Warlock with Paladin Multiclass Feat grouped with Warrior

I don't think it goes against the spirit of the ability at all.

Its not like its impossible to fight an invisible foe. So the warlock issues a divine challenge, then does his best to vanish from view, moving around his opponent in circles, zapping him with Eyebite, and taunting his foe as his foe swings his sword ineffectively.

Sounds good to me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

N0Man said:
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?

Unless divine challenge specifically stipulates engaging the target at melee range, no, this character would not have to close to melee range. As eyebite causes damage, you're attacking them, which is engaging the target. Besides, eyebite makes you invisible, reducing the chance of being hit, not eliminating the chance.
 


This is exactly the kind of interesting application of the rules that I encourage among my players. I don't understand why so many DMs respond to non-disruptive creativity amongst their players by changing the rules to make the creative act impossible.
 

Wormwood said:
I take it you haven't seen a single power/feat discussion in the past 7½ years?

This ain't new.
Nobody said that 3.5 wasn't like that either! One of the reasons I didn't like it much either. In 4E the similarity is more transparent, though.

Wow guysh! I've got a schweet deck] build here. By combining white and blue I have a Tim with phasing and killsh any creature that doeshn't block it! All I have to do ish ushe my minor action, tap my shtandard at-will eyebite power card, phase out, and den lay da schmak down when da creature doeshn't attack my phased Tim. It'sh totally shweet. I alsho ushed some of da new cardsh class abilities from da next set book. Oh, you couldn't afford to buy da new [set] book and don't know what's in it? Shucks for you, dude...
 


epochrpg said:
Wow guysh! I've got a schweet deck] build here. By combining white and blue I have a Tim with phasing and killsh any creature that doeshn't block it! All I have to do ish ushe my minor action, tap my shtandard at-will eyebite power card, phase out, and den lay da schmak down when da creature doeshn't attack my phased Tim. It'sh totally shweet. I alsho ushed some of da new cardsh class abilities from da next set book.

You could make anything sound dumb by using this tone. That doesn't make you right.
 

So what if it reminds you of Magic? The way you've put it, followed by your derogatory text, shows that your presenting nothing more than a dog whistle. Tell us what's wrong with a system which has a variety of powers which are meant to be used together and balanced under that presumption, rather than regaling us with how stupid or asthmatic or whatever all that mistyped text you produced is supposed to indicate Magic players are.
 

N0Man said:
Would you agree that this sounds legal based on what we know?

Not just legal -- but AWESOME.

1) This would only work against solo encounters unless the party's tank and off-tank are both going on the same mob, leaving the rest of the party to control the other 1+number of party members other than the 2 doing this trick that are in the standard encounter.

Remember that the Warlock/Pally's challenge is a per-encounter power, not at will, so it can't switch targets.

Further -- since the warlock (in the lowest HP and AC category) has to hit every round to remain invisible, it seems likely that your average solo or elite mob is going to whack your little toy-tank around a bit. How many dragon-bites does it take to get the middle of a pally-lock?

2) are curses marks? Warlocks are supposed to stack damage by doubling down with a curse and a power that works better against cursed / marked targets -- remember, marks don't stack.

3) For me -- seeing party members work together to run a battlefield is awesome. What I see as a DM much more often, is that I have to softball the tactics the bad guys use so that they don't surround and kill lone warriors who run up without support, or what not.
 

epochrpg said:
Wow guysh! I've got a schweet deck] build here. By combining white and blue I have a Tim with phasing and killsh any creature that doeshn't block it! All I have to do ish ushe my minor action, tap my shtandard at-will eyebite power card, phase out, and den lay da schmak down when da creature doeshn't attack my phased Tim. It'sh totally shweet. I alsho ushed some of da new cardsh class abilities from da next set book. Oh, you couldn't afford to buy da new [set] book and don't know what's in it? Shucks for you, dude...

Coming to a dnd forum to bash nerds. Really?

Wow.

What a superior life form you must be.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top