Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lupo1977 02-04-06, 01:38 AM	Hallo, i got a Level 5 Paladin, who fulfills the requirements to become a warpriest at next level, but i am not sure if the paladins spellcasting ability is enough to fulfil the requirement "be able to cast at least one spell from a domain list..." a paladin of 5th level could of course cast "shield of faith" which would be the first level spell from the protection domain. is this enough, or do i have to have acess to the relevant domain like a cleric ?
Mortepierre 02-04-06, 03:51 AM	No. That requirement really means you must have (clerical) access to one of the following domains: Destruction, Protection, Strength, War. A paladin (normally) doesn't have access to a domain, thus you are denied that requirement. The fact that some of these domains' spells also show up on your regular spell-list has nothing to do with it (although I grant you the sentence could be read that way as it is a bit ambiguous) Sorry That said, it's easily fixed by taking 1 lvl of cleric.
Iswald 02-04-06, 10:59 AM	The clarification could be added for warpriests like other PrCs needing clarification. This is an old reply on the topic: Spells: Able to cast at least one divine spell from one of the following domains' spell lists: Destruction, Protection, Strength, or War. A character who can cast at least one spell from a domain counts as having access for this purpose. I interpret the text as follows. To qualify for this PrC, you must: 1. Have access to one of those four domains - either selected one as a starting domain or was granted one via a pclass. 2. Be of sufficient level/stats to cast a spell from that domain. 3. Able to cast the spell from that domain as a divine spell. Don't take the PrC if you don't meet the above requirements as I expect clarifications from WotC down the road will verify my above interpretation. -Steven Conforti, the Circle
rutrow424 02-04-06, 12:23 PM	No. That requirement really means you must have (clerical) access to one of the following domains: Destruction, Protection, Strength, War. A paladin (normally) doesn't have access to a domain, thus you are denied that requirement. The fact that some of these domains' spells also show up on your regular spell-list has nothing to do with it (although I grant you the sentence could be read that way as it is a bit ambiguous) With all due respect to you and to Steven's quoted response above, barring any actual FAQ/errata from WotC (there is none that I can find) or clarification in the LGCS (which there is currently none), the requirement actually is pretty clear in allowing a paladin or other divine caster that can turn undead into the p-class provided they can cast one of the spells contained in the domains on their list/known spells. I'll give WotC credit that if the intent was to have access to a specific domain, they would have stated that fact (as they do in other cases, like the True Necromancer) instead of going out of their way to allow any cleric or paladin access to the p-class. Granted, I could be giving too much credit to WotC, and could care less how you want to restrict the class, but the book has been out 2 years and no official change has appeared.
CSHunt68 02-04-06, 12:39 PM	Nope. To cast a spell _from_ a Domain list means to cast a spell as a Domain spell. The fact that you can cast a spell that happens to appear on a Clerical Domain doesn't mean you qualify. Like all things WotC, it could have been clearer.
rutrow424 02-04-06, 01:14 PM	Nope. To cast a spell _from_ a Domain list means to cast a spell as a Domain spell. The fact that you can cast a spell that happens to appear on a Clerical Domain doesn't mean you qualify. Like all things WotC, it could have been clearer. Unless this is spelled out in CD (I don't have it with me), I would disagree. If the intent was to limit it to those with 1 of the 4 domains, then this is one of the worst instances of official DnD writing in 3.X (including the countless polymorph interpretations). The second sentence and any mention of casting spells is then entirely superfluous, and they have ignored the utterly simplistic "access to one of the following domains:" wording used in other sources both in 3.0 and 3.5. I would not put it past WotC's sloppy editing, but it would be a new low. In the end, I don't disagree that it should be limited in the manner you say (I don't really care, it is not that great a class IMHO), but if that is desired it should be explicitly stated in the LGCS.
Mortepierre 02-04-06, 01:32 PM	I think it is clear. Look at all the other PrC in CD. Other requirements are invariably of the "able to cast Xth-lvl divine spells" or "able to cast spells X and Y" kind. Here, it says "able to cast at least one (divine) spell from one of the following domains' spell lists". A domain spell list are the spells from that domain. And only a person with access to that domain can cast them. Else, they would have said "able to cast the same (divine) spells as those from one of the following domains' spell lists". If this wasn't the case, then - in theory - a Pal4/Wiz2 with Enlarge Person or Magic Weapon in his spellbook would also qualify. Wouldn't it be a wee bit silly to see such a person become a war priest?
CSHunt68 02-04-06, 01:34 PM	Access to a domain does not guarantee the ability to cast a spell from that domain.
Mortepierre 02-04-06, 01:36 PM	Granted, but you would have to be pretty stupid to take (at least) 1 lvl of cleric without having at least 11 in Wisdom.
CSHunt68 02-04-06, 01:39 PM	Nevertheless, the two things rutrow posited are not equivalent - access to a domain, and the ability to cast a spell from a domain. I agree with you otherwise, Morte.
rutrow424 02-04-06, 02:56 PM	I think it is clear. Look at all the other PrC in CD. Other requirements are invariably of the "able to cast Xth-lvl divine spells" or "able to cast spells X and Y" kind. Here, it says "able to cast at least one (divine) spell from one of the following domains' spell lists". A domain spell list are the spells from that domain. And only a person with access to that domain can cast them. Else, they would have said "able to cast the same (divine) spells as those from one of the following domains' spell lists". If this wasn't the case, then - in theory - a Pal4/Wiz2 with Enlarge Person or Magic Weapon in his spellbook would also qualify. Wouldn't it be a wee bit silly to see such a person become a war priest? I don't think it would be silly (other than having 2 wizard levels) - a straight paladin could reasonable qualify using the paladin spell list. I think a paladin/warpriest combo is reasonable in many cases, and the only method I would consider even using the class. The requirement (of which you leave out the 2nd sentence, which is what causes the problem/confusion), under your interpretation, goes out of its way to make sure only a cleric that has access to one of the domains AND the ability to cast at least 1 domain spell can take the class. As you note later, it would be very silly for a PC to take a level of cleric, take domains, and not be able to cast domain spells (have at least an 11 WIS). Why would such a case need to be prevented? Does a cleric of Vatun without a torch-sized flame (and thus can't cast spells) need to be prohibited from the class? Alternately, I suggest that it was meant to allow paladins and all clerics to take the class. WotC has shown in other books that they will write "requires access to X domain" if that is the intent. It would be more in flavor of the class if it was restricted to clerics with those domains and paladins of such dieties. But I also have no problem if the churches of Boccob or whomever have war-priests too. If TPTB know or think differently, then they either need WotC to publish the correction in the FAQ/errata or put it in the LGCS as a "clarification", as it is currently debatable.
Britt 02-04-06, 03:27 PM	I think it is clear. Look at all the other PrC in CD. Other requirements are invariably of the "able to cast Xth-lvl divine spells" or "able to cast spells X and Y" kind. Here, it says "able to cast at least one (divine) spell from one of the following domains' spell lists". A domain spell list are the spells from that domain. And only a person with access to that domain can cast them. Else, they would have said "able to cast the same (divine) spells as those from one of the following domains' spell lists". If this wasn't the case, then - in theory - a Pal4/Wiz2 with Enlarge Person or Magic Weapon in his spellbook would also qualify. Wouldn't it be a wee bit silly to see such a person become a war priest? I think it's clear to the opposite. If the PrC is intended to be limited to casters of a certain level, they limit it by requiring ability to cast X-th level spells. If the PrC is intended to be limited to casters with certain domains, they require access to the domains, ala Radiant Servant. If the PrC is intended to be limited to those that can cast certain spells, for flavor, they limit it based on being able to cast those spells. In this case, it limits the PrC to divine casters that can cast /one/ spell from a long list. In no other PrC, of which I am aware, is the desire to focus the PrC to certain domains limited by requiring the caster to be able to cast a spell that is in that domain. There are other examples in which a different method has been used for that intent, so this method is probably meant to be a different form of restriction. Besides, a build being silly does not mean it's obviously intended to not be legal. They still let people play bards and swashbucklers ;)
zoinks69 02-04-06, 03:32 PM	Granted, but you would have to be pretty stupid to take (at least) 1 lvl of cleric without having at least 11 in Wisdom. Generally speaking, sure. But for some builds, getting 2 domain powers and the ability to use happy sticks (and +2 to Will, in particular) is worth +0 BAB. Just my opinion.
zigspatty 02-04-06, 03:42 PM	The Warpriest spell requirement - "Spells: Able to cast at least one divine spell from one of the following domains' spell lists: Destruction, Protection, Strength, or War. A character who can cast at least one spell from a domain counts as having access for this purpose." - becomes pretty worthless if ANY cleric or a druid of level 3 or higher can meet the requirement. Why specify those 4 domains if you don't mean for the caster to actually have access to the domain? And while it doesn't seem terribly wise, I have known PCs with a low wisdom to take a level of cleric just so they'd have the domain ability (Luck & Travel's domain ability are pretty nice) and be able to use cure wands. The phrasing is a bit awkward - but that's true of a number of other spell/prestige class/feat descriptions. And since a circle member was kind enough to share his interpretation a while back, a player would be very foolish to ignore it in hopes that his prestige class *won't* get disallowed at a table. Patty
rutrow424 02-04-06, 04:08 PM	The Warpriest spell requirement - "Spells: Able to cast at least one divine spell from one of the following domains' spell lists: Destruction, Protection, Strength, or War. A character who can cast at least one spell from a domain counts as having access for this purpose." - becomes pretty worthless if ANY cleric or a druid of level 3 or higher can meet the requirement. Why specify those 4 domains if you don't mean for the caster to actually have access to the domain? And while it doesn't seem terribly wise, I have known PCs with a low wisdom to take a level of cleric just so they'd have the domain ability (Luck & Travel's domain ability are pretty nice) and be able to use cure wands. The phrasing is a bit awkward - but that's true of a number of other spell/prestige class/feat descriptions. And since a circle member was kind enough to share his interpretation a while back, a player would be very foolish to ignore it in hopes that his prestige class *won't* get disallowed at a table. Patty I think Britt makes the opposite case for me much more clearly than I could (thanks!). Why specify casting spells present in several domains if what was intended was to require access to said domains? Doubly so when they show that they will require access to specific domains in the same books? I think it was intended to be an easy class for any Cleric or Paladin to qualify for (not druids - you have to be able to turn undead). The class requires minor reqs and gives minor abilities; it is a mechanically weak class for straight cleric, ok for a paladin, and good for a fighter/cleric multiclass. And as a point, a Circle member was quoted as commenting HIS OWN interpretation of the requirement from a different thread (and if I understand, not the current LGCS discussion; FWIW it could be a year or two old). He is also quoted as saying an official WotC clarification was expected soon. As no official clarification has come down, the Circle should do so in the LGCS if that is their intent for the class. Otherwise it will be interpreted differently by different people.
CSHunt68 02-05-06, 04:12 PM	I think Britt makes the opposite case for me much more clearly than I could (thanks!). Why specify casting spells present in several domains if what was intended was to require access to said domains?. Because, as has been pointed out, access to a domain is not the same as being able to cast spells from that domain. You understand this, right? Doubly so when they show that they will require access to specific domains in the same books? They are different pre-requisites, despite the fact that you may think they're "essentially" equivalent. Logically, they're not. I think it was intended to be an easy class for any Cleric or Paladin to qualify for (not druids - you have to be able to turn undead). The class requires minor reqs and gives minor abilities; it is a mechanically weak class for straight cleric, ok for a paladin, and good for a fighter/cleric multiclass. This, however, is just opinion. Others have different opinions. And as a point, a Circle member was quoted as commenting HIS OWN interpretation of the requirement from a different thread (and if I understand, not the current LGCS discussion; FWIW it could be a year or two old). He is also quoted as saying an official WotC clarification was expected soon. As no official clarification has come down, the Circle should do so in the LGCS if that is their intent for the class. Otherwise it will be interpreted differently by different people. You wouldn't be wise to interpret it differently than a Circle member has already openly stated, but I'll grant that it's still (barely) your prerogative.
Mommy was an Orc 02-05-06, 04:52 PM	I don't think it would be silly (other than having 2 wizard levels) - a straight paladin could reasonable qualify using the paladin spell list. I think a paladin/warpriest combo is reasonable in many cases, and the only method I would consider even using the class.. And that's the problem. In general, the character example picks the fastest reasonable route into the class. Why is the example character going Cleric 7 instead of Paladin 5? Sense Motive isn't a Cleric class skill. Also, they made the requirements complicated instead of simple. If your interpretation was correct, there was no real need to make them complicated - they could have just said 'must be able to cast 1st level Divine Spells' Obviously, they're trying to prevent someone from having easy access to the PrC - at the moment, with your interpretation, I'm guessing it is a Favored Soul/Sacred Exorcist/Warpriest build who refuses to take Divine Power...
zadoc 02-06-06, 02:06 AM	Also, they made the requirements complicated instead of simple. If your interpretation was correct, there was no real need to make them complicated - they could have just said 'must be able to cast 1st level Divine Spells' That's not true. None of the ranger's 1st level Divine spells qualify for Warpriest. You're definition provides greater access to the class than Britt's. Regardless, an email on the LG mailing list from over a year ago, even if it is from a Circle member, is a far cry from obvious to everyone who might want to take the PrC. If Steven Conforti's interpretation is to be kept official (as I would imagine he would want it to be), it would be for the best to add it to the LGCS, either in the PrC Requirements section or the FAQ. Otherwise, someone may have a lot of trouble trying to figure out what to do with their Paladin/Warpriest when they play somewhere that people notice, and inform him that it shouldn't be done that way. It's already written, so that shouldn't be any effort.
Lupo1977 02-06-06, 05:25 PM	i wrote to the wizards support about our discussion : this is their response : Hey there Sascha. You actually need to have access to the domain in order for it to count as a domain spell. So no, a Paladin would not be able to qualify for the warpriest without at taking a level in a class like cleric that can get him access to those domains. Have fun and good gaming! Trevor K. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Britt 02-06-06, 05:35 PM	Good thing WotC CS is not an authoritative source for rules.
Mortepierre 02-06-06, 05:40 PM	When a circle member AND WotC CS AND other players all tell you the same thing, maybe - just maybe - it's because they are right about it? :P
Britt 02-06-06, 05:44 PM	Circle members are not authoritative sources of rules interpretations either, neither are other players. I do not subscribe to appeal to majority when I think my interpretation makes more senses :) For example, most people think Evard's does lethal damage, but it doesn't, no matter how many people think it does :)
Arvagor 02-06-06, 06:05 PM	Circle members are not authoritative sources of rules interpretations either Then you're playing in the wrong campaign, mate. As far as LG is concerned, they're the DM, and what they say goes, for good or bad...
Britt 02-06-06, 06:10 PM	Actually, no, the Circle does not make rulings on game mechanics; they leave that for WotC to do through eratta and the FAQ. The Circle makes rules for campaign specific issues, not clarifications or corrections to mechanics issues. And I rarely get to play, unfortunately :(
Elfen_Archangel 02-06-06, 06:20 PM	Good thing WotC CS is not an authoritative source for rules. According to the first Q/A under Campaign Rules (pg. 63 of the LGCS 5.0 draft), they're the only authoritive source now. "We do periodically submit potential rules issues that crop up in the campaign to the staff at Wizards for further review. Dispel Confusion, along with the Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook, will provide you with answers to questions specific to the Living Greyhawk campaign, but not the Dungeons & Dragons game rules. Use the Knowledge Base customer service resource (found at www.wizards.com) to ask your D&D-related questions." i wrote to the wizards support about our discussion : this is their response : Hey there Sascha. You actually need to have access to the domain in order for it to count as a domain spell. So no, a Paladin would not be able to qualify for the warpriest without at taking a level in a class like cleric that can get him access to those domains. Have fun and good gaming! Trevor K. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST And according to that, the Paladin/Warpriest is an illegal build. Cut and dry. Matthew Schad
Arvagor 02-06-06, 06:22 PM	Actually, no, the Circle does not make rulings on game mechanics So they say, but the following would show otherwise: http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#maskofjohydee http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#motaospellpool http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#runedomain http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#lodandsh http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#xtraspell http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#itemsize http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#rods And any number of rulings for Polymorph that aren't in the spell description... Some of those specifically contradict the rules as presented in the Core books (the one on magic item resizing, for example), spell out the requirements for a PrC (Lord of Tides/Scorpion Heritor), or specifically state how a game mechanic works (the 'rods' ruling).
Britt 02-06-06, 06:24 PM	No, it isn't cut and dry. 1) The LGCS tells you to ask questions of WotC CS. It does not say their answers are authoritative. This may sound stupid, but the purpose is that it's at least something the DM can use if they don't know how to rule. Plus, if enough people ask, it might end up in the FAQ later. 2) See the thread in this forum with a response from Chris Tulach, Circle and editor of the LGCS, clarifying that WotC CS is only advisory, not authoritative.
Britt 02-06-06, 06:44 PM	http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#maskofjohydee A Greyhawk specific PrC that was written for 3.0 and never updated to 3.5. If they wanted it in play, which they did, they had to update it. This is not an errata or clarification of mechanics, this is the creation of a 3.5 Greyhawk PrC. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#motaospellpool MotAO Spellpool ability needed campaign specific ruling regarding access to spells that are either Core or Limited. Not a mechanics issue at all. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#runedomain /Planar binding/ is restricted in LG, hence, a campaign specific ruling was needed in regards to the rune domain. Not mechanics. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#lodandsh A ruling about campaign documentation for meeting the special requirements of a PrC in LG. Campaign specific, not mechanics. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#xtraspell This one is a clarification based on ambiguity, such as a home game DM would make. It does go against the ordinary rule of no clarifications, but it's a rare exception. Also, the statement says that the rule should be considered an LG rule, which means whether I agree, I would enforce it in LG. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#itemsize Same as Extra Spell. This is a ruling that is something a home game DM would have to adjudicate. Since this has become the official LG rule, I do not dispute it inside LG, whether agree or not. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#rods Similar to the last two, but from 2.5 years ago, before the Circle was quite as systematic about avoiding mechanics rulings. They did so more often back then and have since changed their approach to rules. The rulings for item size and extra spell are exceptions to the 'no mechanics rulings' rules, but they are not the norm. In normal cases, if a Circle member gives their opinion on a rule, it is just an opinion (unless they are your DM, senior DM, appeals DM, or something like that), same for Triad members. The Circle can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the standard. You'll note when you read Steven's message about Warpriest that it is merely his interpretation and that he suggests you not take the PrC under other circumstances as WotC should be issuing a clarification in the future. He does not say that you can not take the PrC this way because the Circle has issued an official LG clarification. He actually explicitly defers to WotC for a ruling on it. And any number of rulings for Polymorph that aren't in the spell description... Those are limitations placed on an ability for the campaign. I don't see these as errata or clarifications. Some of those specifically contradict the rules as presented in the Core books (the one on magic item resizing, for example), spell out the requirements for a PrC (Lord of Tides/Scorpion Heritor), or specifically state how a game mechanic works (the 'rods' ruling). The magic item resizing rule does not contradict the core rules, it merely takes a very narrow reading of the core rules. Some disagree with the interpretation, but it is a valid interpretation. See above for comments on the other two. To sum up, There are only two rules from the past 2 years that are official LG rulings on mechanics. Everything else is either a campaign specific issue or mere opinion. Until something says that LG has an official ruling on the Warpriest qualifications or WotC issues a clarification in the FAQ, there will be variation between tables.
Mommy was an Orc 02-06-06, 07:25 PM	That's not true. None of the ranger's 1st level Divine spells qualify for Warpriest. You're definition provides greater access to the class than Britt's. And how are you getting Turning...
Arvagor 02-06-06, 08:07 PM	Until something says that LG has an official ruling on the Warpriest qualifications or WotC issues a clarification in the FAQ, there will be variation between tables. Personally, I don't see why there is any question on the domain requirement... The class description in Complete Divine specifically states: "Clerics make good warpriests; members of other classes need levels as a cleric before they can qualify as warpriests because of the domain requirements." Seems pretty clear to me that they are referring to what everyone else has said -- that you need to be able to cast the spell as a domain spell, not just as a spell that happens to appear in a particular domain's list...
CSHunt68 02-06-06, 08:11 PM	Circle members are not authoritative sources of rules interpretations either, neither are other players. I do not subscribe to appeal to majority when I think my interpretation makes more senses Wow. Anyway, there is NO DEBATE what a Domain Spell is. If you THINK there is, please reread the relevant sections of the rules.
Britt 02-06-06, 08:14 PM	Anyway, there is NO DEBATE what a Domain Spell is. If you THINK there is, please reread the relevant sections of the rules. You're right. Unfortunately, the PrC does not say you have to have a domain spell, it says you must be able to cast a spell on a domain list, which is completely different. However, Arvagor's quote convinced me that they intended it to require the domain. I wish someone had quoted that earlier :) *misspelled Arvagor's name.
Britt 02-06-06, 08:17 PM	Personally, I don't see why there is any question on the domain requirement... The class description in Complete Divine specifically states: "Clerics make good warpriests; members of other classes need levels as a cleric before they can qualify as warpriests because of the domain requirements." Seems pretty clear to me that they are referring to what everyone else has said -- that you need to be able to cast the spell as a domain spell, not just as a spell that happens to appear in a particular domain's list... That's very clear and convincing. I don't have the CD, so I was only going off the PrC reqs that others quoted. I wish this was quoted earlier to save us all some time :)
CSHunt68 02-06-06, 08:19 PM	Sorry, but it seemed really clear to most of the rest of us. BTW, flavour text is not really terribly useful for resolving arguments. Especially if you think Circle opinions, the weight of public opinion, and Cust Serv aren't acceptable sources ... Oh, and "able to cast at least one spell from one of the following domains" = "domain spell". It's clear that that's what they meant now, right? What we were saying?
Britt 02-06-06, 08:31 PM	Sorry, but it seemed really clear to most of the rest of us. BTW, flavour text is not really terribly useful for resolving arguments. Especially if you think Circle opinions, the weight of public opinion, and Cust Serv aren't acceptable sources ... You're right, but since this is a case of choosing one of two possible interpretations from an ambiguous entry, flavor text can be highly influential. In this case, the flavor text clearly favors one of the two interpretations. Since they were written by the same person (probably), that carries more weight to me than comparing the wording of other PrC requirements and extrapolating a probable meaning. And I never said they weren't acceptable sources, just that they weren't authoritative. You can accept them all you want, but I don't HAVE to and appeals to what other people say with no further justification add nothing to an argument, IMO. *edit - Oh, and it only seemed really clear to some of you, namely the ones that had already decided on a particular interpretation. I was of the opinion that it was ambiguous and that my interpretation was more likely given the text quoted, and some people agreed with me.
zadoc 02-07-06, 04:24 AM	And how are you getting Turning... You could be a Ranger 6/Paladin 4 with an 11 Wisdom (able to cast 1st level Divine spells, but none from the specified domains). You could be a Fighter 6/Bard 2/Divine Crusader (Good domain) 5/Sacred Exorcist 1. It may be less than practical (though it might work out as effective), but distinctly possible. You could be a Ranger 4/Rogue 2/Concecrated Harrier 3/Master of Radiance 1. There could be more ways, but there are certainly methods for a character to have turning, 1st level divine spells, and still be unable to cast any of the spells from the specified domains. Regardless, the question came up enough times that there was a circle ruling on it in the past. There's still enough confusion that we've had this entire thread. It's still awkwardly worded, there's still no clarifying errata, and there's no FAQ entry. The clarification is already written. Adding it to the LGCS would take up minimal space, and ensure that everyone knows they need to have access to one of the specified domains (at least to the extent that the information is in a completely obvious, required location). I don't see how there's any disadvantage to putting it in the LGCS, while it prevents what would likely be a very difficult character restructuring if someone unknowingly interpreted it the other way and eventually discovered his error.
Sieylianna 02-07-06, 07:25 AM	Hey there Sascha. You actually need to have access to the domain in order for it to count as a domain spell. So no, a Paladin would not be able to qualify for the warpriest without at taking a level in a class like cleric that can get him access to those domains. Have fun and good gaming! The other issue with this is it leaves the RSOP requirement: must have access to the Sun domain, up in the air. Do RSOP need to choose Sun as one of their domains or is it enough to have had it as a choice? My interpretation has always been that yu needed to choose it. Ed
redgamer 02-11-06, 10:35 AM	http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#warpriest
Arvagor 02-12-06, 10:24 PM	The other issue with this is it leaves the RSOP requirement: must have access to the Sun domain, up in the air. Do RSOP need to choose Sun as one of their domains or is it enough to have had it as a choice? My interpretation has always been that yu needed to choose it.I'd concur... One, it never made sense (to me) to follow/allow the argument of, "I worship a sun god, one of the domains I could have chosen when I started as a cleric was Sun, but I didn't, but I had the choice, so that means I 'have access' ". Two, by taking the Sun domain, you are granted the ability to perform a "Greater Turning", which is an ability that does not exist by that name in any other form. RSoP gains the Extra Greater Turning ability at 1st level. Every other feat/ability with an "Extra" moniker has an implication that the ability already existed for that character (e.g., Extra Turning has the ability to turn undead as a pre-req; Extra Wild Shape has the ability to wild shape as a pre-req), so it stands to reason that, for a RSoP to have Extra Greater Turning, he must have already had the ability to perform a Greater Turning, and how would he be able to do that? By having taken the Sun domain as one of his clerical domains!