|
Zurui posted:I feel like a bad nerd for asking this, but what's the difference between a lich and a demilich? Basically a demi-lich is a lich so old it's collapsed to just dust and a skull. There's been some variation over the editions, and in 3E the demi-lich appeared in the Epic Level Handbook and was even more powerful than a regular lich, but as originally presented in Tomb of Horrors it was basically a cheesy trap monster. It couldn't actually hurt you in any way if you just ignored it, but if you attacked it you gave it power, and if you touched the skull it could start sucking out souls.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:About 50% I imagine
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Jerik posted:Basically a demi-lich is a lich so old it's collapsed to just dust and a skull. There's been some variation over the editions, and in 3E the demi-lich appeared in the Epic Level Handbook and was even more powerful than a regular lich, but as originally presented in Tomb of Horrors it was basically a cheesy trap monster. It couldn't actually hurt you in any way if you just ignored it, but if you attacked it you gave it power, and if you touched the skull it could start sucking out souls. It's kind of the apotheosis of the Gygax dungeon ecology/sucker trap monster
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The monster at the end of Tomb of Horrors was a new creation for just that module, so players had to figure out on the spot how to kill him (and not just remember an entry from the Monster Manual). It was literally designed so normal PC endboss tactics would be ineffective or counterproductive. Didn't has actual players clear the Tomb of Horrors easily since it's a collection of Gygaxisms and they'd long since learned how he tried to trick them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Jerik posted:Basically a demi-lich is a lich so old it's collapsed to just dust and a skull. There's been some variation over the editions, and in 3E the demi-lich appeared in the Epic Level Handbook and was even more powerful than a regular lich, but as originally presented in Tomb of Horrors it was basically a cheesy trap monster. It couldn't actually hurt you in any way if you just ignored it, but if you attacked it you gave it power, and if you touched the skull it could start sucking out souls. However, sometimes the skull gets bulbous up top,at which point you've got yourself a Hemi-Lich this joke is old enough to vote Republican
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Gerund posted:However, sometimes the skull gets bulbous up top,at which point you've got yourself a Hemi-Lich Fortunately, those aren't really a threat anymore, because every adventurer nowadays knows how to perform the Hemi-Lich maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Didn't has actual players clear the Tomb of Horrors easily since it's a collection of Gygaxisms and they'd long since learned how he tried to trick them? I thought (based on memories I can't source) that it went the same as any other adventure Gygax ran at the time, they just sent waves and waves of hirelings in there and observed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I thought (based on memories I can't source) that it went the same as any other adventure Gygax ran at the time, they just sent waves and waves of hirelings in there and observed. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what they did. My vague knowledge of Gygax apocrypha was only that his players got through the tomb without too much difficulty, and also that Gygax' players allegedly made extensive use of hirelings throughout their games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
This is slightly off topic, but I've sometimes heard OSR folks say that Gygax wasn't as married to traps and played less antagonistically at his own table. This is countered by an anecdote from Playing at the World where, at the first GenCon post D&D release, Gygax spent the day running groups through a dungeon. Or he meant to, but got done early because all the groups kept dying to traps like a thin wire that beheaded unwary dungeoneers. Even at this incredibly early stage it appears he was a bigger fan of bullshit traps and tricks than his audience ever was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
EverettLO posted:This is slightly off topic, but I've sometimes heard OSR folks say that Gygax wasn't as married to traps and played less antagonistically at his own table. One of the oft-repeated things seems to be stuff like the Tomb of Horrors was just for conventions but somehow it bled into the consciousness as the 'right' way to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Gygax wasn't just "a christian" he was Jehova's Witness. So, you know, a bunch of extra-weirder Christian stuff he'd been raised with and some odd takes in the bible study classes, I imagine. He was practicing, at least in the early days of D&D, including door to door evangelizing etc., although I understand that later he parted ways with his congregation perhaps due to all the drinking and drugs, or perhaps due to the fairly common media scare about D&D being satanic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Gygax wasn't just "a christian" he was Jehova's Witness. So, you know, a bunch of extra-weirder Christian stuff he'd been raised with and some odd takes in the bible study classes, I imagine. He was practicing, at least in the early days of D&D, including door to door evangelizing etc., although I understand that later he parted ways with his congregation perhaps due to all the drinking and drugs, or perhaps due to the fairly common media scare about D&D being satanic. You know why healing is so weird and slow in D&D if you don’t have access to magic? You know why there is no bloodletting and leeches and four humors, despite Gygax clearly being familiar with that part of history. JW don’t believe in blood transfusion and a variety of other medical practices. Also Gygax claimed at different times that Law or Chaos or Neutrality were the “real” good alignment, or the one he most identified with, and also claimed at other times that they were subjective. He didn’t actually have complex moral thoughts about alignment, he just wanted color coded teams (Law=US marshals, knights and Christianity, Neutrality=Gunslingers and mercenaries, Chaos= Native Americans, Bandits, and devil worshipers).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Hey y'all, the 2019 Wizards of the Coast survey is up in case you want to, you know, yell at them about 5e or tell them to fire Mike Mearls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
There's only one fill-in-the blank (that I got) so don't go in expecting to tell them anything useful or helpful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
moths posted:There's only one fill-in-the blank (that I got) so don't go in expecting to tell them anything useful or helpful. A "Why do you say that?" fill in the blank after getting the multiple-choice option to say you will not recommend D&D to your friends seems like a decent chance to yell at them to fire Mike Mearls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Yeah, that's exactly where mine was and what I did with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
i was expecting a "is there anything else you'd like to tell us" but they've apparently caught on
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I'm pretty sure that was first used in Tomb of Horrors, back in 1975. The missing link is likely Lords of Darkness (1e not 3e), a Forgotten Realms supplement that was the first to really expand on the undead in D&D beyond just monster stat blocks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:i was expecting a "is there anything else you'd like to tell us" but they've apparently caught on
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The missing link is likely Lords of Darkness (1e not 3e), a Forgotten Realms supplement that was the first to really expand on the undead in D&D beyond just monster stat blocks. Yeah, that might be where the business about a lich's life force being in its phylactery started... I just checked Lords of Darkness and that is indeed in there, so unless someone comes up with an earlier source that would seem to be where it originated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Jerik posted:Tomb of Horrors didn't have a lich in it. It had a fake lich that was actually a zombie, and it had Acererak, who was a demi-lich. Neither had a phylactery. Really? I could have sworn that there was some sort of "must destroy the [object] or it doesn't count" twist, but it has been a very long time since I read the adventure. Edit: I went out to the garage and dug out my copy. It was a skull, but you're right, they never called it a phylactery. Cessna fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Oct 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Really? I could have sworn that there was some sort of "must destroy the [object] or it doesn't count" twist, but it has been a very long time since I read the adventure. p. sure there were scrolls scattered around and you had to use the right ones in the right order
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Really? I could have sworn that there was some sort of "must destroy the [object] or it doesn't count" twist, but it has been a very long time since I read the adventure. Nope. Acererak can be done in by dealing 50 hit points of damage to the skull, nothing else required. (Alternatively, he can also be destroyed by "a power word, kill pronounced from an astral or ethereal magic-user".) Of course, since he's immune to most forms of damage and he'll be sucking out souls while you're fighting him, that's easier said than done, but still there's nothing in Tomb of Horrors that's like a lich's phylactery as later presented. (Originally edited my message to reply to your edit, but then you posted a separate message so I just edited this message back and replied to that instead.) Jerik fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Oct 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Jerik posted:Nope. Acererak can be done in by dealing 50 hit points of damage to the skull, nothing else required. (Alternatively, he can also be destroyed by "a power word, kill pronounced from an astral or ethereal magic-user".) Of course, since he's immune to most forms of damage and he'll be sucking out souls while you're fighting him, that's easier said than done, but still there's nothing in Tomb of Horrors that's like a lich's phylactery as later presented. It was a skull in the final room of the adventure that had to be destroyed that I was thinking of, and, yes, there were all sorts of weird conditions that had to be met to do damage (i.e., a thief can sling a valuable gem from the tomb at it to do 1 hp per 10000 gp of value). And no, it wasn't called a phylactery in Tomb of Horrors, I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Leraika posted:Hey y'all, the 2019 Wizards of the Coast survey is up in case you want to, you know, yell at them about 5e or tell them to fire Mike Mearls. Favorite Supplement: Book of Vile Darkness Let's make it happen people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It was a skull in the final room of the adventure that had to be destroyed that I was thinking of, and, yes, there were all sorts of weird conditions that had to be met to do damage (i.e., a thief can sling a valuable gem from the tomb at it to do 1 hp per 10000 gp of value). Well, I mean, the skull is Acererak. That's not some magical relic he hid his life force in; that's literally him, or what's left of him. So yeah, I guess that's where his life force is, in the same sense that a human's life force is in the human's body. So, sure, to destroy Acererak you have to destroy Acererak; I don't really see that as prefiguring the business of the lich's phylactery. As for the "weird conditions", that's what I meant about his being immune to most damage; there were only certain ways to hurt him. Throwing gems is one, but certain spells also did significant damage to him, and so did sufficiently powerful magical weapons. He still ultimately died to regular hit point damage; it's just that it's harder than usual to inflict that damage. There's no special item he's hidden his life force in outside his own body, and there are no specific objects you have to find to defeat him. (At least, not once you've finally found him... there are special keys you need to collect to get into his crypt in the first place, but that's a separate matter.) e: In later editions that got retconned because the writers wanted to use Acererak as a recurring villain so they tried to get around his destruction in Tomb of Horrors by saying that skull wasn't really him. But the original Tomb of Horrors was explicit about the fact that yes, he's just a skull and some dust now, so destroying the skull defeats him for the same reason that chopping a goblin in half defeats the goblin. Jerik fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
it's definitely not as simple as "just do 50 damage"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:it's definitely not as simple as "just do 50 damage" I'm... not sure where you're seeing a contradiction? The text there lists the ways he can be damaged, and then says the skull "takes 50 hit points before it is destroyed". In other words, he's immune to most forms of damage, but if you can deal damage to him you can destroy him by doing 50 points of damage. Which is exactly what I said. The rest of the text goes on about the fates of souls he trapped if he's destroyed, but that's a separate matter from how to destroy him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:i was expecting a "is there anything else you'd like to tell us" but they've apparently caught on Just rate "would you recommend D&D to a friend" low and then put the fuck_mike_mearls.rtf in the "why?" followup question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Just rate "would you recommend D&D to a friend" low and then put the fuck_mike_mearls.rtf in the "why?" followup question. Don't forget to mention his platforming of, and lack of withdrawing support of, a rapist. Make sure they know we won't forgive or forget.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Jerik posted:I'm... not sure where you're seeing a contradiction? Because you're making it sound like you just wack him with a stick enough and that's that. Jerik posted:Nope. Acererak can be done in by dealing 50 hit points of damage to the skull, nothing else required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:Because you're making it sound like you just wack him with a stick enough and that's that. Except that in the very same post you just quoted, in fact in the very same paragraph, I also said the following: Jerik posted:Of course, since he's immune to most forms of damage and he'll be sucking out souls while you're fighting him, that's easier said than done I was specifically addressing Cessna's post about there being a special object that had to be destroyed to defeat him, and my point was only that Acererak could be defeated by attacking him directly. I certainly wasn't saying that it would be easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Leraika posted:Hey y'all, the 2019 Wizards of the Coast survey is up in case you want to, you know, yell at them about 5e or tell them to fire Mike Mearls. My favourite part of this is how they use "D&D" as shorthand for roleplaying games in general throughout the entire survey. D&D needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:My favourite part of this is how they use "D&D" as shorthand for roleplaying games in general throughout the entire survey. I assumed they were talking about D&D specifically, and simply not acknowledging any competing products at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I assumed they were talking about D&D specifically, and simply not acknowledging any competing products at all. That was my assumption as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I assumed they were talking about D&D specifically, and simply not acknowledging any competing products at all. There's a difference between not naming competing products and not acknowledging the possibility of RPGs other than D&D existing. The survey does the latter (otherwise the questions around what else you play would have included "other roleplaying games (not D&D)").
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Happily expressed my distaste for Mearls as my reason for not playing 5th ed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That was my assumption as well. Yeah, this is the d&d survey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
I got a few pages in and my ADD dragged me away to do something with fewer radio buttons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Bieeanshee posted:I got a few pages in and my ADD dragged me away to do something with fewer radio buttons. They just call it D&D now
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 04:54
|
|
