Imagine for a moment that a character had the choice of the two templates.
In comparison, the GK template wins hands down. Better stats, same rejuvenation ability for the most part, undead mastery, desecration aura, devastation blast and immunities...
Why would anyone choose lich if the options were available for both? I am failing to find the benefit of the lich template over the graveknight.
Your thoughts?
|
The Grave knight rejuvenates in the armor that he wears, a Lich can hide his phylactery on the moon if he wanted to. the lich touch is a pretty good save or be mostly dead effect.
Lich wins by 1 natural armor
Grave Knight wins in abilit scores
Lich aura is better
Lich skills are better because of a +8 to three and gains 10 class skills
Grave knight wins in feats gains 4, lich gains none.
Lich has better rejuvenation
Grave Knights wins in abilities
Overall Grave knight could be better but his rejuvenation is easily countered compared to the Lich, I have felt that the Lich should have been given better ability scores comparing it to the vampire or Grave knight.
You think the fear aura is better than the desecrate aura? Remember desecrate effects ALL undead, including the caster.
Couldnt one counter the armor rejuvenation with a contingency (teleport) or lesser planar ally deal that would provide the ally to teleport the armor to a safe location?
After all, couldnt an arcane caster TECHNICALLY become a GK as well?
|
After all, couldnt an arcane caster TECHNICALLY become a GK as well?
Yes, but...
Graveknights are created accidentally, while liches are created deliberately. Nobody chooses consciously to become a graveknight. So an arcane caster would have to 1) wear armor normally, 2) die in the circumstances the template specifies while wearing it, and 3) be lucky enough for the GM to agree to let them come back as a graveknight. Could that happen? Sure. Is it terribly likely? Not really.
|
|
Actually Zimmerwald, if you look at the PFSRD on the grave knight page linked here it mentions a method of how to become a grave knight in the Undead revisited section, also requiring a character level of 11 and a chance to become one 75 +charisma score.
Which seems completely doable. 120k for lich vs 25-35k for GK. Throw in better stats, desecrate aura, better resists, better DR...seems a no brainer.
I realize that these templates are not necessarily INTENDED for PC play and rather for building the BBEG but comparing apples to oranges, it seems a no brainer
One thing also to Remember is the role playing aspect of both.
The Lich tends to be Cold and calculating and with time to think and prepare ahead. The Graveknight is in many ways a bloodthirsty Berserker, charging headlong into battle.
Perhaps not true for all the above, but for the most part,The lich should be played more intelligent
Im with you on the roleplay concepts. I just wonder why they didnt change/improve Lich. As it stands, it just doesnt compare template wise. And if you look at the GK template, a cleric or even a wizard could take the template and do much more than taking the lich template.
And on top the cost??? 120k isnt a drop in the bucket! Thats a ton of clams that one isnt upgrading gear with to save. Doesnt seem right that the GK can spend 25-35k on his armor (which he uses as he levels) and he meets the prereq. By definition, the phylactery isnt even anything useful to use while being constructed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't discount the roleplay 'costs' of each template. Lich just requires a ritual unique for the caster, Grave Knight requires:
1) You find an evil ruler, god, or some sort of tyranical ruler.
2) Go on a two year crusade for them.
3) Figure out a way to kill 11 helpless good aligned members of your own race, and then kill yourself within 1 minute with a specific element. (This can actually vary from fairly easy (human) to incredibly difficult (tiefling, more obscure races), you also need to find a source of damage that can actually kill an antipaladin in 10 rounds. Could always just buy a pit of acid, but one strong enough to kill a paladin in 10 rounds (with their stupidly high saves) is going to cost a lot of money.)
4) Find enough grave dirt from graves that have spawned undead to fill a pit.
5) Find someone who likes you enough after all these atrocities to actually finish the ritual for you.
There are a lot of points in those requirements that the price can start to add up to near 100k, along with all of the roleplay requirements.
(But yes, I agree that *base* GK is much much better then lich. GK as written should probably higher then CR +2 as well, but without adding HD it would start to get wonky balance-wise pretty quick.)
1) That's fairly easy.
2) Granted.
3) The suicide bit is easy. You can deliberately fail saves, and you can just coup de grace yourself. Yes, you can actually do that, helpless includes "...or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy," and you're at your own mercy.
Stab yourself, fail the Fort save, and die.
4) You can spawn the undead yourself easily enough.
5) Same guy as #1. Or at least their servant.
1) That's fairly easy.
2) Granted.
3) The suicide bit is easy. You can deliberately fail saves, and you can just coup de grace yourself. Yes, you can actually do that, helpless includes "...or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy," and you're at your own mercy.
Stab yourself, fail the Fort save, and die.
4) You can spawn the undead yourself easily enough.
5) Same guy as #1. Or at least their servant.
3) You have to die from the element used to kill the helpless sacrifices which needs to be a choice of fire, acid, cold, or electricity. No coup de graceing yourself. The problem is from anti-paladins high health pool, not saves. 11d10 + Con (higher or lower depending on house rule for hitpoints of choice) is expensive to burn through with spells if you need to pay for them.
4) The way it reads is that it needs to be natural undead.
5) Still an RP requirement, means you need to stay in good graces.
Honestly grave knights come with a lot of extra baggage and I really don't get the whole elemental thing. It's somewhat attractive to martial characters, but honestly they're a lot easier to kill forever. They're bound to their armor (big mistake), which means that your enemy pretty much owns you once you're beaten and they can casually dispose of you easily enough. A lich, as someone else noted, can hide their phylactery in a permanent private sanctum on the other end of the galaxy if they want to, which just gives the finger to anyone who kills them.
Meanwhile, liches have a nasty 60 ft. fear aura (desecrate is a 2nd level spell, so a lich creating an item that radiates desecrate wouldn't be that out of the way, but the fear aura scales well), they get a self-healing touch attack (hooray), +5 natural armor (more natural armor), DR 15/magic bludgeoning (which is waaaaay better than magic, and the DR is higher too), similar immunities, turn resistance, and a save-or-die at-will touch attack (I touch you, and you make a hard save or go into perma-coma).
The lich gets better skill bonuses and a bunch of bonus class skills.
The graveknight gets some nice bonus feats, an energy damage attack, maybe an extra energy immunity, and they get an undead-dominate ability, and a cool horse. Lots of nice stuff.
Personally
I prefer liches, even for my casting warrior folks. A truly heinous enemy is an antipaladin lich. Their saving throws are off the charts, their touch is monstrous, they are a force to be feared in melee where they can auto-fear you with their aura, inflict a -2 penalty on your saves, then touch you for 1d8 + 1/2 level negative energy damage + antipaladin touch damage + save vs cursed condition + save vs perma-paralysis. The immunities, +5 natural armor, and DR is superior in most cases (honestly DR/magic is a joke, but limiting your enemies to only using bludgeoning magic weapons is way better, and the DR is stronger, which really makes you a super tank vs the wrong attacks). Finally, if you kill them, they regenerate somewhere safe 1d10 days later, rather than in their armor which is probably being melted down because someone in the party has Knowledge (Religion).
The nonsensical steps required to become a graveknight also makes it difficult to actually make them in a way that seems plausible without completely re-writing it. If I was going to use grave knights, I'd probably remove the energy powers and association. Honestly graveknight looks like a template that was made by someone who was writing their dream template for their own evil character.
|
|
I completely forgot about the DR when comparing the two, the anti paladin lich seems pretty powerful but wouldn't it have to be a level 14 (needs caster level 11 with a caster level of -3) either way its still good. I think this has been asked before but will it get charisma trice to fortitude? Once for undead once for anti paladin.
b'Dot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely forgot about the DR when comparing the two, the anti paladin lich seems pretty powerful but wouldn't it have to be a level 14 (needs caster level 11 with a caster level of -3) either way its still good. I think this has been asked before but will it get charisma trice to fortitude? Once for undead once for anti paladin.
Yes it does, because it gets them from separate abilities with no type. Undead as a racial apply Charisma to Fortitude instead of Constitution, and the grace effect from the Paladin applies a bonus equal to your charisma modifier to all your saves. An undead paladin (non-anti) with bestow grace can get Charisma x3 to saves while the buff is active (but honestly, by that point you're just pushing your resist vs save-bombing instead of increasing your % chance to save).
The trait magical knack (+2 caster level, to a maximum of HD) can give Paladins a head start. An ioun stone can push their caster level up by another +1, so a Paladin with the trait and stone can do it at 11th. However, those without the trait and stone can just do it at 14th level instead (it's just a few more levels).
Bards make some pretty stellar liches too. They have the caster level and their buffs and combat prowess is strong enough that they can very easily enjoy the benefits of DR 15/bludgeoning and magic, +5 natural armor, and the touch attacks.
With the magus on the scene, a whole new world of melee-liches has arrived with them. Unfortunately for them they lack the Charisma synergy of Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers. Still, if their Charisma is at least "not terrible" they can easily benefit from the other benefits.
Due to psionics/magic transparency, it's possible for psionic characters to create a phylactery and become liches which opens up a whole new world of lich possibilities.
Honestly grave knights come with a lot of extra baggage and I really don't get the whole elemental thing. It's somewhat attractive to martial characters, but honestly they're a lot easier to kill forever. They're bound to their armor (big mistake), which means that your enemy pretty much owns you once you're beaten and they can casually dispose of you easily enough. A lich, as someone else noted, can hide their phylactery in a permanent private sanctum on the other end of the galaxy if they want to, which just gives the finger to anyone who kills them.
Personally
I prefer liches, even for my casting warrior folks. A truly heinous enemy is an antipaladin lich. Their saving throws are off the charts, their touch is monstrous, they are a force to be feared in melee where they can auto-fear you with their aura, inflict a -2 penalty on your saves, then touch you for 1d8 + 1/2 level negative energy damage + antipaladin touch damage + save vs cursed condition + save vs perma-paralysis. The immunities, +5 natural armor, and DR is superior in most cases (honestly DR/magic is a joke, but limiting your enemies to only using bludgeoning magic weapons is way better, and the DR is stronger, which really makes you a super tank vs the wrong attacks)....
And I do appreciate your post Ashiel. However, remember that we are talking a template for a PC. A PC wont be alone like a BBEG tends to be. So the concept of the GK dying and his armor just laying around to be destroyed only really applies in the case of a TPK.
I just realized when I did the math...the GK gets +16 to stats, the Lich +6. The GK gets SR equal to CR +11. The lich gets nadda (which being the caster, you would think...). The GK gets four free feats. The lich gets nadda.
Seems to me that the Lich was an outdated template that never received updates.
|
|
I think the main thing going for the Lich s his DR and his ability to make keeping him dead nearly impossible, The lich works better for a long term villain just because you killed him you now have to search the entire world (or beyond) while the Grave knight has his rejuvenation ability sitting on his corpse. I would love to see the lich gain some new abilities and I agree that he was kept the same as previously just because its a favorite of everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I do appreciate your post Ashiel. However, remember that we are talking a template for a PC. A PC wont be alone like a BBEG tends to be. So the concept of the GK dying and his armor just laying around to be destroyed only really applies in the case of a TPK.
I just realized when I did the math...the GK gets +16 to stats, the Lich +6. The GK gets SR equal to CR +11. The lich gets nadda (which being the caster, you would think...). The GK gets four free feats. The lich gets nadda.
Seems to me that the Lich was an outdated template that never received updates.
That's fair. But for a PC, the process of becoming a Graveknight is bizarre to me and too overly specific. Plus, I have a certain distaste for the graveknight because it seems very mary-sue-ish as a creature template to me. It literally looks like someone sat down and wrote the template to be exactly what they wanted for their own PC or something (the energy damage thing for example just seeming like pointless icing on what would have otherwise been a fairly stylish martial lich). The bonus feats are kind of overkill too. All in all, it just feels like there's too much to me.
I do like the lich though, so I admit to being biased. I do like to play undead characters and I do love liches (especially the good-aligned archliches / baelnorn). I've had at least one paladin of Wee Jass for whom lichdom was part of her sacred quests and trials (to altruistically cast aside the afterlife to continue to defend the state of goodness in the world). I'd happily take the lich template again and again (or mummy, civilized ghasts, wights, and once I almost played a shadow as a sort of pseudo-ghost), but I don't really see myself wanting to be a graveknight. The fluff is uninteresting to me and the mechanical benefits just seem like power for power's sake.
I do like the phantom steed, and I like the leader of the undead thing but I'd have preferred to have animate dead as a SLA (similar to the archlich power from 3.x which allowed them to use animate dead as a SLA).
YMMV of course.
I think the energy damage bit is a slight nod to the old Death Knight from that "other game" since they could throw fireballs and had some other fire effects.
I think the energy damage bit is a slight nod to the old Death Knight from that "other game" since they could throw fireballs and had some other fire effects.
Yes. Soth had fire immunity. But this GK has cold, electricity AND either fire or acid immunity. Combine that with the typical undead immunities (mind effect/fort saves) and SR equal to lv +11 and pretty much casters are useless against him.
You are right Ashiel, it is way OPed. Whoever planned it should have put in bold NOT FOR PC USE!
|
|
Just something to mention, doesn't the graveknights have to wear his armor at all time (to become one I know it must be worn for as much as possible. This could hurt the arcane graveknights because of spell failure. I'm sure he could take mithral chain shirt but even still there is a chance that every spell with somatic components fails.
I think the energy damage bit is a slight nod to the old Death Knight from that "other game" since they could throw fireballs and had some other fire effects.Yes. Soth had fire immunity. But this GK has cold, electricity AND either fire or acid immunity. Combine that with the typical undead immunities (mind effect/fort saves) and SR equal to lv +11 and pretty much casters are useless against him.
Right. Well the cold and electricity make sense as a lot of powerful undead have that to reflect the fact that undead forms just don't care about energy that inflicts tissue damage or hurts a functioning nervous system. Then the template just allows the choice between Fire (Lord Soth) or Acid for variety. I've got no opinion on the SR one way or another.
You are right Ashiel, it is way OPed. Whoever planned it should have put in bold NOT FOR PC USE!
This part was sarcasm, right? 'Cause, y'know, we are talking about monster templates here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I think I finally found something I disagree with you on. I prefer Graveknights to Liches and I see the armor as a strength, rather than a weakness. Keep in mind, no where does the template say the Graveknight actually has to wear his armor, so he could put that in a safe place and use it like a Lich does his phylactery.
In fact, someone who wears the Graveknights armor becomes infected by the armor and slowly turns into the Graveknight, even if he isn't wearing it. So the Graveknight's one weakness, his armor, is also a powerful weapon.
Personally, I've got a pair of brothers that became Graveknights after death. One is Graveknight Monk, the other a Graveknight Anti-Paladin. I can't wait to unleash the pair on the party.
Ashiel, I think I finally found something I disagree with you on. I prefer Graveknights to Liches and I see the armor as a strength, rather than a weakness. Keep in mind, no where does the template say the Graveknight actually has to wear his armor, so he could put that in a safe place and use it like a Lich does his phylactery.
In fact, someone who wears the Graveknights armor becomes infected by the armor and slowly turns into the Graveknight, even if he isn't wearing it. So the Graveknight's one weakness, his armor, is also a powerful weapon.
Personally, I've got a pair of brothers that became Graveknights after death. One is Graveknight Monk, the other a Graveknight Anti-Paladin. I can't wait to unleash the pair on the party.
You know, that's a good point. The fluff makes such a huge deal about never taking their armor off prior to being a graveknight, it never occurred to me that it isn't actually required. I feel silly now. ^_^"
Well, that definitely makes it more like a phylactery and less like "we killed that guy, and the cleric with the +15 knowledge (religion) says we should melt the armor down". :P
On a tangential note, between Vampire and Lich which do you think is better (especially for a Cha based caster).
I ask because I've just started playing an Oracle in Way of the Wicked, and the GM mentioned that becoming undead is a definite option for the party down the line a ways, and I've been waffling between them (though leaning towards vampire because vampire).
Disregarding the phylactery for the moment (since that's the overwhelming advantage a Lich has), do the Vampire's weaknesses outweigh its strengths relative to the smaller benefits but fewer weaknesses of the Lich?
On a tangential note, between Vampire and Lich which do you think is better (especially for a Cha based caster).
I ask because I've just started playing an Oracle in Way of the Wicked, and the GM mentioned that becoming undead is a definite option for the party down the line a ways, and I've been waffling between them (though leaning towards vampire because vampire).
Disregarding the phylactery for the moment (since that's the overwhelming advantage a Lich has), do the Vampire's weaknesses outweigh its strengths relative to the smaller benefits but fewer weaknesses of the Lich?
I would personally go with Lich over Vampire, largely because Vampire restricts you to playing only at night. In addition, you have to lug around a coffin so you can be safe all the time, and a coffin is much easier to destroy, than a phylactery.
Phylacteries can be hidden anywhere, while a coffin must be near by in case something bad happens. A vampire in his lair can hide that coffin anywhere he wishes, as long as there is just the teeniest, tiniest crack available to squeeze through, a PC on the move doesn't have that advantage.
|
|
I think that the problem with a vampire caster is that it will encourage the caster to come close to combat with his increased strength and short ranged dominate. Although in Rynjins case he may well have the HP to stand in melee for a bit with a high charisma and D8 hit die.
I like the idea and theme of a lich more than the vampire but I stated before I feel that the lich could use a few new abilities (maybe a free meta magic feat, or a spell like ability such as animate dead) but those are for the house rules section not this.
Nah. Probably won't be doing melee combat much, considering my Curse is Blackened XD. On occasion I may slap a Bestow Curse or something on a dude, and with my Cha (currently 24, would bump to 30 with Vampire), Breastplate, and 3/4 BaB it wouldn't be too difficult to get in, get out, then let my party and Undead hordes do the fighting while I chuck Blindness/Deafness and the like at people.
On the coffin, I'm not sure if it works by RAW but the GM seems to be fine with the idea of shoving it into a Bag of Holding or something. As well, with the way Way of the Wicked has worked so far, we have a home base/lair we spend a lot of time in and repel assaults from, since we're trying to complete some sort of ritual that requires our daily attention.
The sunlight thing is the big issue, though it seems to be handled quite neatly by an item provided in the book that drops my sunlight destruction to a mere Dazzled while in sunlight for a whopping...20k gold.
The AP seems to WANT you to be an undead of some sort, especially a vampire. =)
Plus I like all the abilities they get.
However the Lich again has the "Nigh indestructible (completely)" factor going for it, which is a good factor to have when you can't be raised as an undead (though Resurrection still works). Though the 120k GP cost is kinda painful.
On the other other hand, I'm just bouncing ideas off of people at this point. I'll probably end up going vampire just because it's A.) Good, B.) Easier (on me and the GM), and C.) Has some good exploitable weaknesses (so he won't have to jack up the CR any more than he would already).
The rest of the party is likely going to be Graveknight, also Vampire (maybe? He's an Arcane Trickster), and a Half-Fiend (he hates undead. Yes, he made his character AFTER I declared I was going to be a necromancer -.-).
|
|
If you have one vampire then you already can only travel at night. The item to stop the sun is nice but be very careful about dispel magic or an anti-magic field in the sun will doom you. Vampire has the nice benefit of create spawn, make a few generals for your hoards. I believe that this has become a bit derailed though.
Right. Well the cold and electricity make sense as a lot of powerful undead have that to reflect the fact that undead forms just don't care about energy that inflicts tissue damage or hurts a functioning nervous system. Then the template just allows the choice between Fire (Lord Soth) or Acid for variety. I've got no opinion on the SR one way or another.
It just makes an arcane spellcaster completely useless. All energy immunity except one (odds are acid), undead immunities and even then SR. Completely shuts down the wizard. May as well cast haste and take a nap.
You are right Ashiel, it is way OPed. Whoever planned it should have put in bold NOT FOR PC USE!This part was sarcasm, right? 'Cause, y'know, we are talking about monster templates here.
No. We are and have been since opening sentence talking about application to a PC.
Vampire is better because you don't die at zero, and you can keep casting spells
Very few spells have Mnemonic components only. And unless the vamp has still metamagic prepared, there isnt a whole lot there he can do but haul butt.
Well if you are a Sorc.... Why not go with Ghost.
Well if you are a Sorc.... Why not go with Ghost.
Had a shadow sorcerer as a MBEG (minor bad evil guy) in the service of a big-bad during one of the games. Basically a ghost-lite NPC. He was pretty scary. Incorporeality + high Charisma + touch spells delivered through the shadow's natural attack made him quite formidable.
Almost got to play a shadow-sorcerer in a game once, but the GM had to cancel the game due to school overload.
Huh. I hadn't even thought of ghost.
It'd make me practically untouchable, that's for sure (make my Breastplate Ghost Touch and I'd have ~31 AC with just my 8th level gear), and get some neat abilities.
Malevolence would be cool to have too, if I wanted to be corporeal again.
Hm. Now I'm actually torn a bit. But that's aight, I've got a long time to think about it.
Thanks for the suggestions. =)
Incorporeal creatures do just fine with spells, I believe.
Unfortunately the only ghost spellcaster I can think of just used Summon Monster and Magic Missile so I don't have any bestiary precedents to fall back on here.
Incorporeal creatures do just fine with spells, I believe.
Unfortunately the only ghost spellcaster I can think of just used Summon Monster and Magic Missile so I don't have any bestiary precedents to fall back on here.
incorporeal applies both ways
they receive half damage from corporeal sources, and deal half damage to corporeal targets. except with stuff like summons, incorporeal touch and force effects.
Ah. I'll take your word for it. It makes sense, but I can't find that in the text (though I just skimmed).
Regardless, the point is moot. GM vetoed Ghost (on account of them usually being place bound and having some sort of real reason to stick around), so it's likely going to be vampire for me.
Thanks anyway, for bouncing around some pros/cons. =)
Incorporeal creatures do just fine with spells, I believe.
Unfortunately the only ghost spellcaster I can think of just used Summon Monster and Magic Missile so I don't have any bestiary precedents to fall back on here.
incorporeal applies both ways
they receive half damage from corporeal sources, and deal half damage to corporeal targets. except with stuff like summons, incorporeal touch and force effects.
This is incorrect. Ghost deal full damage with spells. I double checked just to make sure. Nothing under Ghost, the Ghost Template, or the Incorporeal ability say anything about dealing half damage. In addition there is a Advanced HD Nymph Ghost on the PFSRD who casts spells as a 7th-level druid without issue.
Sucks your GM vetoed it. Ghost sorcerer would be OP.
CWheezy, could you explain how a Vampire that has been reduced to zero hps is performing any actions OTHER than returning to the coffin?
You cannot continue to cast spells when you are forced into mist form since you are incapacitated.
Now, if you were not forced into mist form (ie: not at zero hp), sure, any spell without components works fine.
- Gauss
For a vampire, 0 hp is incapacitated. It states this in the Vampire's weaknesses section.
When a vampire is at 0 or less hp it is only capable of movement to the coffin while in gaseous form. It is not capable of doing anything except that.
- Gauss
Let me turn that around, can you find what "dead" means within Pathfinder for me? While achieving the condition is defined the results of it are not defined because it is one of those things that the game designers expected people to understand. Incapacitated is the same in that the method to become incapacitated is defined in the description of the Vampire but the resulting condition is not. Should it be? Probably.
So, I will instead explain the logic I am using:
Reducing a vampire’s hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn’t always destroy it (see fast healing).
So, while it is not always correct to apply external definitions to internal pathfinder concepts when we do not have an internal definition we must use external ones. Thus:
: to make (someone or something) unable to work, move, or function in the usual way
Now, what does vampire state it can do while forced to 0 hp?
If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, a vampire assumes gaseous form (see below) and attempts to escape. It must reach its coffin home within 2 hours or be utterly destroyed. (It can normally travel up to 9 miles in 2 hours.)
Nothing in there about continuing to cast spells and remain in combat. Only that it attempts to escape and how long it has to reach it's coffin.
So, my logic is thus:
Vampire at 0 or less hp is incapacitated (thus, not able to function). However, it must attempt to reach its coffin. Thus, it is allowed to move despite being incapacitated. It's being able to move is an exception to it being incapacitated.
Now, this is not "clearly defined RAW" but then again, neither is what happens when you are dead. In any case, this is a non-issue. No PFS game will have a vampire PC in it, and in any of the games that I run I can determine that logic and common sense win over attempting to sidestep the intent of the rules. :)
- Gauss