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

[schnee]

You know, I can be a member of the Mafia, and owe my absolute allegiance to the Mafia Don, while simultaneously having an exceptionally close relationship with the Lieutenant in my neck of the woods.

As long as what I do is working towards the greater good of the Family, the Lieutenant can take more of a direct role in my stewardship without the Don even noticing.

The Lieutenant can even pass along a specific set of skills to me - say, his turf has a horse track, so he teaches me how to run illegal gambling dens. Those may not be relevant to all the other Don's Lieutenants, but since they work with 'creative financial solutions' in general it's fine.

But - we don't do drugs. If I worked for a Lieutenant that tired to run a grift on the side where I sold crack, then the Don may not notice at first, but when he did, then depending on my level in the organization, and my plausible deniability, I'd either be begging for forgiveness, nursing some broken ribs, or dead.

There. I just explained how it would work in my campaign.

And, who says that this is a bad plot? You saying Mafia movies don't sell any tickets?

 

[TwoSix]

Some people view fluff as important, in some ways. The flavor is baked into the class. It is part of the "world."

Others view the fluff as unimportant; the rules are all that matter.

Solid points. I understand what you're saying, but I would just want to make this point slightly more clear. It's not that "fluff" and story don't matter, it's that the PHB (and assumed D&D setting) fluff doesn't particularly matter (to my way of thinking), other than as a jumping off point.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I have been informed by the International Fraternal Order of Powergaming Munchkins that this survey has been designated a trap option. According to the Book of the DPR Spreadsheet (CODzilla 3/17), the only acceptable answer to this question is "you should multiclass a divine soul sorcerer into the warlock instead of a cleric. Good God man, they don't even share a casting stat!"

 

[cbwjm]

What if your cleric doesn't follow a god? Perhaps they follow a philosophy, they could be believers of the source or a light cleric follows the doctrines of the church of the holy light and then later gains power from a fiend. No gods are involved in granting divine power so no gods can get stroppy when the cleric signs up with demon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As I stated in the other thread, this issue comes down to “why aren’t Warlocks divine casters?” Or, if you’re not a fan of dividing up the magic power sources that way, “why are Clerics and Warlocks separate classes?” That may sound like a silly question, but really think about it. What is the difference between a Warlock and a Cleric of an evil God? Heck, with The Celestial being a thing now, what’s the difference between a Warlock and a Cleric of a good god? This issue ultimately stems from Cleric and Warlock having incredibly similar fluff, with the difference very vaguely defined. 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? How you think about the difference between Clerics and Warlocks (if any) will inform how you think about a multiclass combination of the two.

An important thing to remember is that some Warlocks have a relationship similar to that of a cleric, but I’d say that is the minority.

Types of warlock relationships:

Master and apprentice: more similar to an apprentice wizard and their master than to a cleric, or perhaps even more like a Jedi padawan and their master.

Protege: similar to above, but perhaps a bit less direct. You are being given access to secrets that most couldn’t handle, and your patron wants you to succeed in mastering them, perhaps because they like you, perhaps for fell ends.

Familial bond: your patron is your ancestor, or a patron of your family, or the elf wizard turned Archfey that adventures with your great grandfather and some unfinished business of theirs has come up, and now you’re an adventurer because you have to be.

Something truly weird: You “patron” isn’t an entity, doesn’t know you exist, wants you to die bc you stole one of its magic books/swords/true name of its favorite pet, etc. perhaps you found some lost knowledge and used Eldritch rituals to bind the magic of the Feywild to yourself, making yourself into a Fey creature.

You are the magic: you’re a Fey, full stop. Or a Cambion with unprecedented free will and freedom to choose your own path, or a 4e style deva, or whatever. Closer to sorcerer than Cleric, but more about using a class to model being an otherworldly creature, rather than being descended from one.

Liege and vassal: Your patron is your ruler, court, or people. Some ritual was undergone to grant you power in line with the nature of your realm, like an Eldritch Paladin.

Curse: you didn’t want this power, you didn’t ask for it, but now it’s yours, for good and ill. Cursed sword, cursed by a hag to wander the world until you make up for killing her daughter (or forever, bc it’s a hag, but all Fey curses have a way out), etc.

Most of those are compatible with some gods, some more than others.

 

[Satyrn]

It's quite possible that when you tell Zeus to stuff it, Zeus knew all along that you were gonna say that, because, you know, he's a god and everything. There's a Divine Plan at work, and for whatever reason, giving you divine magic furthers Zeus's ethos. I mean, what if Zeus is the god of atheists?

Oh man, I love you!

This quote made me picture Xena (The Warrior Princess) as an Oath of Conquest Paladin, granted her power by Ares, with the whole show taking place after she told Ares to stuff it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel like I must be expressing my point poorly, because I keep getting people trying to tell me what the difference is between Warlocks and Clerics. I’m not asking what the difference is, I’m saying that what YOU see as the difference will inform how you feel about Cleric/Warlock multiclassing, and if/why it should be possible. I have my own answer, I’m just using the question to illustrate where the disagreement on the subject of this particular multiclass combination stems from.

 

[77IM]

For me, the idea that a Cleric would Multiclass with Warlock is anathema; a deity would not continue extending powers to someone who has made a pact for power with another entity. I don't find the edge cases very convincing; for example, why would a deity have its clerics make pacts with lesser beings in the deity's service? Why would a deity be like, "Oh, you've fallen and made a deal with a devil? That's unfortunate, but you're still my cleric?"

Can you find any support for this view of deities in the actual text? Either fluff or rules?

Because your poll does not have an option for, "No. My personal opinions that I'm bringing to the game prohibit it."

I am not saying you're wrong; I wouldn't mind playing with a DM who ruled this way. As long as they said so up front. I don't think the PHB or DMG or MM say anything like this up front.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Can you find any support for this view of deities in the actual text? Either fluff or rules?

Because your poll does not have an option for, "No. My personal opinions that I'm bringing to the game prohibit it."

I am not saying you're wrong; I wouldn't mind playing with a DM who ruled this way. As long as they said so up front. I don't think the PHB or DMG or MM say anything like this up front.

For me, what [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] is saying would not be in the core books because that is something that would be setting-specific and would only be detailed in campaign material. And if it were, the rule of specific overrules general would apply. On a side note, I think the decision to make the multiclassing rules as an optional system, meaning all the classes are written as if it will be a character's only class, is what causes these unintended conflicts in what people think should or should not be combined.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Can you find any support for this view of deities in the actual text? Either fluff or rules?

Because your poll does not have an option for, "No. My personal opinions that I'm bringing to the game prohibit it."

I am not saying you're wrong; I wouldn't mind playing with a DM who ruled this way. As long as they said so up front. I don't think the PHB or DMG or MM say anything like this up front.

Since leading survey questions are the bane of civilization, I prefer "Since 5e emphasizes 'rulings over rules', my ruling is that this can't happen."

Which would not be my answer.