You guys were so forthcoming with my cranial question, I've decided to press my luck.

Are PC liches vulnerable to fire?

Are PC liches vulnerable to silver?

Are PC liches vulnerable to blunt (relative to piercing/slashing)?

No, no, and no. Holy only.

Edit: Which, granted, I'd not be 100% against revisting, given that when they were created there was no way to cover it.

Hrm... Maybe remove their ability to make phylacteries, sleep/hold immunity and add age death?
That will make that somewhat balanced with the current CF state.
When they were created someone was on crack.

Sure. Also give them vuln everything, remove sleep and wands skill and let everyone gate to them for free

I pretty much described a scope of fixes that *could* level liches with the rest of the mud. Even with all my proposed fixes they will still have some advantages over an ordinary necro (blind/plague/poison immunity, for example) but in return, they will have some disadvantages too. With right tuning it can make them balanced.
Really, it's silly to talk about nerfing/revisiting a single vulnirability. It will change nothing.

Take your own advice, because all you're doing is trolling.

You didn't suggest any fixes. You suggested created a new class. It wouldn't be a lich anymore.

Moreover, obviously revising the immunities/vulnerabilities would have an effect. It's a fact. You can debate how much, but stop being an ass.

I'm not sure if you're trying to achieve parity with mortal necromancers, but I don't think that's appropriate for liches. If it were, then there's no point to spending all that time on a lich quest and risking permanent death.

Liches have no place in modern CF.
*Somewhat* competetive game doesn't work well with godly classes.
Ask yourself which character of yours was actually looking for a fight with a lich instead of hiding/quiting all the time.
Why defend a class that you/we avoid to face at all cost and, truly, isn't fun to fight against?

I fought lich when I was Dargin. Even one on one. Died twice, but it happens.

If you use power word quit its your own problem.

>Ask yourself which character of yours was actually looking for
>a fight with a lich instead of hiding/quiting all the time.

Pretty much all of mine that have ever had a lich in range.

Some people actually enjoy trying to beat what should be a tougher character, even if it's beyond your comprehension -- or maybe you're just looking for something else to bitch about, I can't even tell with you anymore.

Four rounds it took you to kill that one?

Sword progged twice though, iirc.

-Larcat

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

This doesn't seem familiar to me, so maybe this isn't me you're thinking of.

Your 2 hander pally on the ocean, summoned with eyes, I think, Ithzaruul?, and proceeded to blow him up. IIRC you were using the templars mid lagging move and Defiance did its lag prog once or twice.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

And yeah it was a few rounds where I was perma-lagged. Fun ####. Not really.

Insert canned conspiracy theory as to what burnished copper bracers do.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

When a lich is about his pk pretty much don't defend, don't retrieve and often quit unless they have 3+ other for support.
Many say how it is cool to have an unbeatable badass in the game and how they enjoy fighting him/her. Many say. Yet, in reality, they avoid to fight him and quit. I guess that's the part of american culture: be positive and say good things but actually do otherwise.

I'm not sure about your characters, probably you actually tried hard (and looks like failed for a year or so), but that is not my point. Perhaps you, with your game knowledge, can actually try to "win" against a lich. But I see many who just throw themselves and I don't see how they plan to "win". It looks more like they just whore for recognition of "fighting a lich". Or even worse, we get twin polearm felar specs in maran.
For 99% of playerbase the only constructive way of fighting a lich is bringing a gang.
Now, even if they do succeed once in a year, a lich will just shrug, get midnight dragon eq, gang people for a week and he is almost back to where he was. And at this rate you probably need 10-15 years to actually end his existance.

Other problem with liches is their longevity. You (immortals) already fixed one of those issues in a very ####ty way. Basically, instead of fixing the root cause, you go and fix one particular consequence (but the problem intself didn't disappear, right?).

>When a lich is about his pk pretty much don't defend, don't
>retrieve and often quit unless they have 3+ other for
>support.

This from a guy who later criticizes others for impaling themselves on the lich, and who bitches about how unstoppable and unbalanced liches are. How can you, in the same breath, berate people for not being willing to engage the lich without odds?

>Many say how it is cool to have an unbeatable badass in the
>game and how they enjoy fighting him/her.

I don't say that.

>Yet, in reality, they avoid to fight him and quit.

I avoid fighting liches nowdays unless I think I can kill them. It is rare for me to feel like I have a decent shot at killing one. Of course, if I did fight liches regularly then you'd just criticize me like this:

>But I see many who just
>throw themselves and I don't see how they plan to "win". It
>looks more like they just whore for recognition of "fighting a
>lich".

>Or even worse, we get twin polearm felar specs in maran.

While those two did indeed suck, it should be noted they did succeed at what was apparently their goal from the very beginning: killing and looting Iktul.

>For 99% of playerbase the only constructive way of fighting a
>lich is bringing a gang.

Yep. Which is why you shouldn't rag on them when they decline to defend or retrieve without a gang at their side.

>Now, even if they do succeed once in a year, a lich will just
>shrug, get midnight dragon eq, gang people for a week and he
>is almost back to where he was. And at this rate you probably
>need 10-15 years to actually end his existance.

It's worth noting that, in the past, most liches have died more frequently than the current pair have.

>Other problem with liches is their longevity.

Longevity is actually one of the things about liches that I like. It also fits in "realism wise" with the fact that they're undead. Were I to change liches, immunity to aging is one thing I'd definitely keep. I'd just tone them down so that they're not so powerful.

>Other problem with liches is their longevity. You (immortals)
>already fixed one of those issues in a very ####ty way.
>Basically, instead of fixing the root cause, you go and fix
>one particular consequence (but the problem intself didn't
>disappear, right?).

I wouldn't say that's true, or that other changes won't be made someday, either.

Go create DwoggurdMUD and show me how it's done. Otherwise, stop bitching when everything isn't instantly changed to the exact way you think it should be -- since some things, at least, certainly never will.

... Successfully. And it has been 7vs1s.

One of my favorite raids ever was when there were 3 of us and 3 of them. 2 imperials ran, 1 died. Codex was taken.

I enjoy liches and the challenge they bring.

Always shoot first and then call whatever you hit the target.

lol im funny

Did I say they needed to be godly? I said:

"I'm not sure if you're trying to achieve parity with mortal necromancers, but I don't think that's appropriate for liches."

In other words, lich should be > necromancer. Lich should not necessarily be >>> "any other class in the game".

If I were Nepenthe I would probably just remove liches from the game and let necromancers play at hero (probably he will come to this ten years later too ).
But, if we absolutely must to have liches, make them only slightly more powerful than normal necromancers.
And I actually didn't try to achieve partity with mortal necromancers with my quick set of changes. I still let them have more hp/mana, some immunities, etc. They also have some drawbacks, but, overall, they are still stronger.

>They also have some
>drawbacks, but, overall, they are still stronger.

So basically you agree with what I wrote. Why, then, did you feel the need to argue with it?

I went after Satebos solo everytime I saw he was on. Usually had to ask him to come to me since finding him was a pain, but he usually would come if he had not just killed me. Yes, he killed me three times, but I also managed to make him run one time. That may have been the single greatest showing I've ever had in my short crappy pk career, but the fact was, nothing else ever felt as satisfying either. What other class would you really find satisafcation in saying you managed to best, even if it is one time out of 20?

Also, he was the most fun opponent to fight I ever had, cause he was using clever tactics, and did things I had not seen before. How many shifter fights or warrior fights are interesting to you? Yes, sleep, spelled up can mean a quick boring death. But when you really get a chance to fight them, they are fun as hell. I love messing with ahtieli now, even if she is going to kill me. It's a game, you have to make your own fun in it. If they have fun with their chars, don't hold it against them or say the class needs to go cause you don't like them.

And with quite some success as well. No liches have died though, but quite a bit of mummy kills. Though liches certainly can escape battle easily if need be.

Always shoot first and then call whatever you hit the target.