Warlock with Paladin Multiclass Feat grouped with Warrior

[Gloombunny]

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.

But issuing the divine challenge doesn't stop you from wearing armor or a shield, right? It doesn't remove your Dex/Int bonus to defense, which implies that you're still dodging or parrying attacks or otherwise actively trying to avoid getting hit. Zapping an enemy with eyebite every round doesn't mean you're preventing the monster from responding to the challenge, it just means you're fighting defensively.

Some paladins would disdain the idea, I'm sure, the same way they disdain throwing dirt in your enemy's eyes or putting poison on your sword. They might also think honor demands taking off your armor if your opponent isn't wearing any, or giving him a magic sword to match your own before you fight him, but I have a hard time imagining a DM telling a player he has to do anything like that.

 

[Vaeron]

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.

Didn't they change it so that the challenger has to be directly involved in melee combat (not just melee range), and that the challengee must actually be able to engage them to suffer the non-engagement penalty?

 

[Ipissimus]

No, the 'Lock isn't a glass cannon. But she's the next best thing. The weakness to this combo is that you're making yourself a target without the bennies of a Defender's armour, hp and healing surges (from being able to buff Con during character creation).

However, if you've got your heart set on a Fey Pact Warlock-Paladin who uses the Fey Pact's maneuverability to get her more defender-ish qualities to where they're needed most, this is a good place to start. You'd probably want a high Con and Dex secondary to high Cha as you'll want all the hp and AC you can get. Maybe even the Toughness feat and some armour proficiency feats.

 

[Counterspin]

That the game has gone from "medieval fantasy" w/ very limited rules (making more room for rp) to one of endless $40 books filled with "Kewl powerz". Collect them all.

Well, at least that's a complete thought, as opposed to just a slur. And if having access to more options in combat limits rp, that's a problem restricted to your group. It certainly doesn't apply to mine. Indeed, if that's a problem you have, you should steer clear of 4e.

 

[MindWanderer]

Wouldn't an easier and more complete combo be to be a paladin and take some form of invisibility through multiclassing? We've seen only Greater Invisibility so far (which boggles me, as I can't imagine what such a crappy spell could be greater than), but I'm sure warlocks and wizards will have other options. Simple, effective, you can use your mark at will instead of per encounter, and you get defender HP, armor and shield proficiencies.

 

[N0Man]

Pretty sure the point of this combo is "tie up a big bad monster's actions by forcing it to attack a character it's very likely to miss," not "inflict auto-damage every round without breaking a sweat."

He gets it. Indeed, this is exactly the point.

And it doesn't force the character to attack anyone, it just penalizes them for attacking the Warlock, and penalizes it for attacking anyone but the warlock. In fact, if the creature is being played intelligently, then it should quickly learn that not only can it not effectively attack either the Fighter or the Warlock, but if it shifts to attempt to attack the Paladin anyway, then the Warrior may use Combat Advantage to take an attack of opportunity as it shifts toward the Warlock/Paladin.

 

[N0Man]

Didn't they change it so that the challenger has to be directly involved in melee combat (not just melee range), and that the challengee must actually be able to engage them to suffer the non-engagement penalty?

The target would be able to engage the challenger. Invisibility makes it impossible to be targeted by range, but it doesn't prevent melee attacks, but it does provide additional defense against them.

 

[BASHMAN]

Well, at least that's a complete thought, as opposed to just a slur. And if having access to more options in combat limits rp, that's a problem restricted to your group. It certainly doesn't apply to mine. Indeed, if that's a problem you have, you should steer clear of 4e.

You see options, I see limits [any ability that specifically says you can do something means that is one more thing that other people explicitly cannot do unless they have said ability]. This killed fun and took its stuff on several occasions in 3.5 ("I swing down and grab the princess from the pit, and swing her onto the ledge". "No he cannot do that-- he doesn't have spring attack-- since he is moving, then taking a standard, then moving again, here on page yada yada yada". 2nd ed, or Basic, or OSRIC, or C&C, etc this would just be done by the DM deciding for you to make a Dex check... But hey-- they didn't know any better back then.

I intend to steer clear of 4e because I see it doing just that-- making a list of 8 things or whatever that you "can do" and then everything else that you can't do. I will play 4e, and it will be fun-- magic the gathering and Heroquest are fun, afterall. But I won't name or get attached to a character any more than I get attached to a magic deck or the dwarf from Heroquest, because they are fulfilling the same role.

 

[hong]

I intend to steer clear of 4e

Good.

 

[abeattie]

But I won't name or get attached to a character any more than I get attached to a magic deck or the dwarf from Heroquest, because they are fulfilling the same role.

Can I bet you 10$ that this is blatantly untrue a year from now?