Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Elfcrusher Dec 16, 2014 12:25:37	So thanks to the thread about spell slots and Divine Smite I've become enamoured of the Paladin/Warlock concept.  I'm envisioning a two-handed build, with Pact of the Chain for a cool sidekick.   Something like.... Variant Human, Great Weapon Paladin to 3 for Fighting Style, Divine Smite, and Channel Warlock to 3 for Invocations (Devil's Sight and...?) and Pact of the Chain Paladin 4 for Ability Increase or Feat Warlock 4 for Ability Increase or Feat Paladin 6 for 2nd Attack and Oath Benefit Warlock 6 for Patron Benefit Paladin 8 for Ability Increase Warlock 8 for Ability Increase   That's level 16, which I'll probably never reach anyway, so not much point planning out beyond that.   The other possibility is to just stop Warlock at 3 once I get the sidekick, 2 invocations, and a couple spell slots (and cantrips).   Now....what's the concept?   Oathbreaker Paladin, Fiend Patron?  Imp or Quasit gets the CHA bonus to attacks, which is fun if not really that important.     Vengeance/Fiend?  Certainly colorful.  Especially if my alignment is LN instead of LE, so the relationship with the Patron is semi-contentious.  Sort of like the Emperor and the younger Anakin: the Patron is playing the long game hoping to win the Paladin over completely.   Ancient/Archfey: This one has some cool flavor, and some nifty abilities.   Thoughts?
#2 CariadocThorne Dec 16, 2014 14:01:54	I've just started an archfey tome/ancients Shillelagh-polearm master build in a high level game. This game won't run long but it's kind of a test run for a character I want to run from 1st. L11 paladin (ancients)/L4 warlock (archfey/tome)Human (variant) Str 15, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 20 Feats: Polearm master, warcaster. Saves: Cha, Wis. HP: 25+10d10+4d6 (94) Background: Outlander Equipment: Staff of Power, mithral plate, Shield +2, holy symbol, spell component pouch, travellers clothes, explorers kit. A member of a knightly order of holy warriors dedicated to spreading good, not just fighting evil. Really a front for mystic warriors in service to a powerful fey commonly known as the Midnight Dancer, they learn to augment their divine magic by drawing on the power of their mistress. These warriors travel the land fighting evil, and the oldest and most powerful retire to guard their mistress and the hidden valley she rules, and train the next generation before they are sent into the world. I'm also considering a more warlock heavy exorcist/occult investigator type character inspired by the character of Constantine (more like the guy in the new tv series, not Keanu Reaves), lots of fiend patron, tome pact warlock, with a little vengeance paladin. That'll be for a less combat intensive game though.
#3 cowleymen Dec 16, 2014 14:02:09	Its a pretty easy mix in my choice. Besides a pact is an oath in a way, both are serving powers greater then themselves. In Game I would say that its all the same power source anyways. Work with your DM to actually get some really solid, aggrements on what your pact/oath of servitude was.
#4 PhyrexianKitsune Dec 16, 2014 14:50:15	Ancient/Archfey likely has the best "synergy" in terms of fluff since Paladins all lean heavily towards good(except oathbreakers), however, I really like the idea of the vengenice/fiend character who will undouptly end up as an oathbreaker/fiend patron character since in some cases taking your first level in fiend-patron warlock(and thus willingly making a pact with an EVIL creature) may be in and of itself enough to break your oath and immedatly shift you from vengence to oathbreaker, depending on how strict your GM is with your oath. In fact, one could argue that ANY pact other then archfey would immedatly shift a Paladin from whatever oath they where to oathbreaker since making a pact with a XE fiend or CE great old one would be WILLINGLY pledging service to an EVIL creature, and thus a direct violation of basicly every printed Paladin oath, since even vengence is about fighting evil rather then embracing it. Now, some GMs may let a vengence pally get away with such a pact provided they do a lot of good deeds after the fact with their new found dark powers, but many DMs may very well rule that you immedatly shift to oathbreaker as soon as you take your first level in warlock and enter into that pact. This is something to keep in mind as it means that any warlock other then a feylock will inveidbly end up as an oathbreaker under some GMs, and thus should be build accordingly.   However, that dosen't make an oathbreaker/fiendlock or oathbreaker/lovecraftlock any less awesome. Such a character is the ultimate dark knight and probally the closes thing you can get to a "Blackguard" in 5e. Heck, if you really want to play a twisted character, go with the lawful good oath(not vengence....but the other one..i forget it's name) and modle your character after holy man and companion-in-arms of Joan of Arc turned devil worshiping child killer, Gilles de Rais( His wiki, in case you don't know who he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais).
#5 Yunru Dec 16, 2014 14:52:28	Ummm... none of the Oaths say "thou shall not make pacts with evil". Iirc none of them even hint at it (okay one of them might).
#6 PhyrexianKitsune Dec 16, 2014 15:27:52	Well, none of them may directly stat it as a tenent, but if you read between the lines you can clearly see that willingly making a pact with a fiend would be in direct opposition to the ethos of at least two of the oaths. The LG oath who's name I forget and the Ancients Oath both heavily push doing good deeds, protecting things and generally being a heroic person. While they don't have any direct tenents that say "do not make pacts with evil" they do have an ethos which is hostile to doing evil acts, and thus one could argue that doing any willing, thoughtful and suficiently evil(aka not "minor") evil act would be against both of those oaths. Wllingly making yourself the servant of an evil creature like a fiend is certainly not a "minor" act of evil, at least to me, and thus something that would in my mind break every oath except vengence which is more forgiving of an "ends justify the means" mindset.  Making such a pact is more or less the fantasy equilivlent of willingly defecting from your current army to join the forces of a henious, genocidal dictator who revels in oppression. About the only oath that could you could justify not immedatly falling to oathbreaker status for making a fiend pact would be vengence, and even then to keep from slipping to oathbreaker a vengence Paladin would have to tread very carefully. They would need to hold their patron at a very wide distance and do lot of good acts to "make restitution" for the fact they essentually have just sworn aliegence to satan for power. Some GMs even may require that they try to subtly work against their patron as well if they are paticularly strict.   Of course, all of this is really dependent on your DM and what standards they hold Paladins and "paragon" type characters to. DMs have different opinions of what constitutes a "minor" evil act. Some may rule that making a pact with a fiend is minor enough to let it fly under the radar so long as you use those dark powers for good. However, others, such as myself, have higher standards for what is "good" and thus see pledging yourself to satan, even if for the right reasons, as an act of evil that can't be classified as "minor" and worthy of instant oathbreaker status for everybody except a Vengence Pally. The high road is called the high road for a reason; it's not easy to walk, and while some tables may be fine with netural(or in some cases, evil) characters masqurading as heros with a "G" on their character sheet, other tables will want characters labled as "good" to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. So in the end it really depends on the standards of your table in reguards to what constitues a "minor" act of evil.
#7 Yunru Dec 16, 2014 15:26:46	Yes, because if you really stretch it, making a pact with evil is doing a bad act. Unless you're tricked into it. Or you want to use their power against them, or just do good with the power granted to you (hello Ghost Rider), or... My point is your point is tenious at best. Hell, none of the pact Patrons are even called out to be evil. Benign Fey, incomprehensible Old Ones and neutral Fiends are all possible.
#8 Mephi1234 Dec 16, 2014 16:02:47	Its very easy for some Patrons to try and force their student to do evil acts, which would be pretty bad on most oaths.    In fact, most fiendish would try to drive paladins to break the oath and become Oathbreakers eventually, because, lets be honest, Oathbreakers are literally more friendly to fiends through their level 7 class feature.   As well, note that most paladins are still sworn to the gods, and follow their tenants.   The oaths provided in the book are just the parts that all paladin oaths have in common - you still include upholding individual god tenants - which often include fighting evil wherever it comes up.   That said, do recall that things aren't always black and white.   Illmater, from the Forgotten Realms, has been known to heal fiends in hopes they would eventually repent.   Fiendish warlocks from Nentir Vale can learn their arcane lore from uncovering buried ruins of Bael Turath, and not a new devil that happens to walk up with a deal.   There's always going to be some jarring dissent between the themes of two classes - their stories and magics are quite literally opposites in pretty much every way.  Stories can find a way, though, if they really want.   Yin-yang characters tend to be popular, for many reasons.
#9 Yunru Dec 16, 2014 16:06:43	Oh really, because right now, Paladins don't even have to worship beings, all their powers come from their Oaths.
#10 CariadocThorne Dec 16, 2014 16:25:54	You could also go vengeance paladin, maybe with a few levels of sorcerer or something, who summons evil fiends, traps them in a magic circle and then bargains for the use of their powers or true answers to questions in exchange for releasing them, then uses their own power to fight other fiends. Your DM might argue that effectively kidnapping them and ransoming them back their freedom is an evil act in itself, but as you aren't making a pact to serve them, only to free them from your trap, a vengeance paladin might get away with this. This would also open up some nice roleplay as the fiends you summon try to trick or seduce you slowly to the dark side. Also, I don't see why Old Ones have to be evil. Some could be the remains of fallen gods of good, who have managed to stay (mostly) sane, but seek a way back into the world. Plenty of plot hooks there as you help a dead god return, is it really good or did it trick you? Is it less sane than it seemed? Does the process of it's rebirth have titanic side effects? Does it think "Good" means free tentacle-y hugs for everyone, and a liberal sharing of ideas, and maybe yummy brains?
#11 Elfcrusher Dec 16, 2014 16:36:15	Yunru never let's fluff get in the way of a good minmax.
#12 Yunru Dec 16, 2014 16:44:41	On the contrary (especially given Oathbreaker is one of if not the strongest Oaths), I merely don't let previous edition hangovers (or "realism") colour my view of classes in such a way that it limits variety.
#13 tdaelin Dec 16, 2014 17:57:47	The fluff for Oath of Vengeance paladins makes it clear that they don't have to be 'good' characters. The description says "Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment." If you're willing to sacrifice your own righteousness and have a neutral rather than good alignment, I don't think you'd have a roleplay reason to disallow a fiend pact. One of the actual tenets also goes along with that: "By Any Means Necessary My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes."  That's definitely an ends-justify-the-means approach, possibly even allowing torture and the like in order to ensure the greater good.  I think it's harder to justify a good character playing this kind of paladin than a neutral one. As far as the roleplay for this goes, I think there's a lot of material to work with. A LN vengeance paladin could strike a deal with a devil, they're lawful creatures, and make his pact obligation to target demons. Since they're chaotic evil villains and also the sworn enemies of devils, both parties would support working toward that goal.  A vengeance paladin could also turn the tables on a pact-giver, maybe by learning its true name and compelling it to enter the pact with him. That would be poetic justice for an evil entity that enslaves or dominates others, to be blackmailed into helping a paladin, and it would be a great bit of fun to RP who breaks whom first.
#14 WizardV Dec 16, 2014 18:14:07	OP. Regarding the mechanics I would suggest pact of the blade for the + stat to weapon damage invocation. Level 3 Warlock seems like a fine place to stop to me. If you want a sidekick you can always just take ritual caster or magic initiate and get the find familiar ritual.   For the fluff, personally I would go the nature route with oath of the ancients and work with the DM to make a fey patron.
#15 Elfcrusher Dec 16, 2014 19:36:46	WizardV wrote:
#16 cowleymen Dec 16, 2014 19:58:16	Non of the oaths have alignments, GOO could easily be vengence, since they could have a backstory of getting thrown out of the world with out a choice, as could a fiend that was once good and was out casted and wants revenege. The warlock/paladin is just an intrusment, and in the end, isnt that what those two classes sum up to being anyways?. Down with alignment sterotypes
(Reply to #15) WizardV	Elfcrusher wrote:
#18 Napolean_Warlord Dec 16, 2014 21:57:28	Anyone do the math on how this build would fare in comparison to a two handed sword using fighter or barbarian?   <spoiler> rumor is there is a very cool two handed sword in one of the published adventures, where this build could be a lot of fun </spoiler>
#19 CariadocThorne Dec 17, 2014 0:31:42	In terms if optimization, I don't see much difference between warlock +CHA to weapon damage or paladin +d8 improved divine smite. The d8 probably works out better due to criticals but thats about it. Both available around the same level.
#20 Mephi1234 Dec 17, 2014 6:02:01	Yunru wrote:
#21 Elfcrusher Dec 17, 2014 6:13:52	Mephi1234 wrote:
#22 Yunru Dec 17, 2014 6:14:07	Actually that very first statement confirms that a Paladin's power doesn't have to come from a god. It quite clearly states that there are Paladins that draw power from other things, not "god and other things", just other things.
#23 Elfcrusher Dec 17, 2014 6:35:14	Yunru wrote:
#24 Yunru Dec 17, 2014 6:44:50	From it we've learnt for a fact: ● Paladins don't have to get there power from good gods. ● Paladins can get power from a commitment to justice. Since Paladins can get power from a commitment to justice, then they can have their powers without a god. A commitment, after all, is not a god.
#25 Elfcrusher Dec 17, 2014 6:49:04	Yunru wrote:
#26 Valinere Dec 17, 2014 7:21:40	Elfcrusher wrote:
#27 Elfcrusher Dec 17, 2014 7:26:13	Valinere wrote:
#28 Ganymede425 Dec 17, 2014 7:30:48	WizardV wrote:
#29 Mephi1234 Dec 17, 2014 8:23:27	Valinere wrote:
#30 Elfcrusher Dec 17, 2014 10:16:47	Mephi1234 wrote:
#31 Valinere Dec 17, 2014 10:54:11	If it truly bothers you so badly, feel free not to do it. 5e specifically avoids tying paladins to any specific god, be that a good one, an evil one, or a nebulous one (Warlock pacts). There is no violation of RAW by creating a unique paladin free of a deity, nor is it inhibiting roleplay in any way.  This isn't an argument of crunch vs concept, this has become an argument between people believing their version of fluff is superior to all others.   Is a paladin without a god outside the standard deviation, and not the primary intention of the class? Sure.  Is it the only "correct" way to play one? No.   @Melphi, you're reading into the goddess of the grove as much as I'm reading into being inspired by nature itself. Again, I agree a deity is the standard way to play a paladin, but there is room to design something that does not follow that specific outline.
#32 Elfcrusher Dec 17, 2014 11:18:12	Valinere wrote:
#33 Mephi1234 Dec 17, 2014 11:52:23	Valinere wrote:
#34 Valinere Dec 17, 2014 12:00:14	I concede that my interpretation is not as straightforward as I originally thought.   I still believe this method of playing a paladin hurts no one (and has nothing to do with crunch), but RAW does not support it as much as I originally read.   Thanks for the detailed reply.
#35 CariadocThorne Dec 17, 2014 12:49:54	While the current text does imply the involvment of a deity far more strongly, the text in the various 3.5 books was all quite explicit that some paladins have no involvement with a god at all, drawing on divine power not through a god or their oath itself, but rather through their commitment to "good" itself. Also, Mephi1234, "sacred" doesn't have to involve a god, especially in the context of "old faith" type stuff like druidism, which concentrates on the divinity of nature and life itself, gods being a nice, but optional, addition.
#36 DragnDave Dec 18, 2014 10:46:11	The DMG covers Paladins who are "Oath Breakers". As such I would only allow an Oath Breaker to multi class into warlock.....
#37 Elfcrusher Dec 18, 2014 10:57:16	DragnDave wrote:
(Reply to #37) Coredump00	Elfcrusher wrote:
#39 Knight_Marshal Dec 18, 2014 12:58:08	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #33) Danny_Montanny	Mephi1234 wrote:
(Reply to #36) Yunru	DragnDave wrote:
#42 Elfcrusher Dec 19, 2014 0:13:25	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #36) CariadocThorne	DragnDave wrote:
#44 Asaris34 Dec 22, 2014 9:30:01	CariadocThorne wrote:
(Reply to #44) Yunru	Asaris34 wrote:
#46 Lawolf Dec 22, 2014 11:57:48	Pure oathbreaker til 12 is better than multiclassing.   I would go half-elf for the Charisma boost, darkvision, bonus skills, and two other +1s.   Oathbreaker 12 using a greatsword with a 20 Strength and 20 Constitution deals 2d6+1d8+10 damage per hit (reroll 1s and 2s). It is also immune to fear, has +5 to all saving throws, and a lot of spell slots for smiting.   After level 12, things depend on how the DM interprets the level requirement of warlock invocations. If they interpret level to mean overall character level, then a two level dip into warlock gets you Charisma to damage again, and 2 encounter recharging spell slots. Not bad at all.   Don't forget that if you plan on going to 20, level 15 oathbreaker gains resistance to damage from nonmagical weapons.