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

[neogod22]

Why? I would allow that storyline, no problem. A family curse makes perfect sense for a warlock.

Because a curse isn't a pact, and an entity would have no reason to give power to someone bargaining at a disadvantage. Also using the example of fiends, they can't force someone down the path of damnation, they have to be willing participants. A fiend's job is to try and get you to ruin your soul without having to give you power. An idiot trying to deal with a devil will lose his soul and gain nothing but trouble.

"A family curse. No problem, that's easy. But what I need you to do is...do you know that noble in the big house, he did a deal,with me some years ago. I need you to take this dagger, and kill his 3 year old daughter with it. It'll collect her soul, which is what he owes me. Once you bring me back the dagger, and a pint of her blood, I can remove this pesky curse."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think my understanding is fine; I am perfectly happy with my understanding, and I am perfectly happy knowing that other people have a different understanding.

I am less than happy when people over-explain to me things I already understand. But you know, if it's civil, I'm okay with that, and if it isn't civil, the website has features for that as well.

And that is fine. But the only way people have to judge whether you understand it is by what you say about it. If what you say about it is coming across as not understanding or considering the options, particularly when it does so in a derogatory fashion, people are going to assume you don't and try to help you out.

 

[Eltab]

The idea works by the rules.

The fluff will take some effort: I could see a cleric of a standoffish deity also making a deal "just in case". And of course why not become a Cleric of Asmodeus AND have a side-deal with one of his loyal lieutenants?

However, like my Yawning Portal Trickery Cleric / Arcane Trickster Rogue, the mechanics are so MAD that you will be average-but-not-very-good at just about everything.

 

[Eltab]

Hopefully, we can all agree that the best possible multiclass for a cleric OR a warlock is a katana.

Are you planning to harvest the warlock's soul early, send the cleric to meet his deity in person, or what with that katana?

 

[neogod22]

The idea works by the rules.

The fluff will take some effort: I could see a cleric of a standoffish deity also making a deal "just in case". And of course why not become a Cleric of Asmodeus AND have a side-deal with one of his loyal lieutenants?

Because Asmodeous already has your soul, so you have nothing to barter with. Second, do you really think it would be smart to try and make a side deal while worshipping Asmodeous? His high priests may serve as a special kind of devil when they die for reward for loyalty. You make a side deal, and your trip to he'll will come quicker than you want and eternity is a long time to be tortured.

 

[neogod22]

It's really not a good look for any god, to allow its clerics to become warlocks.

 

[Zilong]

Luckily it is pretty much a non-issue for the game I run as I fall into the camp that believes the classes as presented in the PHB are more like a basic chassis rather than an in world profession. Certainly, following the provided fluff makes things relatively simple, but it is not necessary. For instance: all magic users in the area the players are in belong to either the continent spanning mage guild or church. It basically comes down to the character's training/preference which determines their membership. I have a sorcerer who is an ordained priest and a druid who is a mid ranking mage in the guild. I detach crunch and fluff in games I run.

I'd also like to play this way, but I realise not all GMs will like that sort of outlook. So, if it comes up, I'll try asking about a refluffing of a mechanics when it fits the concept. Fortunately I've never played with super rules lawyery GMs except for that brief stint as a Pathfinder Society player.

Effectively what I'm saying is: Warlock+Cleric? Sure. Why not?

 

[Arilyn]

Luckily it is pretty much a non-issue for the game I run as I fall into the camp that believes the classes as presented in the PHB are more like a basic chassis rather than an in world profession. Certainly, following the provided fluff makes things relatively simple, but it is not necessary. For instance: all magic users in the area the players are in belong to either the continent spanning mage guild or church. It basically comes down to the character's training/preference which determines their membership. I have a sorcerer who is an ordained priest and a druid who is a mid ranking mage in the guild. I detach crunch and fluff in games I run.

I'd also like to play this way, but I realise not all GMs will like that sort of outlook. So, if it comes up, I'll try asking about a refluffing of a mechanics when it fits the concept. Fortunately I've never played with super rules lawyery GMs except for that brief stint as a Pathfinder Society player.

Effectively what I'm saying is: Warlock+Cleric? Sure. Why not?

Yes, exactly. You can't just say no, because it all depends on the world, the deities, the ability of the players to think outside the box...

Your example got me thinking. You could have a pantheon of gods who are somewhat distant. Would -be clerics must work through the deities servitors first, and thus start as warlocks. Once they have proven themselves, they will be noticed by the gods and granted more direct access to divine power as clerics.

 

[neogod22]

Yes, exactly. You can't just say no, because it all depends on the world, the deities, the ability of the players to think outside the box...

Your example got me thinking. You could have a pantheon of gods who are somewhat distant. Would -be clerics must work through the deities servitors first, and thus start as warlocks. Once they have proven themselves, they will be noticed by the gods and granted more direct access to divine power as clerics.

So your clerics can never reach 20th level? How many levels of Warlocks do you force them to take?

 

[ClaytonCross]

@ClaytonCross

I suggest starting here-
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...lass-(WITH-POLL!)/page4&p=7350045#post7350045

I truly meant that. Now, it happens to be my opinion that the Venn Diagram of those who come up with post hoc rationalizations for Warlock/Cleric "stories" and those who use the phrase "Warlock Dip" as something other than tasty Orc food is a perfect circle- but again, that's just me.

As I already stated, people come into this with different conceptions. In my group, the idea of "designing out" a character is anathema. You start at level one, and things happen from there. I prefer an emergent story; but I (and my table) are not representative of everyone. *shrug*

So when you go on about creating a "Spawn" character, or a "Ghost rider," all I can think is, "Well, more power to ya, but that's not what I'm doing." And it would be truly awesome if you would accord the same respect back. Know what I mean?

I'm glad you are happy with your interpretation of the rules, and that works for your table! Go at it, my friend, just don't pee on my leg and demand that my table says that it is raining.

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]

I am not tracking the lack of respect.... I am just suggesting a counter point in a conversation for a different point of view.

With everything you said, all your posts start from the Cleric breaking is vow to his Deity. My point is that is not the case if your starting as an unwilling or repenting Warlock at level 1. This is in no way a contrast to, "In my group, the idea of "designing out" a character is anathema. You start at level one, and things happen from there. I prefer an emergent story"... Your just a warlock that realizes you made a mistake and is looking for a way out of it. So from the perspective of emergency having personal goals is not a problem, it just good practice to develop investment and to have something to drive the motives of your character. I never said you had to plan to be Cleric or a Paladin (which I know you would never do) but it does make since if you have dark power of unknown origin and you have one in your group like I do for example you MIGHT look to them for guidance on a path to shield your self from the darkness.

I NEVER planed or wanted to cross class into Cleric. It has become a rising theme that my character is treated as evil though he doesn't really understand what happened to him as a his background was that he was held captive and experimented on by the cult we are hunting. That is why my character is hunting them and what draws me into the party as well as revenge for them killing my father in the same experiments. Our leader is a paladin of Thor who swore vengeance against the same cult when they wiped out almost all of his town capturing test subject. So my character is level 6 now and beginning to understand he is not just suddenly magical... this is something the put into him... draining from some old dark source (The Old One). It scares him but at the same time he was a farmer before so he is using what he has to fight while looking for some way to resit the darkness and be useful.... so he is turning to faith in Thor via the guidance of his leader....

---So you are talking to me about me being disrespectful... when that was not or is not my intent... while righting me off with condescending remarks and not actually looking at what I had to say. I get that I am weird but there is nothing in inherently disrespectful about it. ... Your statement comes across in writing as a personal attack. No I may have said something that you READ that way, but as the Author I can assure you that was not my intention. So If I wrote something "disrespectful" other than my point of view in trying to point out your argument does not cover all cases so FOR ME does not track that warlocks and clerics can never multi-class (which is the topic of this thread we are discussing) ... then please highlight it, send it back to me, and give me a chance to clarify in case you read it with inflection and connotation I didn't intend before calling me disrespectful... I have tried reading it multiple ways but it is simple a personal attack no matter the inflection or connotation I try to use. If I am wrong... please explain it to me, with the respect we are both asking for.