Fluff, Rules, and the Cleric/Warlock Multiclass (WITH POLL!)

[Satyrn]

They both gain power by doing the bidding of a more powerful entity. So what’s the difference? Is it the nature of the service? Is it the nature of the entity? Is it something else?

The cool thing is that these questions are actually answered in the PH.

Although I'm not sure the first sentence I quoted is actually true. Or more specifically, it would be more accurate to say "They both can gain power by doing the bidding of a more powerful entity." But they both might gain their power in other ways.


As an aside. I know that lots of people here think that a paladin must abide by his oath to gain or keep his power, but the PH says otherwise, something like "the oath might be the standard the paladin strives for but has not yet reached."

There is simply no one way that any of these classes work in the game as written.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes. You can have a multiclassed cleric/warlock.

That said, you need a character concept that explains how you reconcile your god with your patron. How hard this is will depend on how compatible they are. If you're a cleric of Asmodeus, and you have a pact with his daughter Glasya, you're cool (until you die, and then you will be very uncomfortably hot). If you're a cleric of Pelor, and you have a pact with Glasya... well, now you got some 'splainin' to do.

Even so, I would not rule out the possibility altogether. If the player can come up with an explanation that justifies having and using both sets of powers, go for it.

 

[Charlaquin]

The cool thing is that these questions are actually answered in the PH.

You mean this quote?

A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf..

that tells us how a Warlock is different from a Cleric, but not why. What is the actual difference between the way a Cleric serves their deity and the way a Warlock serves their patron? And more importantly, why does that difference lead to completely different kinds of powers? The answer to if/why they can multiclass lies in the answer to those questions.

 

[Satyrn]

Aye, I thought you were asking how they were different.

I think the PH is telling us the whys and whats and all the other various details are left to be decided by the player working with the DM, although there are some whys that the PH offers up. A relationship with a Great Old One might be different from the relationship with a god simply because "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."

(The quote is from the intro to the GOO pact)

 

[Cornpuff]

I answered yes, and think that the arrangement could be thought of as like, a NBA trade or something between gods and patrons. Let's say that an Archfey wants someone to act on their behalf on the Material Plane. That Archfey makes a deal with Torm to allow a few of Torm's followers to enter agreements with the Archfey, and in exchange, Torm gets added influence and builds a small following in the Feywild. I think it adds a new dynamic to the MC by explaining it as actions being taken by beings greater than the PCs (provided the PC is the one who wanted to do this in the first place).

 

[steeldragons]

-snip all good points- They both gain power by doing the bidding of a more powerful entity. So what’s the difference? Is it the nature of the service?

That is part of it. In the one case, if you go in for the whole "clerics are clergy/priests" either chosen or devoted and willing servants of their deities. Even if you don't delve into "religion" or even "deities," you're dealing in devotion and faith and strength of ideals.

In the other, whether you willingly seek out the patron or not or "accidentally" (trip and fall?) end up pacted, you are getting something from the patron for YOUR benefit, that YOU'RE after... and they benefit from the association in some [generally unspoken and mechanically meaningless] story way, of course. But you are out for something for yourself. That's not how you are a part of the religious service of a god.

Is it the nature of the entity?

That is another part of it. One is, allegedly, a fully "divine" entity. A deity. A god. Or, if you want to go Basic, an "ideal" like Law/Order or Chaos. Even if you don't want to delve into the whole potential omnipotence omniscient omnipresent beings, these are beings inhabiting (if not originating from) the "Higher/Outer" planes. Yeah, yeah, the evil ones can be found in the lower planes, mostly (if you look at myth & legend and follow any kind of realistic structure of your world's mythologies/religions) because they have been "thrown out" or "cast down" into those planes for their crimes against the shiny glowy good -or at least civil divine-rules-following guys. But they are still gods.

The other is, by definition, certainly NOT a "Higher/Outer" planes being. Those from the outer planes are "lesser" non-god beings, demons, devils, angels, etc... Others are "Inner Planes" beings -elementals, fae, undead. Again, not gods. Magical! Yes. Not gods as D&D treats them. Or "becawz Far Realmz iz kewl," not Inner or Outer or anything in between, while simultaneously being Inner and Outer and in between. But they are not those "Higher/Outer plane" beings treated in the game world as deities. Cult followings? Sure. Heretical Sects? Maybe. Pagan ritualists? Why not. Perhaps even a regional structured organized religion. But what is being attached to and venerated is not truly [or as of yet] a divine being.

Is it something else? How you think about the difference between Clerics and Warlocks (if any) will inform how you think about a multiclass combination of the two.

There is the nature of the relationship between the entities. One is a willing and mutually accepted relationship. Even in the case of distant or unspoken gods, there is an acceptance of the cleric by the deity and a dependence (for power, for comfort, for world view, ethics and morals, etc. etc...) of the cleric on the deity.

The warlock is "[com]pacted." There is a contract between the warlock and their patron. I give you this...and you do this (even if it's something that will never be spoken or understood in or out of game) for me. It's, like, an unhealthy co-dependence. I'm not interested in you, but we're gonna stay together because we "have" to. You're not doing this because YOU want to. Your patron is not [necessarily] doing this because THEY want to or [necessarily] with you. But there's this unbreakable magical contract, ya see. So, ya know, "the rules of magic/laws of the cosmos say so," and all of that.

There are the mechanics of the game. Clerics have a certain set of armor, weapons, HD, features like "channeling divinity." Warlocks have different armor, weapons, HD (maybe I'm not sure off the type of my head). They don't have (though it would certainly make sense to me to make this mechanical change) "channeling eldritch energies." They DO, however, have "invocations" (which, truthfully, makes significantly more sense as a term for a clerical power). But invocations work differently, again mechanically in the game, than channeling. They both get "at will cantrips" and spells but choose [largely] different types of spells from different separate lists.

You seem to be looking for "a reason." That's not how D&D (and fantasy RPGs writ large) work. It's not that simple. There are several subtle and nuanced differences that, taken together, make the two separate -admittedly similar, but separate- class concepts. Also admittedly, D&D does itself NO favors trying to broaden inherently more narrow and focused fluff of classes to encompass "pleasing anyone's ideas of anything."

But there is no, "Clerics are clerics because X. Warlocks are warlocks because Y." One accepts the fluff and mechanics that say they ARE separate/different things. Or one does not.

If one wishes to purposely blur the lines between concepts, come up with corner-case after corner-case stories for any and all combinations of abilities, and/or outright ignore [or purposefully misinterpret] the fluff of a class to suit their purposes -as it seems more and more of the D&D/fantasy RPG-playing culture are willing to do- then there is no point in having classes at all and D&D is dead. It becomes some other game. Can be a fun game. Can be a great game. But eventually, it will not be D&D.

This, however hypothetical, combination does not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of a perspective (if not paradigm) shift in the fantasy RPG/D&D culture.

 

[MarkB]

that tells us how a Warlock is different from a Cleric, but not why. What is the actual difference between the way a Cleric serves their deity and the way a Warlock serves their patron? And more importantly, why does that difference lead to completely different kinds of powers? The answer to if/why they can multiclass lies in the answer to those questions.

Essentially, the difference is motivation. For a warlock, it's not necessary for the character to actually believe in the cause or ideals of their patron. They can, and maybe they'll feel more comfortable if they do, but essentially it's a transaction - service in return for power.

For a cleric it's not strictly necessary for the character to get anything out of the relationship. It's nice that they do obtain powerful abilities, but that's not why they're there. They're a cleric because they believe in their deity's cause and ideals, and they'd still retain those beliefs even if they got nothing in return except for warm fuzzy feelings. The fact that they gain raw, tangible power is merely an occupational perk.

Those two motivations are different to each other, but importantly, they're not contrary to each other. The same character can quite easily hold beliefs in an ideal at the same time as being motivated to enter into a pragmatic business relationship.

 

[Charlaquin]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]: Sounds like you have an answer to the question of what separates Clerics from Warlocks and that answer informs your understanding of if/why the two classes can multiclass.

 

[ccs]

My answer for Cleric/Warlocks is the same as for Paladin/Warlocks: No.

Because in games I run you cannot serve two class ability granting entities. And those entities will not grant you both sets of powers.
Refer back to the Paladin/Warlock thread as to what you'll lose/keep if you do MC this way.

BTW; this applies to Druids in my games as well. So when that thread starts....

 

[Charlaquin]

Essentially, the difference is motivation. For a warlock, it's not necessary for the character to actually believe in the cause or ideals of their patron. They can, and maybe they'll feel more comfortable if they do, but essentially it's a transaction - service in return for power.

For a cleric it's not strictly necessary for the character to get anything out of the relationship. It's nice that they do obtain powerful abilities, but that's not why they're there. They're a cleric because they believe in their deity's cause and ideals, and they'd still retain those beliefs even if they got nothing in return except for warm fuzzy feelings. The fact that they gain raw, tangible power is merely an occupational perk.

Those two motivations are different to each other, but importantly, they're not contrary to each other. The same character can quite easily hold beliefs in an ideal at the same time as being motivated to enter into a pragmatic business relationship.

And I imagine your answer to that question informs your answer to the question of if/why a Cleric/Warlock multiclass is possible.