Thats the issue though. If you don't lay down the rules at the start then any Sorcerer x / Warlock 2 build could decide to become a coffeelock. My argument is that ground rules should be made clear at the start and if people are ok with trying to play a coffeelock with those restrictions then they should be able to. Outright not allowing just 1 specific multiclass could snowball into more in the future when the players start to get "creative" lol.
Coffeelock needs the invocation that allows them to stay up all night right? So you need at least 3 levels warlock as that's locked behind Tome Pact.
There's a lot of debate in the munchkin community on whether or not the long rest rules (exhaustion from not getting long rests) applies to those who don't need sleep. If it does, coffeelock can only come online once you have greater restoration and three warlock levels, so... 12.
Though before that rule was brought to my attention I've both played as and DMed for coffeelocks. Honestly I didn't find it to be that bad. Yeah, they don't run out of resources, but they are behind on their big guns and don't have crazy defenses, you can still kill them pretty easily.
One idea that I feel people overlook is how to get the sorlock to work when starting as a sorcerer for that juicy con save. There needs to be contact made with a greater extraplanar creature to seal the deal, right? Without the patron, there is no warlock.
Outside of maybe the acolyte background, that leaves it up to the DM to establish the connection, but it could very well not be the one the player wants (IMO imps are probably the easiest to randomly bump into and negotiate with). How does one come into contact with a sentient magic weapon from the Shadowfell aside from getting portaled there or casting contact other plane and not going insane?
One idea that I feel people overlook is how to get the sorlock to work when starting as a sorcerer for that juicy con save. There needs to be contact made with a greater extraplanar creature to seal the deal, right? Without the patron, there is no warlock.
Outside of maybe the acolyte background, that leaves it up to the DM to establish the connection, but it could very well not be the one the player wants (IMO imps are probably the easiest to randomly bump into and negotiate with). How does one come into contact with a sentient magic weapon from the Shadowfell aside from getting portaled there or casting contact other plane and not going insane?
Well one way could be that the weapon is a family heirloom from an ancestor who made the pact with the weapon, and with his passing the weapon lay dormant until it ended up in the hands of somebody it felt worthy to strike a deal with.
One idea that I feel people overlook is how to get the sorlock to work when starting as a sorcerer for that juicy con save. There needs to be contact made with a greater extraplanar creature to seal the deal, right? Without the patron, there is no warlock.
Outside of maybe the acolyte background, that leaves it up to the DM to establish the connection, but it could very well not be the one the player wants (IMO imps are probably the easiest to randomly bump into and negotiate with). How does one come into contact with a sentient magic weapon from the Shadowfell aside from getting portaled there or casting contact other plane and not going insane?
This should be established at session 0. The desire to build a sorlock that starts as a sorcerer will lead to conversation about how to weave the patron into the story. At which point this is a non-issue.
What you're talking about is only a problem if your DM is a confrontational little arsenugget. If a DM sprung that on me after I told them my desire to build a sorlock in such a fashion, I would be incredibly upset and reevaluate if I wanted to keep playing. It is a bad DM that suddenly springs on a player that, no, the patron you want isn't around, but here is the one I think is fitting.
These are some interesting points and ideas. I'm loving the family heirloom idea and communication is definitely needed. One of my players had mentioned wanting to go into hexblade as a vengeance paladin, but his backstory had no direct connection to one (haunted one w/ a dracolich). Thanks, guys!
If you play a Simic Hybrid that has a dog body, fish head, and human hands and you call yourself Fish Dawg you are the most overpowered person because you're so good at intimidation :p
I know this is offtopic from the current part of the thread but it is undeniably intimidating, you can do anything!
Sorlocks are fun. I wouldn't allow it at any table, but you can make a coffeelock with them and that's that.
To be honest I feel sorlocks are strong but not to the point where they are overpowered. Think about what you need to even start being a sorlock: at least 2 Sorcerer 2 Warlock. That already sets your spell progression back by 2 levels. Also I've found that just having time sensitive matters like the person you are meant to rescue are scheduled to be sacrificed at a specific time means that a group will have to balance short rests with potentially showing up too late to save the day.
If sorlocks are still a problem a simple houserule that says warlocks spellslots can only be used for warlock specific abilities or general spellcasting should do the trick. Obviously make this houserule clear before anybody even decides to play a sorlock.
I just feel that you either allow multiclassing or you don't. If you do, banning certain combinations just seems like bad form.
The bolded bit is not actually a house rule. I wish dm’s would realise this.
Sorlocks are fun. I wouldn't allow it at any table, but you can make a coffeelock with them and that's that.
To be honest I feel sorlocks are strong but not to the point where they are overpowered. Think about what you need to even start being a sorlock: at least 2 Sorcerer 2 Warlock. That already sets your spell progression back by 2 levels. Also I've found that just having time sensitive matters like the person you are meant to rescue are scheduled to be sacrificed at a specific time means that a group will have to balance short rests with potentially showing up too late to save the day.
If sorlocks are still a problem a simple houserule that says warlocks spellslots can only be used for warlock specific abilities or general spellcasting should do the trick. Obviously make this houserule clear before anybody even decides to play a sorlock.
I just feel that you either allow multiclassing or you don't. If you do, banning certain combinations just seems like bad form.
The bolded bit is not actually a house rule. I wish dm’s would realise this.
Can you point out where this is? I don't see it anywhere. It also would be kind of awkward if so, since there is many pally locks that use the slots for smites, which should fit the same principle of the coffeelock trick.
Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
I believe there are features that specifically call for your warlock spell slots, most notably Eldritch Smite; can't think of any others off the top of my head, though. I also recall the paladin's Divine Smite specifically calling out paladin spell slots, though that one's a bit dated.
Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
I believe there are features that specifically call for your warlock spell slots, most notably Eldritch Smite; can't think of any others off the top of my head, though. I also recall the paladin's Divine Smite specifically calling out paladin spell slots, though that one's a bit dated.
That doesn't state that the slots are only for spell casting, just that you can use the pact slots and spellcasting slots interchangeably for casting. Its does not place a limit for other abilities. This is the same reason you can 100% use any spell slots for pally smites, not just paladin slots. If anyone has told you otherwise they are mistaken. You are correct though on the eldritch smites. Those can only use warlock slots.
Sorlocks are fun. I wouldn't allow it at any table, but you can make a coffeelock with them and that's that.
To be honest I feel sorlocks are strong but not to the point where they are overpowered. Think about what you need to even start being a sorlock: at least 2 Sorcerer 2 Warlock. That already sets your spell progression back by 2 levels. Also I've found that just having time sensitive matters like the person you are meant to rescue are scheduled to be sacrificed at a specific time means that a group will have to balance short rests with potentially showing up too late to save the day.
If sorlocks are still a problem a simple houserule that says warlocks spellslots can only be used for warlock specific abilities or general spellcasting should do the trick. Obviously make this houserule clear before anybody even decides to play a sorlock.
I just feel that you either allow multiclassing or you don't. If you do, banning certain combinations just seems like bad form.
The bolded bit is not actually a house rule. I wish dm’s would realise this.
Can you point out where this is? I don't see it anywhere. It also would be kind of awkward if so, since there is many pally locks that use the slots for smites, which should fit the same principle of the coffeelock trick.
I was probably mistaken, I read it from a tweet from Jeremy Crawford.
The multiclassing rules give you permission to use your Pact Magic spell slots with the Spellcasting feature, but they don't give you permission to use those slots with Flexible Casting. I suspect the initial RAI was that those could also be used to fuel Divine Smite and Flexible Casting, but since this isn't actually RAW, it ends up as a DM call. As a DM call, you may want to allow it for less abusive builds, and just prevent it for the abusive ones.
See the multiclass rules for the precise wording, which basically shuffles the meaning of "spell slots" so that it means spell slots from classes other than warlock and then "pact magic" meaning spell slots from warlock. The latter can be used for the other class's Spellcasting feature, and the former can be used for the warlock's Spellcasting feature.
The multiclassing rules give you permission to use your Pact Magic spell slots with the Spellcasting feature, but they don't give you permission to use those slots with Flexible Casting. I suspect the initial RAI was that those could also be used to fuel Divine Smite and Flexible Casting, but since this isn't actually RAW, it ends up as a DM call. As a DM call, you may want to allow it for less abusive builds, and just prevent it for the abusive ones.
See the multiclass rules for the precise wording, which basically shuffles the meaning of "spell slots" so that it means spell slots from classes other than warlock and then "pact magic" meaning spell slots from warlock. The latter can be used for the other class's Spellcasting feature, and the former can be used for the warlock's Spellcasting feature.
That's one way to read RAW, although there are other ways to read RAW (Also note this tweet he sent in a reply to this one, it doesn't counter the above's point it just provides context for the ruling).
Another way to read RAW might be that the Sorcerer's Font of Magic does not make a distinction between Pact Magic and Spellcasting spell slots. While there is a general rule stating Pact Magic slots can be used for spellcasting, and the above might state the general rule of Pact Magic cannot power features that require the Spellcasting feature, but you might argue that ruling wouldn't apply to Font of Magic, as it doesn't require the spellcasting feature.
Font of Magic allows you to use any spell slots you have: "Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot’s level". There is no mention of requiring the spell slots being from purely the Spellcasting feature, if the spell slots are indeed shuffled between Warlock spell slots or Spellcasting spell slots, the distinction would be irrelevant because Font of Magic doesn't use that distinction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
That's one way to read RAW, although there are other ways to read RAW (Also note this tweet he sent in a reply to this one, it doesn't counter the above's point it just provides context for the ruling).
Another way to read RAW might be that the Sorcerer's Font of Magic does not make a distinction between Pact Magic and Spellcasting spell slots. While there is a general rule stating Pact Magic slots can be used for spellcasting, and the above might state the general rule of Pact Magic cannot power features that require the Spellcasting feature, but you might argue that ruling wouldn't apply to Font of Magic, as it doesn't require the spellcasting feature.
Font of Magic allows you to use any spell slots you have: "Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot’s level". There is no mention of requiring the spell slots being from purely the Spellcasting feature, if the spell slots are indeed shuffled between Warlock spell slots or Spellcasting spell slots, the distinction would be irrelevant because Font of Magic doesn't use that distinction.
Here's the redefinition of Spell Slots that happens when you multiclass.
After looking at this again from a rules lawyer perspective, I'm more in agreement with you. In plain language, Warlocks have the spellcasting feature, since they cast spells and have a Spellcasting Ability, but they don't actually have the Spellcasting feature (their feature is called Pact Magic), so they aren't technically subject to the multiclass rules. I think they are clearly supposed to be using those rules, since those rules lay out how to combine Pact Magic with Spellcasting, but from a strict rules lawyer reading, that would only apply to something like a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1/Warlock 1. This interpretation does leave us without a means to compute Spell Slots. We might choose to add the spell slots from different classes, or use whichever class grants us more, or just treat them as distinct slots each of which is tied to the class specific definition.
Assuming we apply the Spellcasting multiclass rule, our Sorcerer 1/Warlock 1 has its Spell Slots defined by the Multiclass Spellcaster chart entry for level 1 (2 level 1 slots). It also has a Pact Magic spell slot (1 level 1 slot).
I agree that either interpretation seems legitimate. I think the multiclass spell slots rule should be applied to the Sorlock, but I also think there's room to say that Smite/Flexible Casting are fueled by spell slots, so they can still be fueled by Pact Magic spell slots.
Part of me would like WotC to clean up the wording with an errata, but I think the game's better if you let DMs decide.
The multiclass spellcasting rules don't work at all, as written. They're a horrible mess that has particularly bizarre interactions with wizards, but has plenty of other problems in general. Thankfully, the playerbase has reached a consensus on how multiclass spellcasting should work, and we all just play that way - it's so widespread, even both dndbeyond and roll20 use the consensus method, not the RAW.
Take a variant human, give him the sharpshooter feat. make him a level 20 monk who is way of the kensei than give him a musket from DMG.
i have played this. it was horribly broken
This doesn't work RAW. Muskets and flintlock pistols use the firearms proficiency, which doesn't fall under either simple or martial weapons. This disqualifies firearms from being kensei weapons.
You'd be better served with a hand crossbow samurai fighter using crossbow expert and sharpshooter. 2 turns of 10 attacks, all but one of each attack per turn made with advantage with -5/+10, results in some ridiculous damage numbers.
Take a variant human, give him the sharpshooter feat. make him a level 20 monk who is way of the kensei than give him a musket from DMG.
i have played this. it was horribly broken
This doesn't work RAW. Muskets and flintlock pistols use the firearms proficiency, which doesn't fall under either simple or martial weapons. This disqualifies firearms from being kensei weapons.
You'd be better served with a hand crossbow samurai fighter using crossbow expert and sharpshooter. 2 turns of 10 attacks, all but one of each attack per turn made with advantage with -5/+10, results in some ridiculous damage numbers.
well thank you rules lawyer.
considering that you can use the optional feats rule when you reach level four, you can have the original feat (from human variant) be 'gunner,' or 'firearms specialist' then at level four, add your sharpshooter feat. using the way of the kensei monk you can select an simple or martial weapon, ranged or melee. which the firearms from both critical role and the Dungeon master's guide clearly fall under. (it even classifies them as martial ranged weapons.) and when you reach level 8 you have an extra attack, that counts as magical, which you can use the pistol from Critical roll for resulting in crazy stats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pie Jesu Domine! *smack* Dona Eis Requiem! *smack*
The inclusion of guns in a game is heavily DM-dependent; AL disallows using the materials from the DMG for character customizations.
I can see the argument in favor of the gun kensei, though, and I believe that the idea is awesome. It's not without flaws, though, as bullets are very expensive. I'd recommend adding in a splash of 2 artificer levels to pick up the Repeating Shot infusion for unlimited ammo and ignoring the gun's loading property, no Gunner feat needed.
There's a lot of debate in the munchkin community on whether or not the long rest rules (exhaustion from not getting long rests) applies to those who don't need sleep. If it does, coffeelock can only come online once you have greater restoration and three warlock levels, so... 12.
Though before that rule was brought to my attention I've both played as and DMed for coffeelocks. Honestly I didn't find it to be that bad. Yeah, they don't run out of resources, but they are behind on their big guns and don't have crazy defenses, you can still kill them pretty easily.
One idea that I feel people overlook is how to get the sorlock to work when starting as a sorcerer for that juicy con save. There needs to be contact made with a greater extraplanar creature to seal the deal, right? Without the patron, there is no warlock.
Outside of maybe the acolyte background, that leaves it up to the DM to establish the connection, but it could very well not be the one the player wants (IMO imps are probably the easiest to randomly bump into and negotiate with). How does one come into contact with a sentient magic weapon from the Shadowfell aside from getting portaled there or casting contact other plane and not going insane?
Well one way could be that the weapon is a family heirloom from an ancestor who made the pact with the weapon, and with his passing the weapon lay dormant until it ended up in the hands of somebody it felt worthy to strike a deal with.
This should be established at session 0. The desire to build a sorlock that starts as a sorcerer will lead to conversation about how to weave the patron into the story. At which point this is a non-issue.
What you're talking about is only a problem if your DM is a confrontational little arsenugget. If a DM sprung that on me after I told them my desire to build a sorlock in such a fashion, I would be incredibly upset and reevaluate if I wanted to keep playing. It is a bad DM that suddenly springs on a player that, no, the patron you want isn't around, but here is the one I think is fitting.
These are some interesting points and ideas. I'm loving the family heirloom idea and communication is definitely needed. One of my players had mentioned wanting to go into hexblade as a vengeance paladin, but his backstory had no direct connection to one (haunted one w/ a dracolich). Thanks, guys!
If you play a Simic Hybrid that has a dog body, fish head, and human hands and you call yourself Fish Dawg you are the most overpowered person because you're so good at intimidation :p
I know this is offtopic from the current part of the thread but it is undeniably intimidating, you can do anything!
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
The bolded bit is not actually a house rule. I wish dm’s would realise this.
:)
Can you point out where this is? I don't see it anywhere. It also would be kind of awkward if so, since there is many pally locks that use the slots for smites, which should fit the same principle of the coffeelock trick.
Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
Basic Rules, chapter 6, Multiclassing (Spellcasting)
I believe there are features that specifically call for your warlock spell slots, most notably Eldritch Smite; can't think of any others off the top of my head, though. I also recall the paladin's Divine Smite specifically calling out paladin spell slots, though that one's a bit dated.
That doesn't state that the slots are only for spell casting, just that you can use the pact slots and spellcasting slots interchangeably for casting. Its does not place a limit for other abilities. This is the same reason you can 100% use any spell slots for pally smites, not just paladin slots. If anyone has told you otherwise they are mistaken. You are correct though on the eldritch smites. Those can only use warlock slots.
I was probably mistaken, I read it from a tweet from Jeremy Crawford.
:)
JC points out that RAW doesn't really say that you can.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1029177242985742337
The multiclassing rules give you permission to use your Pact Magic spell slots with the Spellcasting feature, but they don't give you permission to use those slots with Flexible Casting. I suspect the initial RAI was that those could also be used to fuel Divine Smite and Flexible Casting, but since this isn't actually RAW, it ends up as a DM call. As a DM call, you may want to allow it for less abusive builds, and just prevent it for the abusive ones.
See the multiclass rules for the precise wording, which basically shuffles the meaning of "spell slots" so that it means spell slots from classes other than warlock and then "pact magic" meaning spell slots from warlock. The latter can be used for the other class's Spellcasting feature, and the former can be used for the warlock's Spellcasting feature.
That's one way to read RAW, although there are other ways to read RAW (Also note this tweet he sent in a reply to this one, it doesn't counter the above's point it just provides context for the ruling).
Another way to read RAW might be that the Sorcerer's Font of Magic does not make a distinction between Pact Magic and Spellcasting spell slots. While there is a general rule stating Pact Magic slots can be used for spellcasting, and the above might state the general rule of Pact Magic cannot power features that require the Spellcasting feature, but you might argue that ruling wouldn't apply to Font of Magic, as it doesn't require the spellcasting feature.
Font of Magic allows you to use any spell slots you have: "Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot’s level". There is no mention of requiring the spell slots being from purely the Spellcasting feature, if the spell slots are indeed shuffled between Warlock spell slots or Spellcasting spell slots, the distinction would be irrelevant because Font of Magic doesn't use that distinction.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
*clears throat*
Take a variant human, give him the sharpshooter feat. make him a level 20 monk who is way of the kensei than give him a musket from DMG.
i have played this. it was horribly broken
Here's the redefinition of Spell Slots that happens when you multiclass.
After looking at this again from a rules lawyer perspective, I'm more in agreement with you. In plain language, Warlocks have the spellcasting feature, since they cast spells and have a Spellcasting Ability, but they don't actually have the Spellcasting feature (their feature is called Pact Magic), so they aren't technically subject to the multiclass rules. I think they are clearly supposed to be using those rules, since those rules lay out how to combine Pact Magic with Spellcasting, but from a strict rules lawyer reading, that would only apply to something like a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1/Warlock 1. This interpretation does leave us without a means to compute Spell Slots. We might choose to add the spell slots from different classes, or use whichever class grants us more, or just treat them as distinct slots each of which is tied to the class specific definition.
Assuming we apply the Spellcasting multiclass rule, our Sorcerer 1/Warlock 1 has its Spell Slots defined by the Multiclass Spellcaster chart entry for level 1 (2 level 1 slots). It also has a Pact Magic spell slot (1 level 1 slot).
I agree that either interpretation seems legitimate. I think the multiclass spell slots rule should be applied to the Sorlock, but I also think there's room to say that Smite/Flexible Casting are fueled by spell slots, so they can still be fueled by Pact Magic spell slots.
Part of me would like WotC to clean up the wording with an errata, but I think the game's better if you let DMs decide.
The multiclass spellcasting rules don't work at all, as written. They're a horrible mess that has particularly bizarre interactions with wizards, but has plenty of other problems in general. Thankfully, the playerbase has reached a consensus on how multiclass spellcasting should work, and we all just play that way - it's so widespread, even both dndbeyond and roll20 use the consensus method, not the RAW.
This doesn't work RAW. Muskets and flintlock pistols use the firearms proficiency, which doesn't fall under either simple or martial weapons. This disqualifies firearms from being kensei weapons.
You'd be better served with a hand crossbow samurai fighter using crossbow expert and sharpshooter. 2 turns of 10 attacks, all but one of each attack per turn made with advantage with -5/+10, results in some ridiculous damage numbers.
well thank you rules lawyer.
considering that you can use the optional feats rule when you reach level four, you can have the original feat (from human variant) be 'gunner,' or 'firearms specialist' then at level four, add your sharpshooter feat. using the way of the kensei monk you can select an simple or martial weapon, ranged or melee. which the firearms from both critical role and the Dungeon master's guide clearly fall under. (it even classifies them as martial ranged weapons.) and when you reach level 8 you have an extra attack, that counts as magical, which you can use the pistol from Critical roll for resulting in crazy stats.
Overall its still not as good as a CBE+Sharpshooter Battlemaster fighter....although a MC Between the two could be even better.
Action Surge + Butt load of attacks + precision die + archery style is very very hard to beat.
The inclusion of guns in a game is heavily DM-dependent; AL disallows using the materials from the DMG for character customizations.
I can see the argument in favor of the gun kensei, though, and I believe that the idea is awesome. It's not without flaws, though, as bullets are very expensive. I'd recommend adding in a splash of 2 artificer levels to pick up the Repeating Shot infusion for unlimited ammo and ignoring the gun's loading property, no Gunner feat needed.