fact is that I've been here for some six-seven years or so, without having had the displeasure of having to read someone's analysis of Tolkien's mythology in D&D terminology.
>>46338756
Because someone brought it up, obviously.
And because angels/spirits vs greek gods has been used to point out the difference between maiar and valar for decades.
>>46339130
sounds like you've missed a lot of fun!
>>46339099
Man, lich bards are fucking baller.
>>46339302
mmmm I want to agree so bad... only they are undead and don't have charisma anymore
>>46339406
They don't have constitution. Liches get a bonus to charisma.
>>46339455
Is that true? I may have misread, it has been a long while
>>46339537
Yup.
>>46339589
hah, my bad. I just looked it up and you're totally right. Shit son, lich bard ARE fucking baller.
>>46339627
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrS1RyuoG0I
>>46339708
now theres an interesting idea
>>46338740
He used to serve Melkor/Morgoth, but when the Great Dark God was Flung into the Void, Sauron stopped serving him
>>46338374
Sun doesn't affect liches at all though.
>>46342186
During his corruption of Numenor he named Melkor as superior to Illuvatar. He still seemed loyal to his old master, he just wasn't around to give orders so Sauron had to run the show himself.
>>46338994
Exactly.
This "muh hundreds of years studying necromancy" meme should die.
But unfortunately lichfags will ignore your post.
>>46345925
Tribalism in action, everyone.
>>46346249
Inflaming in action, everyone.
>>46345925
>Yea! this 'using a characteristic definitive of the vast majority of the population to make a generalization about that population' (in this, an argument about just that) meme needs to die!
>Lets compare the statistically insignificant number of magic weak liches to the statistically insignificant number of archmage tier vampires instead!
>see, that way my favorite group comes out on top.
you're right anon. It makes a ton of sense when you don't think about it.
>>46346704
>Let's take a level 11 caster and clone him
>one gets vampire'd the other goes lichdom
>lets compare them
>waaaahhh unfair
>>46328898
If the vampire is particularly skilled or some sorta ancient super vampire and the lich is kinda new and a bit of a pussy, yes a vamp could defeat one
9/10 however a lich will slap his ass all over the place
>>46337054
Baobhan sith
You know, people keep saying, "Oh, well vampires have all these weaknesses! They can be killed by things A, B, and C!"
Yes, but it depends on the setting, and in some settings they can only be killed by all three things A, B, and C.
In other words, in one setting, it might take sunlight, a crucifix, a stake through the heart, OR decapitation to kill a vampire, whereas in another setting it might take sunlight, a crucifix, a stake through the heart, AND decapitation to kill him.
I would agree with the consensus here that the lich will usually win just by virtue of the fact that it is a state which can, by its very nature, only be achieved by spellcasters who are already very powerful, whereas vampirism can be achieved (or imposed on others) even at very low magic levels, but I would say that IF THE FIGHT IS NORMALIZED, meaning if liches and vampires are only paired up who are already at the same magic level, then the vampire could potentially stand almost an even chance, or even better than an even chance.
>>46348125
If you had read the thread, you'd realize that people have already discussed that and come to the conclusion that the lich's weakness (phylactery) is also a source of limitless respawns and won't even be a factor in the fight, since it'll be hidden somewhere else, allowing the lich to fight without much concern for the wellbeing of his physical form. Meanwhile, the vampire always carries the burden of his curse with him and that really drags the vampire down in the end.
>>46348188
Yes, but, again, it depends on the medium. Just as some settings beef vampires up by requiring a combination of factors to kill them, some settings also try to nerf liches with all sorts of limitations or weaknesses of their own. For example, Voldemort required a servant to perform a ritual in order to be resurrected, and every time he was resurrected it destroyed one of his phylacteries in the process. Thus, the greatest number of times you would have to kill him to win would be the number of phylacteries he had. Additionally, if you could just kill all his servants, there would be noone left to perform the ritual, and he'd be dead forever.
Other media might have other limitations. The lich's phylactery might have to be kept somewhere within the physical world, because the lich only regenerates AT the physical location of the phylactery. The phylactery might also have to be constrained to a particular location, from which it cannot be moved. If this is the case, then assuming this is some sort of Grand Battle that spans ages and continents, the vampire could very well simply triangulate where the lich is being regenerated, based on where he keeps showing up, and thus find out where the phylactery is.
There are all sorts of rules that different media could impose on the fight, and most of these rules will tend to buff the vampire and nerf the lich. The question is simply whether they buff the vampire ENOUGH, and nerf the lich ENOUGH, that the fight becomes even.
