Narratively this multiclass does not make sense. Neither the famous hexadin. However, you can always come up with something homemade to make it work. But with the official lore, there's no way this makes sense. If you don't care about the narrative, go ahead, the rules let you do it. But if you really care that your campaign makes sense, you shouldn't allow multiclassing like this.
In general cleric/warlock works fine from a narrative sense. Using the same entity as both patron and deity probably doesn't by the text of both classes. One approach is to have a high powered angel/minion/ally of your deity give you the warlock powers. You need to figure out why specifically this patron needs warlocks, why are they not just using clerics, why did they choose you, how do their goals/methods differ from your deity. Could this result in actual role playing? Yes. Unfortunately you might have to role play.
Narratively this multiclass does not make sense. Neither the famous hexadin. However, you can always come up with something homemade to make it work. But with the official lore, there's no way this makes sense. If you don't care about the narrative, go ahead, the rules let you do it. But if you really care that your campaign makes sense, you shouldn't allow multiclassing like this.
In general cleric/warlock works fine from a narrative sense. Using the same entity as both patron and deity probably doesn't by the text of both classes. One approach is to have a high powered angel/minion/ally of your deity give you the warlock powers. You need to figure out why specifically this patron needs warlocks, why are they not just using clerics, why did they choose you, how do their goals/methods differ from your deity. Could this result in actual role playing? Yes. Unfortunately you might have to role play.
Pact Magic is very flexible. One of the examples in the PHB is under the Great Old One, where "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it." Stealing power isn't limited there; you might have stumbed and bound yourself unwittingly, which is Warlock / Cleric approach I took. It absolutely can work in a narrative sense.
Otherwise Classes are game mechanics; you probably don't identify as a Cleric/Warlock, but a member of the faithful that has tapped into a strange power source. And as long as your follow the guidance and rules set out by the DM, you can do whatever you need to.
Sorry but no. The entities that function as patrons are not gods. The Old One example, since you have mentioned it, is not a god like Selune might be. If you want to justify it in your games as homebrew lore, go ahead. But with the official lore, this multiclass is impossible. At least in the default setting. The rules do allow it, but we must not forget that multiclassing is a totally optional rule. And it is for good a reason.
Sorry but no. The entities that function as patrons are not gods. The Old One example, since you have mentioned it, is not a god like Selune might be. If you want to justify it in your games as homebrew lore, go ahead. But with the official lore, this multiclass is impossible. At least in the default setting. The rules do allow it, but we must not forget that multiclassing is a totally optional rule. And it is for good a reason.
Nature Cleric/Archfey Warlock with Titania (or some other equivalent fey deity) being the God Patron?
Sorry but no. The entities that function as patrons are not gods. The Old One example, since you have mentioned it, is not a god like Selune might be. If you want to justify it in your games as homebrew lore, go ahead. But with the official lore, this multiclass is impossible. At least in the default setting. The rules do allow it, but we must not forget that multiclassing is a totally optional rule. And it is for good a reason.
I believe you misunderstood my point. You are absolutely correct, a patron is not a god. But nothing prevents someone from serving a patron and a god. It may not be smart/good idea, but for a player who wants internal conflicts, its a way to go. The patron might indeed want to become a god, and demand things from the player. But worship doesn't change pact magic to divine, and doesn't change a warlock into a cleric.
But in the default setting, if you are multiclassing, there are no combinations that are disallowed. I specifically don't like Warlock/Paladins as a concept, and I wouldn't play one. But I certainly can craft one that an oath of conquest, and also appeals to a Fiend pact for more power to accomplish their goals. If a player could come up with a rational story on the why, I would consider it, as much as I would consider why a Reghed Barbarian (aka, magic hating/fearing background) wanted to become a wizard. But I would make sure it is in the vein of a good story, and not just min/maxing (and that is my houserule). If it was Adventure League on the otherhand, multiclassing is legal, and the only restrictions are based on the book combinations; but any class can be multiclassed into any other if you follow the rules on stat requirements. So in that 'default' setting it is completely legitimate, if perhaps head scratching.
But I believe this is more to your point: some combinations don't make a lot of sense on the surface. In some settings or interpetations of settings, a DM may have indeed good reason to disallow combinations. And I think if you know that up front that just fine, mostly because surprises after the fact is bad for all parties. I'd rather the player sell me on the concept and then explain the impacts of such a choice, than ban outright.
If a DM doesn't want to allow that combination (or any other) it is DM's choice and homebrew by definition. And there is nothing wrong with it, or going the other direction, if everyone is ok with either case.
Sorry but no. The entities that function as patrons are not gods. The Old One example, since you have mentioned it, is not a god like Selune might be. If you want to justify it in your games as homebrew lore, go ahead. But with the official lore, this multiclass is impossible. At least in the default setting. The rules do allow it, but we must not forget that multiclassing is a totally optional rule. And it is for good a reason.
I believe you misunderstood my point. You are absolutely correct, a patron is not a god. But nothing prevents someone from serving a patron and a god. It may not be smart/good idea, but for a player who wants internal conflicts, its a way to go. The patron might indeed want to become a god, and demand things from the player. But worship doesn't change pact magic to divine, and doesn't change a warlock into a cleric.
But in the default setting, if you are multiclassing, there are no combinations that are disallowed. I specifically don't like Warlock/Paladins as a concept, and I wouldn't play one. But I certainly can craft one that an oath of conquest, and also appeals to a Fiend pact for more power to accomplish their goals. If a player could come up with a rational story on the why, I would consider it, as much as I would consider why a Reghed Barbarian (aka, magic hating/fearing background) wanted to become a wizard. But I would make sure it is in the vein of a good story, and not just min/maxing (and that is my houserule). If it was Adventure League on the otherhand, multiclassing is legal, and the only restrictions are based on the book combinations; but any class can be multiclassed into any other if you follow the rules on stat requirements. So in that 'default' setting it is completely legitimate, if perhaps head scratching.
But I believe this is more to your point: some combinations don't make a lot of sense on the surface. In some settings or interpetations of settings, a DM may have indeed good reason to disallow combinations. And I think if you know that up front that just fine, mostly because surprises after the fact is bad for all parties. I'd rather the player sell me on the concept and then explain the impacts of such a choice, than ban outright.
If a DM doesn't want to allow that combination (or any other) it is DM's choice and homebrew by definition. And there is nothing wrong with it, or going the other direction, if everyone is ok with either case.
Yes, you are right. For me feels more than a dificult multiclass for roleplaying, than an impossible one. But, as a DM, I would make it very clear to the player that he is playing with fire. It is very difficult to fool a god, or an arcane entity with enough power to be a patron. And none of them would like to share your loyalty. The player should feel that he is walking on the edge of the cliff.
But yes, I think it is possible to justify it narratively. Only it shouldn't be an easy path for the player.
Personally, I see no issue with having a dual relationship with a patron and a deity - whether they are aligned or not. That's juicy story fodder, and between a player and DM.
However, one thing that it seems many are forgetting, is that clerics aren't necessarily bound to a specific god or goddess - they can also be bound to an idea or ideal... just like paladins.
Lastly, I try to think of classes as mechanically balanced scaffolds for character concepts, not rigid silos.
However, one thing that it seems many are forgetting, is that clerics aren't necessarily bound to a specific god or goddess - they can also be bound to an idea or ideal... just like paladins.
"As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody. The Gods of the Multiverse section includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
You are completly wrong. Is mandatory for a cleric to serve a god. Paladins and druids should also serve a god. Although, it leaves you the option of whether they serve an ideal (paladins) or the nature itself (druids).
But if you don't care about narrative, and you're only interested in the mechanical aspect of a class, it's up to you. You can play however you want.
I have a cleric with the Raven Queen as my deity. And he’s multi classed into a warlock of the hexblade(blades crafted in shadowfell, some by the raven queen herself). Definitely a good combo i would recommend.
I’ve got a player who’s a warlock in a pact with the Raven Queen who’s thinking about picking up a lvl or two of cleric. I feel like the Raven Queen is practically a deity so this could work… especially if she went twilight.
Currently using an exandria setting my character is a human fiend pact Warlock of the twilight phoenix desirat. Later down the road she forces him to become a cleric of hers burning the symbol into his chest as a holy symbol
Loved the ideas in this thread. I'm currently a Tempest Cleric with the idea of encountering a Djinni later down the line probably before acquiring the Divine intervention ability from my cleric. Thought it would be interesting to play a manipulated style of character from the Djinni that promises more Tempest style power and is received by my character as a messenger of my Deity. This I thought would be a could push and pull dynamic with my character since he already uses the wind and other weather features to commune with his Deity. Adding a Djinni as an embodiment of the wind as a Patron would make for a dynamic of thinking he is the messenger of the Deity to the cleric and the Djinni would love to manipulate my character into thinking he's speaking on behalf of my deity to further his chaotic wishes. Would look to culminate in either my character overcoming and seeing through the manipulation and reaching a higher standing with their deity or having a complete conversion over to servitude of the Djinni if my character fails to act out against him.
Yes, you are right. For me feels more than a dificult multiclass for roleplaying, than an impossible one. But, as a DM, I would make it very clear to the player that he is playing with fire. It is very difficult to fool a god, or an arcane entity with enough power to be a patron. And none of them would like to share your loyalty. The player should feel that he is walking on the edge of the cliff.
But yes, I think it is possible to justify it narratively. Only it shouldn't be an easy path for the player.
I totally agree with u Nortolder. I once played a hexblade warlock/twilight domain cleric. He was a half-elf warrior that found a dark blade which tried to corrupt him so to face the blade he followed the light of the raven queen. There was a battle of the two sides inside him. He was also a half elf so it made him have two conflicts. The blade and his goddess, the elf and the human. He was one of the most intresting characters to play.
Could your warlock multiclass into a cleric, using the same patron/god for both classes? It could potentially make a very potent and interesting spellcaster to have two different sort of themes and types of magic coming from the same being.
What do you guys think?
Yes, I think it would fit best as a lessor God or Demigod.
Something like Kiransalee or Sveltlarm from the Drow Pantheon or maybe Mask from traditiona forgotten realms. Or Fiends like Orcus or Asmodeus.
I think these can function as both.
Also your Patron could be a servant of your God. I have that on a Tempenst Cleric, Fathomless Warlock I am building. The Warlock's Patron is a Sea Hag, both she and the Hag are servants of God of the Sea Umberlee.
Also keep in mind if your God is Chaotic you do not necessarily serve it to get cleric spells from it. D&D fiction has numerous clerics who either hate or in some cases just do not serve their deities. Yet they still get spells and powers from them. This is easy to explain with a chaotic God, far more difficult with a Lawful one.
You are completly wrong. Is mandatory for a cleric to serve a god.
I don't really agree with this and in WOTC fiction this is not true. Dabne and Ivonnel both are clerics of Lolth, get spells from her (in the case of Ivonell she is the most powerful Lolthian cleric on Ferun), yet neither worship Lolth. Erivis Cale actually hated Mask and tried unsuccessfully to work against him while he was a Cleric of Mask and even attacked Mask once but still got spells and powers.
The term "serve" is subject to some debate. Erivis Cale furthered Mask's aims, so in this sense he unwillingly "served" Mask.
Ivonnel and Dabne are a bit more nebulous. Both of them actively work against what appeare to be Lolth's goals at times but since Lolth is an agent of Chaos and a master of subterfuge were they really working against her or were they too unwittingly furthering her aims in some twisted way beyond their comprehension? Maybe the violence and conflict they generated among Drow and the other "faithful" Lolth clerics is itself one of Lolth's aims.
In the end a God of Chaos would not have a faith dominated by rules, so rules about service and what it takes to stay in good grace are kind of out of place. Is this sense granting powers to someone who colors "way outside the line" would not be unexpected from a God devoted to Chaos.
In general cleric/warlock works fine from a narrative sense. Using the same entity as both patron and deity probably doesn't by the text of both classes. One approach is to have a high powered angel/minion/ally of your deity give you the warlock powers. You need to figure out why specifically this patron needs warlocks, why are they not just using clerics, why did they choose you, how do their goals/methods differ from your deity. Could this result in actual role playing? Yes. Unfortunately you might have to role play.
Pact Magic is very flexible. One of the examples in the PHB is under the Great Old One, where "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it." Stealing power isn't limited there; you might have stumbed and bound yourself unwittingly, which is Warlock / Cleric approach I took. It absolutely can work in a narrative sense.
Otherwise Classes are game mechanics; you probably don't identify as a Cleric/Warlock, but a member of the faithful that has tapped into a strange power source. And as long as your follow the guidance and rules set out by the DM, you can do whatever you need to.
So enjoy the ride!
Sorry but no. The entities that function as patrons are not gods. The Old One example, since you have mentioned it, is not a god like Selune might be. If you want to justify it in your games as homebrew lore, go ahead. But with the official lore, this multiclass is impossible. At least in the default setting. The rules do allow it, but we must not forget that multiclassing is a totally optional rule. And it is for good a reason.
Nature Cleric/Archfey Warlock with Titania (or some other equivalent fey deity) being the God Patron?
I believe you misunderstood my point. You are absolutely correct, a patron is not a god. But nothing prevents someone from serving a patron and a god. It may not be smart/good idea, but for a player who wants internal conflicts, its a way to go. The patron might indeed want to become a god, and demand things from the player. But worship doesn't change pact magic to divine, and doesn't change a warlock into a cleric.
But in the default setting, if you are multiclassing, there are no combinations that are disallowed. I specifically don't like Warlock/Paladins as a concept, and I wouldn't play one. But I certainly can craft one that an oath of conquest, and also appeals to a Fiend pact for more power to accomplish their goals. If a player could come up with a rational story on the why, I would consider it, as much as I would consider why a Reghed Barbarian (aka, magic hating/fearing background) wanted to become a wizard. But I would make sure it is in the vein of a good story, and not just min/maxing (and that is my houserule). If it was Adventure League on the otherhand, multiclassing is legal, and the only restrictions are based on the book combinations; but any class can be multiclassed into any other if you follow the rules on stat requirements. So in that 'default' setting it is completely legitimate, if perhaps head scratching.
But I believe this is more to your point: some combinations don't make a lot of sense on the surface. In some settings or interpetations of settings, a DM may have indeed good reason to disallow combinations. And I think if you know that up front that just fine, mostly because surprises after the fact is bad for all parties. I'd rather the player sell me on the concept and then explain the impacts of such a choice, than ban outright.
If a DM doesn't want to allow that combination (or any other) it is DM's choice and homebrew by definition. And there is nothing wrong with it, or going the other direction, if everyone is ok with either case.
Yes, you are right. For me feels more than a dificult multiclass for roleplaying, than an impossible one. But, as a DM, I would make it very clear to the player that he is playing with fire. It is very difficult to fool a god, or an arcane entity with enough power to be a patron. And none of them would like to share your loyalty. The player should feel that he is walking on the edge of the cliff.
But yes, I think it is possible to justify it narratively. Only it shouldn't be an easy path for the player.
Personally, I see no issue with having a dual relationship with a patron and a deity - whether they are aligned or not. That's juicy story fodder, and between a player and DM.
However, one thing that it seems many are forgetting, is that clerics aren't necessarily bound to a specific god or goddess - they can also be bound to an idea or ideal... just like paladins.
Lastly, I try to think of classes as mechanically balanced scaffolds for character concepts, not rigid silos.
"As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody. The Gods of the Multiverse section includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
You are completly wrong. Is mandatory for a cleric to serve a god. Paladins and druids should also serve a god. Although, it leaves you the option of whether they serve an ideal (paladins) or the nature itself (druids).
But if you don't care about narrative, and you're only interested in the mechanical aspect of a class, it's up to you. You can play however you want.
I have a cleric with the Raven Queen as my deity. And he’s multi classed into a warlock of the hexblade(blades crafted in shadowfell, some by the raven queen herself). Definitely a good combo i would recommend.
I’ve got a player who’s a warlock in a pact with the Raven Queen who’s thinking about picking up a lvl or two of cleric. I feel like the Raven Queen is practically a deity so this could work… especially if she went twilight.
Doesn’t celestial warlock do this? Or are you trying to use both classes rather than one hybrid?
Currently using an exandria setting my character is a human fiend pact Warlock of the twilight phoenix desirat. Later down the road she forces him to become a cleric of hers burning the symbol into his chest as a holy symbol
Loved the ideas in this thread. I'm currently a Tempest Cleric with the idea of encountering a Djinni later down the line probably before acquiring the Divine intervention ability from my cleric. Thought it would be interesting to play a manipulated style of character from the Djinni that promises more Tempest style power and is received by my character as a messenger of my Deity. This I thought would be a could push and pull dynamic with my character since he already uses the wind and other weather features to commune with his Deity. Adding a Djinni as an embodiment of the wind as a Patron would make for a dynamic of thinking he is the messenger of the Deity to the cleric and the Djinni would love to manipulate my character into thinking he's speaking on behalf of my deity to further his chaotic wishes. Would look to culminate in either my character overcoming and seeing through the manipulation and reaching a higher standing with their deity or having a complete conversion over to servitude of the Djinni if my character fails to act out against him.
Remember that the Witherbloom background from Strixhaven gives a small selection of healing spells that are added to your Warlock options.
Prismari could be good for a Fiend Warlock.
I'm taking a one-level dip as a Knowledge cleric to gain armor/shield proficiency and expertise in Arcana and History.
Random idea: the warlock/cleric and the patron were “married” (metaphorically or not-so-metaphorically) by the ordination of the god.
I totally agree with u Nortolder. I once played a hexblade warlock/twilight domain cleric. He was a half-elf warrior that found a dark blade which tried to corrupt him so to face the blade he followed the light of the raven queen. There was a battle of the two sides inside him. He was also a half elf so it made him have two conflicts. The blade and his goddess, the elf and the human. He was one of the most intresting characters to play.
Yes, I think it would fit best as a lessor God or Demigod.
Something like Kiransalee or Sveltlarm from the Drow Pantheon or maybe Mask from traditiona forgotten realms. Or Fiends like Orcus or Asmodeus.
I think these can function as both.
Also your Patron could be a servant of your God. I have that on a Tempenst Cleric, Fathomless Warlock I am building. The Warlock's Patron is a Sea Hag, both she and the Hag are servants of God of the Sea Umberlee.
Also keep in mind if your God is Chaotic you do not necessarily serve it to get cleric spells from it. D&D fiction has numerous clerics who either hate or in some cases just do not serve their deities. Yet they still get spells and powers from them. This is easy to explain with a chaotic God, far more difficult with a Lawful one.
I don't really agree with this and in WOTC fiction this is not true. Dabne and Ivonnel both are clerics of Lolth, get spells from her (in the case of Ivonell she is the most powerful Lolthian cleric on Ferun), yet neither worship Lolth. Erivis Cale actually hated Mask and tried unsuccessfully to work against him while he was a Cleric of Mask and even attacked Mask once but still got spells and powers.
The term "serve" is subject to some debate. Erivis Cale furthered Mask's aims, so in this sense he unwillingly "served" Mask.
Ivonnel and Dabne are a bit more nebulous. Both of them actively work against what appeare to be Lolth's goals at times but since Lolth is an agent of Chaos and a master of subterfuge were they really working against her or were they too unwittingly furthering her aims in some twisted way beyond their comprehension? Maybe the violence and conflict they generated among Drow and the other "faithful" Lolth clerics is itself one of Lolth's aims.
In the end a God of Chaos would not have a faith dominated by rules, so rules about service and what it takes to stay in good grace are kind of out of place. Is this sense granting powers to someone who colors "way outside the line" would not be unexpected from a God devoted to Chaos.
My cleric warlock was a great old one patron/knowledge cleric