I'd have thought so, largely being wizards, but the PF2 stat blocks don't include them. Neither do a lot of wizard statblocks, though.
I'd have thought so, largely being wizards, but the PF2 stat blocks don't include them. Neither do a lot of wizard statblocks, though.
Nope: they don't have to be wizards. "A lich can be any type of spellcaster, as long as it has the ability to perform a ritual of undeath as the primary caster (which can usually be performed only by a spellcaster capable of casting 6th-level spells)."
So it depends if the base caster was one that needed a book: so a wizard lich should have a book someplace as they only "lose all abilities that come from being a living creature" and a spellbook isn't one of those.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have old spellbooks with spells like Melf's Acid Arrow, Bigby's Grasping Hand, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, etc...
I'd have thought so, largely being wizards, but the PF2 stat blocks don't include them. Neither do a lot of wizard statblocks, though.Nope: they don't have to be wizards. "A lich can be any type of spellcaster, as long as it has the ability to perform a ritual of undeath as the primary caster (which can usually be performed only by a spellcaster capable of casting 6th-level spells)."
So it depends if the base caster was one that needed a book: so a wizard lich should have a book someplace as they only "lose all abilities that come from being a living creature" and a spellbook isn't one of those.
Yes, that is why I said "largely." Every PF2 lich I've come across so far has used arcane prepared spells, which further suggests they are wizards. I could dig the idea that they keep their spell book tucked away with their phylactery, but when they are out and about that would mean they couldn't regain spell slots. Unless PF2 got rid of the "wizards need spellbooks to prepare" thing, which seems unlikely since they still use a book.
I'm not sure PF2 has clarified its position on lich spellbooks, though I agree that most Golarion liches have been Wizards (and nearly all before that too).
Classically, there have been different interpretations with contradictory options. I'm pretty sure I've seen a lich stuck with the same spells every day because he lost his spellbook so used his "I'm eternal" powers to recharge his slots, (even though I think that same lich also had developed new spells which implies some sort of book). I think the first lich in DnD modules (Module D1) had a spellbook hidden in a Portable Hole, yet I also think I've seen ones that used their phylactery as a spellbook (which makes little sense to me).
Until told otherwise (or for some story specific reason) I'd say Lich Wizards have a spellbook, it's simply not listed among their possessions because they don't carry them into combat. Heck, their phylactery isn't listed either, yet liches definitely have one of those.
I'm not sure PF2 has clarified its position on lich spellbooks, though I agree that most Golarion liches have been Wizards (and nearly all before that too).
Classically, there have been different interpretations with contradictory options. I'm pretty sure I've seen a lich stuck with the same spells every day because he lost his spellbook so used his "I'm eternal" powers to recharge his slots, (even though I think that same lich also had developed new spells which implies some sort of book). I think the first lich in DnD modules (Module D1) had a spellbook hidden in a Portable Hole, yet I also think I've seen ones that used their phylactery as a spellbook (which makes little sense to me).
Until told otherwise (or for some story specific reason) I'd say Lich Wizards have a spellbook, it's simply not listed among their possessions because they don't carry them into combat. Heck, their phylactery isn't listed either, yet liches definitely have one of those.
Right, but the phylactery doesn't provide an essential function whenever you leave the house with it. Where as a spell book does, and the ones showing up in APs traipsing about the world don't seem to be carrying one. But neither do most prepared arcane caster I've seen published.
Some of that may be early edition oversights, though. When a humanoid NPC wizard doesn't have the spellbooks listed I just assume this was the case, but it is harder to say when it comes to monstrous prepared casters like dragons.
Yeah, in the previous editions it was very common to see that a Wizard's spellbook had every spell the Wizard had plus these spells: list follows.
Sometimes it'd even have open slots for the DM/GM to choose; or a random amount or selection; or a suggestion as being a great place to introduce new spells. But the books were there.
Haven't seen that as much lately. Maybe the page count (or the hassle of valuing a spellbook for sale!) wasn't worth it. A Runelord's spellbook might break the bank. :)
I'm not sure many NPC Wizard's leave the house with their spellbook(s). Traveling spellbooks w/ only the essentials is a thing, so those I'd expect, but not necessarily equipped. I'd think they'd be wherever the Wizard's most convenient stash is.
Right, but the phylactery doesn't provide an essential function whenever you leave the house with it.
As a monster the party fights, the spellbook DOESN'T provide any function in the vast number of situations. Does the AP/adventure ever have a situation where the lich takes time out to swap spells that's not off scene? Same for regaining spells. It seems that PF2 isn't listing items that AREN'T used in combat: having a spellbook or not doesn't matter in the least when slinging spells at the party.
Where as a spell book does, and the ones showing up in APs traipsing about the world don't seem to be carrying one. But neither do most prepared arcane caster I've seen published.
I think it's all part of the 'ask the DM' focus of this edition. If the DM wants the party to find the book, it's part of the treasure and if they don't, it's not found. Additionally, since EVERY caster can be a lich, they wouldn't list a spellbook as generic equipment.
If you look through the monsters, only 2 list a spellbook: Dhampir Wizard and Tiefling Adept.
Right, but the phylactery doesn't provide an essential function whenever you leave the house with it.As a monster the party fights, the spellbook DOESN'T provide any function in the vast number of situations. Does the AP/adventure ever have a situation where the lich takes time out to swap spells that's not off scene? Same for regaining spells. It seems that PF2 isn't listing items that AREN'T used in combat: having a spellbook or not doesn't matter in the least when slinging spells at the party.
Where as a spell book does, and the ones showing up in APs traipsing about the world don't seem to be carrying one. But neither do most prepared arcane caster I've seen published.I think it's all part of the 'ask the DM' focus of this edition. If the DM wants the party to find the book, it's part of the treasure and if they don't, it's not found. Additionally, since EVERY caster can be a lich, they wouldn't list a spellbook as generic equipment.
If you look through the monsters, only 2 list a spellbook: Dhampir Wizard and Tiefling Adept.
This AP has a lich that attacked a base of operations, presumably casting spells to do so, but wound up forming an alliance with the occupants. He has full spells when the party finds him.
The same story has a wizard who does multiple consecutive days of fighting out in the field without returning home, but she's full up in spells when the party fights her.
There's a third wizard who has a unique book which has rituals and can be used for bonuses on Recall Knowledge, and who has been out on a mission and at bare minimum using Dimension Door to get about town. Full spells. They at least have a book that would logically contain his other spells, which is more than the other one has.
All 3 need to have a way to regain spells, and if their book isn't listed in their statblock it should be listed among other treasure in the area. No go. I'd just assume this was an oversight for these last two, and it is quite likely an oversight for the lich as well. But I thought I'd check if anyone knew if they actually did need a spell book to regain slots. For what it is worth, I actually couldn't find any rules that explicitly say this at a glance-- just that wizards prepare spells that are in their spellbook, but not that the wizard needs to have it on them. But I probably just missed something.
Even the bestiary lich has a spellbooks in the art and is literally described as a wizard in the flavor text. It at least doesn't have an accompanying adventure so the spellbook could still be added by a GM.
Sorry I know this is pretty tangential, but I'm now obsessed with the idea of making Liches that were martial characters who took the Ritualist Dedication.
Any 12th level character, with a SINGLE dedication feat, (you don't even need to take further feats from the archetype) can become a Lich (at least in theory).
"Careful, Liches are powerful spellcasters!"
*Lich picks up a Maul*
"Uh..."
*Lich begins screaming incoherently and charges*
"Whu-"
*Lich enters rage and begins hammering*
I made a martial lich in 3.X using an Antipaladin as the chassis since the requirement had been Caster Level & a Crafting feat rather than the ability to cast a certain level of spell. All those immunities and more were pretty sweet, and the players were monster savvy so would suspect several other types of skeletal knight first. Never used him though. :(
In PF2, I think a Warpriest/Sentinel could make a ferocious lich, especially if it could prepare for battle. The Divine Font for Harm would keep it chugging along, and imagine if there were multiple liches covering for each other. Oy.
Even the bestiary lich has a spellbooks in the art and is literally described as a wizard in the flavor text. It at least doesn't have an accompanying adventure so the spellbook could still be added by a GM.
It's meaningless to point to the art: the entry covers ALL liches and NOT just wizard. If it listed spellbook it's be factually incorrect for cleric ones, druid ones, witch ones, bard ones, ect...
Even the bestiary lich has a spellbooks in the art and is literally described as a wizard in the flavor text. It at least doesn't have an accompanying adventure so the spellbook could still be added by a GM.It's meaningless to point to the art: the entry covers ALL liches and NOT just wizard. If it listed spellbook it's be factually incorrect for cleric ones, druid ones, witch ones, bard ones, ect...
The sample in the entry covers one specific lich with a specific set of equipment, and that lich is a Wizard. The template below shows how to build a lich of a different stripe, or one can build from scratch as recommended. Those liches wouldn't be expected to carry the exact same equipment. That'd be ridiculous.
The picture isn't a great source for mechanics, the picture also features armor, but as a Wizard, the sample lich should have the spellbook which is part of the "what a Wizard is" package.
The sample in the entry covers one specific lich with a specific set of equipment, and that lich is a Wizard.
Is it? Outside of the single line of fluff at the start, all it says is that it's a prepared arcane caster. Why can't it be a witch?
but as a Wizard, the sample lich should have the spellbook which is part of the "what a Wizard is" package.
But only 2 creatures carry spellbooks: Dhampir Wizard and Tiefling Adept.
Also check out the Ghost Mage: the fluff says it's a "wizard who died" but it now casts innate arcane spells and has no spellbook even though the template doesn't mention either change. I think we can clearly see how monsters do not have to follow the PC rules.
The sample in the entry covers one specific lich with a specific set of equipment, and that lich is a Wizard.Is it? Outside of the single line of fluff at the start, all it says is that it's a prepared arcane caster. Why can't it be a witch?
Because it says it is a wizard. You can't dismiss the flavor text when it has no contradictions. Those words weren't picked at random. Also, this doesn't fix the problem because then there would just be a missing familiar.
Also, I'm not sure what point you are making with the ghost mage. You started out by saying that liches who are wizards need spell books, and now you pointing to other undead that don't need spell books.
Because it says it is a wizard.
Yes, but it doesn't follow through with the mechanics to back that up. Where is the drain bond? The arcane school? The school focus spell? The arcane thesis? Literally the ONLY thing that says wizard IS the fluff.
You can't dismiss the flavor text when it has no contradictions.
Well I did and it does.
Those words weren't picked at random.
How can you prove it wasn't?
Also, this doesn't fix the problem because then there would just be a missing familiar.
But that's my point. There isn't equipment in it because it's a generic entry for a template: it can be ANY caster so why confuse things with a wizard only equipment entry?
Also, I'm not sure what point you are making with the ghost mage. You started out by saying that liches who are wizards need spell books, and now you pointing to other undead that don't need spell books.
I'm pointing out that just because it say it was a wizard, like the lich does, it DOES NOT mean it has to follow the rules for wizards. If you are hanging your hand on the wizard fluff in the lich, the ghost mage has the same fluff.
In the end, it's up to the DM and/or adventure to say if the spellbook is needed and present. For all we know, the Phylactery is meant to take over for the familiar, spellbook, bonded object and anything else the lich needs: it's a monster and doesn't have to follow PC rules.