Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darculius 08-06-07, 06:42 PM	the PrC is in Complete Divine. the requirement in question is as follows: 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. the predicament is thus: a cleric (all clerics) can cast magic weapon. It is a 1st level all encompasing cleric spell. Same with sanctuary and inflict light wounds. Inflict light wounds aside for the positive/negative energy of a good vs evil cleric cause I just don't wanna, we're still dealing with Magic Weapon and Sanctuary. Those 2 wonderful spells are listed under the domains of War and Protection respectively. SO...in essence, every cleric meets this prereq? Or do they have to have the domains?
arderkrag 08-06-07, 06:50 PM	Warpriest is very easy to get into. You don't have to have the domain, just access to it. It's a simpe, straightforward class, but it's also very balanced.
Jaxgaret 08-06-07, 08:37 PM	Warpriest is very easy to get into. You don't have to have the domain, just access to it. It's a simpe, straightforward class, but it's also very balanced. It says right in the Warpriest class entry that "Clerics make good warpriests; members of other classes need levels as a cleric before they can qualify as a warpriest because of the domain requirements." So to qualify for the Warpriest PrC a character does indeed need access to one of the listed domains, and not just a spell from one of the domains.
claypigeons 08-06-07, 11:16 PM	It says right in the Warpriest class entry that "Clerics make good warpriests; members of other classes need levels as a cleric before they can qualify as a warpriest because of the domain requirements." So to qualify for the Warpriest PrC a character does indeed need access to one of the listed domains, and not just a spell from one of the domains. It also says quite clearly in the actual rules text, not the fluff that the ability to cast a spell from one of the domains (while not necessarily needing to be a cleric, or having that domain as a choice) qualifies.
Jaxgaret 08-06-07, 11:46 PM	It also says quite clearly in the actual rules text, not the fluff that the ability to cast a spell from one of the domains (while not necessarily needing to be a cleric, or having that domain as a choice) qualifies. I agree with you from a RAW perspective, but it is pretty clear from the fluff that the RAW is merely misworded, and the intent is for the character to be required to have access to one of the listed domains.
claypigeons 08-07-07, 12:21 AM	I agree with you from a RAW perspective, but it is pretty clear from the fluff that the RAW is merely misworded, and the intent is for the character to be required to have access to one of the listed domains. I would agree with the miswording if not for the "having the spell qualifies you" part. While I can't bring specific examples, it has appeared before. It this case were the only one, I'd be in complete agreement, however.
Jaxgaret 08-07-07, 12:37 AM	I would agree with the miswording if not for the "having the spell qualifies you" part. While I can't bring specific examples, it has appeared before. It this case were the only one, I'd be in complete agreement, however. I wish you would bring specific examples. They might be worded differently enough that they are not true precedents. Here is the relevant section: 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. This is pretty clearly worded that by RAW any Cleric qualifies for Warpriest. However, let me ask you this: why is the last sentence included? It is blindingly obvious that a character "who can cast at least one spell from [one of those] domains" qualifies for "able to cast at least one spell from one of the following domains' spell lists". So, why include it? The only reason I could come up with is one supported by the rules: so that a character would need at least an 11 Wisdom to qualify for Warpriest. Otherwise, any character with one of those domains could be a Warpriest, even with a 4 Wisdom. Since there are no stat requirements for PrCs in 3.5 (which is a good thing), perhaps this was the writer's attempt at including such a requirement, however horribly worded it is. Mind you, this is mere speculation, and is most likely not even close to the truth. But it could be. And it's reinforced by the fluff text - without that fluff text, I wouldn't even be making any argument, as the RAW is pretty clear.
claypigeons 08-07-07, 02:47 PM	So, why include it? The only reason I could come up with is one supported by the rules: so that a character would need at least an 11 Wisdom to qualify for Warpriest. Otherwise, any character with one of those domains could be a Warpriest, even with a 4 Wisdom. Since there are no stat requirements for PrCs in 3.5 (which is a good thing), perhaps this was the writer's attempt at including such a requirement, however horribly worded it is. Mind you, this is mere speculation, and is most likely not even close to the truth. But it could be. And it's reinforced by the fluff text - without that fluff text, I wouldn't even be making any argument, as the RAW is pretty clear. If it didn't include "counts as having access" I would agree. It's the inclusion of that part of the sentance that forces me to allow non-clerics to enter. It's terrible wording, no doubt. But the actual consenquences of it are quite small. Paladins can enter the class without needing a level in cleric. *shrug*
Jaxgaret 08-07-07, 05:23 PM	It's terrible wording, no doubt. But the actual consenquences of it are quite small. Paladins can enter the class without needing a level in cleric. *shrug* I agree. The consequences are negligible.