Warlock with Paladin Multiclass Feat grouped with Warrior

[N0Man]

Based on the information that we now have, wouldn't it be possible to have a Warlock with the Soldier of the Faith feat?

So, wouldn't this would allow a Warlock to to issue a Divine Challenge once per encounter to a target as a minor action, and then use Eyebite to make himself invisible to the target until the next turn.

Of course the invisibility ends at the beginning of the Warlock's turn, and supposedly Divine Challenge is being rewritten so that the Paladin has to continue to pursue and engage the target for it to be maintained, and casting Eyebite at melee range would provoke an attack of opportunity at which time you wouldn't be invisible, but what if you throw a warrior into the fray as well?

The Warlock can use Eyebite and Divine Challenge on the target, then close to melee (either by move or a shift) in order to fulfill his part. Then the warrior can use Tide of Iron to push the target back a square, knocking it out of melee range of the warlock. Now the Warlock will not be in melee range at the beginning of his turn, may again cast Eyebite at range (so not to provoke) and then step toward the target again to maintain the Divine Challenge.

Would you agree that this sounds legal based on what we know?

 

[AtomicPope]

Based on the information that we now have, wouldn't it be possible to have a Warlock with the Soldier of the Faith feat?

So, wouldn't this would allow a Warlock to to issue a Divine Challenge once per encounter to a target as a minor action, and then use Eyebite to make himself invisible to the target until the next turn.

Of course the invisibility ends at the beginning of the Warlock's turn, and supposedly Divine Challenge is being rewritten so that the Paladin has to continue to pursue and engage the target for it to be maintained, and casting Eyebite at melee range would provoke an attack of opportunity at which time you wouldn't be invisible, but what if you throw a warrior into the fray as well?

The Warlock can use Eyebite and Divine Challenge on the target, then close to melee (either by move or a shift) in order to fulfill his part. Then the warrior can use Tide of Iron to push the target back a square, knocking it out of melee range of the warlock. Now the Warlock will not be in melee range at the beginning of his turn, may again cast Eyebite at range (so not to provoke) and then step toward the target again to maintain the Divine Challenge.

Would you agree that this sounds legal based on what we know?

Yes, it sounds legal. Granted, I've only read the PHB Lite from En World and the demo characters.

This is a perfect example of Emergent Complexity. When two minor abilities (actually, turning Invis at lvl1 is anything but) are used in conjunction resulting in an effect greater than the two used individually.

Consider that you can spend an Action Point to blast off your Daily Power as well

 

[Snarls-at-Fleas]

Sounds OK for me. And I like that we see PARTY optimization, not character optimization.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

I'll let others comment on the rules-legality of it. I think though that as a DM I would say that this goes against the spirit of the divine challenge.

This is no longer just a warlock - he's a warlock-paladin. As such he needs to stand up to his god's standard as a champion of his cause. My (very limited) understanding of divine challenge is that it's supposed to be about the paladin standing up and saying 'You've got to go through me first'. If the paladin then actively takes part in tactics specifically designed to prevent the monster from responding to that challenge it strikes me as just as bad as the initial design flaw of just running away. What matters in a case like this is the intent of the paladin - whether or not he intends to stand up to the foe. If he isn't going to do that then whether or not he goes through the motions to make it look like he is isn't going to cut it.

 

[VBMEW-01]

I'll let others comment on the rules-legality of it. I think though that as a DM I would say that this goes against the spirit of the divine challenge.

This is no longer just a warlock - he's a warlock-paladin. As such he needs to stand up to his god's standard as a champion of his cause. My (very limited) understanding of divine challenge is that it's supposed to be about the paladin standing up and saying 'You've got to go through me first'. If the paladin then actively takes part in tactics specifically designed to prevent the monster from responding to that challenge it strikes me as just as bad as the initial design flaw of just running away. What matters in a case like this is the intent of the paladin - whether or not he intends to stand up to the foe. If he isn't going to do that then whether or not he goes through the motions to make it look like he is isn't going to cut it.

Amen, I couldn't have said it better. These instances are the direct reason for having a DM at the table. If it was just 5 players with monster bots, EVERYTHING that the rules allow would be legal. GM=referee/narrator/hand-slapper

 

[Starbuck_II]

I'll let others comment on the rules-legality of it. I think though that as a DM I would say that this goes against the spirit of the divine challenge.

This is no longer just a warlock - he's a warlock-paladin. As such he needs to stand up to his god's standard as a champion of his cause. My (very limited) understanding of divine challenge is that it's supposed to be about the paladin standing up and saying 'You've got to go through me first'. If the paladin then actively takes part in tactics specifically designed to prevent the monster from responding to that challenge it strikes me as just as bad as the initial design flaw of just running away. What matters in a case like this is the intent of the paladin - whether or not he intends to stand up to the foe. If he isn't going to do that then whether or not he goes through the motions to make it look like he is isn't going to cut it.

Bah, that just means you can't serve Prick-like or lawful gods and do the trick.

A God of Trickery/Scoundrel God would approve this.

 

[BASHMAN]

Wow, this thread really reminds me of Magic the Gathering combos...

 

[phil500]

Is this really more effective than the 2 PCs just attacking?

also- cant the monster move and attack?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Invisibility is not the same as invulnerability...

 

[Torchlyte]

Nice combo, I agree that the new version appears to promote tactical combat.

A God of Trickery/Scoundrel God would approve this.

This is a good point.

In general, I've found neutral gods to be more interesting than the polarized ones. After all, serving the god of night is going to result in a much more interesting character than serving a god of healing.

Imagine a good Cleric and an evil Cleric serving the same neutral god. Plot anyone?