D&D 5E Warlock/Paladin/Sorcerer Question

[Paraxis]

Why does it matter if the choice of taking levels in a class is for optimization/powergaming or narrative reasons?

I am pretty sure in the context of high fantasy a player can come up with a creative story for why their character is a paladin (devotion)/rogue (assassin)/cleric(knowledge)/warlock(chain/great old one) ohh and a half dark elf. Let's just assume this absurde combination is done for some cheezy exploit, what is wrong with that? Make the fluff work.

 

[Evenglare]

Absolutely nothing is "wrong" with it. But at somepoint you become "that guy" of the group. I prefer my players to have their characters grow organically relating to story, so if the character takes those options just for the mechanical benefits of it, I'd probably not invite that person again, especially if it just blatantly disregarded the narrative. For example, everyone levels up in the middle of a desert, and then BAM, someone takes a level in paladin "just because". You may not think that is annoying, but I personally do. Forcing some rediculous background just so you can get mechanical benefits is something I do not want to have at my table. I have different expectations than other GMs I guess. /shrug

None of you are playing in my games and I am not playing in yours, it doesn't really matter what I think one way or the other, just sharing opinions.

 

[trentonjoe]

What is a Warlock/Paladin/Sorcerer, though? Someone who has a natural gift for magic, but who signs a pact with an occult entity to gain some more magic, while swearing a sacred oath to serve a diety? How do you justify that?

The Warlock to Paladin was story based. We are playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen and through out the adventure he has developed a desire to stop the Cult of the Dragon at all costs. Church of Bahamut here I come.

Taking the levels in Sorcerer are just kinda cool. First, I wanted to accentuate my dragon background by growing scales and stuff. Second, I wanted to emphasis my "holy power". The trading in of spell slots for divine smites seemed a cool way to do it. I won't cast many spells, I'll be divine smiting like crazy.


In the first switch the story drove my use of the rules, in the second case I am using the rules to further my story.

 

[aarduini]

Does the blurb of Divine Smite say Paladin Spell or Paladin Spell Slot. I don't have my book with me, but I think it says Paladin Spell Slot. If that is the case, the paladin doesn't share its spell slots with the Warlock. Pact Magic is different than spellcasting. That means the warlock spell slots are not Paladin spell slots as well, so couldn't be used for Divine Smite. The sorcerer spells slots can however. That's the way I read it. I was bummed too because I was building the same thing.

 

[trentonjoe]

It says "extend one paladin spell slot to deal....".


The pact magic piece in the multiclassing sections seems to me that the intent was to make the spell slots interchangeable. Certainly could be interpretted either way.

 

[Dausuul]

Does the blurb of Divine Smite say Paladin Spell or Paladin Spell Slot. I don't have my book with me, but I think it says Paladin Spell Slot. If that is the case, the paladin doesn't share its spell slots with the Warlock. Pact Magic is different than spellcasting. That means the warlock spell slots are not Paladin spell slots as well, so couldn't be used for Divine Smite. The sorcerer spells slots can however. That's the way I read it. I was bummed too because I was building the same thing.

If this were the case, a paladin/sorcerer could not use Divine Smite at all, since there is no way to distinguish paladin slots from sorcerer slots. Mearls has confirmed this was an error and it should be read simply "spell slot."

Divine smite refers to "paladin spell slots." How does this interact with multiclassing, or is the word "paladin" redundant?

paladin is redundant. -M

 

[aarduini]

If this were the case, a paladin/sorcerer could not use Divine Smite at all, since there is no way to distinguish paladin slots from sorcerer slots. Mearls has confirmed this was an error and it should be read simply "spell slot."

[/FONT][/COLOR]

The way i read it is that when you are a spellcaster and multiclass with another spellcasting class, the multiclass spell slot chart replaces the spell slot chart of the two classes you are multiclassing in; therefore, the multiclass spell slots from that chart become Paladin spell slots.

Pact magic is different. It is not a spellcasting class and doesn't use that chart. That means the warlock and Paladin spell slots are not interchangeable; however, it does say you can use the warlock slots to cast paladin spells. If the blurb was a "extend one paladin spell to deal" then you could use the warlock spell slots because warlock spells slots can be used to cast Paladin spells.

I know this seems trivial and a DM running a home game would most likely change that. I play in public play events however, and we have to go by RAW.

That's the way I read it anyway.

 

[Dausuul]

The way i read it is that when you are a spellcaster and multiclass with another spellcasting class, the multiclass spell slot chart replaces the spell slot chart of the two classes you are multiclassing in; therefore, the multiclass spell slots from that chart become Paladin spell slots.

Pact magic is different. It is not a spellcasting class and doesn't use that chart. That means the warlock and Paladin spell slots are not interchangeable; however, it does say you can use the warlock slots to cast paladin spells. If the blurb was a "extend one paladin spell to deal" then you could use the warlock spell slots because warlock spells slots can be used to cast Paladin spells.

I know this seems trivial and a DM running a home game would most likely change that. I play in public play events however, and we have to go by RAW.

RAW does not define "paladin spell slot," which means it could be read in several ways. "Slot that could be used to cast a paladin spell" makes just as much sense as "slot granted by the paladin class or by the multi-class chart." Since Mike Mearls is on record saying the word "paladin" is redundant, that would be the logical interpretation.

 

[Joe Liker]

So much spewing of judgment about people's play styles in a thread about a simple rules question!

It's interesting that by condemning the people one considers to be "that guy" at the table, one sometimes becomes a different sort of "that guy" on the forums.

 

[fuindordm]

I agree with Aarduini. Once you multiclass, even with warlock, all available spell slots may be used for any known spells and also to power class abilities. There is no distinction between the slots, they just represent your innate magical reserves.

An individual DM could rule that the warlock slots are distinct and can't be used to fuel paladin abilities, justifying it easily in terms of fluff but not in terms of RAW.