# Is Vow of Poverty broken?



## reveal (Nov 5, 2005)

A player wants to be a Paladin/Monk (taking the monastic training feat in Eberron which allows you to multiclass with one other class as a monk). He wants to take Vow of Poverty. I've never seen it in use but, looking at it, it doesn't look that powerful in some areas and overpowered in others. How does it balance out? Is it broken?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

If you give out wealth at or above the standard wealth guidelines in such a way that the player can convert all the wealth into useful bonuses like the ones the vow provides, the vow will be underpowered.  Otherwise, it is potentially overpowered.  For example, a Monk/Paladin would be very happy with stat boost items for every stat except Int.  With VoP, he's going to be harshly limited on which stats can be boosted, since it doesn't give very many stat boosts.  However, if you weren't going to give him those stat boosters or the money to buy them anyways, then it is no longer a weakness.

Basically, you can see the VoP as a preset purchase plan for magic items that costs two feats and causes a bunch of other inconveniences, and in that sense, it isn't so strong compared to standard wealth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

Plus if the Vow is ever broken, you lose the benefits and get NOTHING to replace them with.

Another thing- check out how many Exalted Feats VoP grants the PC.  After you do that, examine how many of those feats your PC can actually use.  There is probably a gap- your PC will probably be granted more feats than he or she can use.

Granted, the PC in question is a multiclassing monk, and the bulk of the Exalted feats are optimized for that class- but even in that case, its almost like riding a railroad.

AND since the PC is already taking another feat at 1st level in order to be able to multiclass as a Paladin/Monk, the PC will lose the first bonus Exalted feat- essentially taking a penalty before getting the benefit- and will have to put off any traditional feats for several levels.

Not that there will be as many feats for the PC to use anyway- since you can only use simple weapons and no armor, your feat selection will avoid most of the nasty fighting feats out there.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 5, 2005)

I think VoP is balanced for a Monk, and becomes unbalanced when it's used with non-Monk classes.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Plus if the Vow is ever broken, you lose the benefits and get NOTHING to replace them with.



 Exactly.  That's one of the "bunch of other inconveniences"


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think VoP is balanced for a Monk, and becomes unbalanced when it's used with non-Monk classes.



 Unbalanced on the weak side I would suspect, right?


----------



## pbd (Nov 5, 2005)

As Rystil said, it is balanced based on the average wealth/magic per character level as defined by WOTC.  In a low magic campaign/world, it is going to be overpowered and you may want to scale it for the level of magic items in your setting.  

In order to make balance it in these instances you could try to add up the value of the VOP benefits (ie. stst boost squared x 1000; AC bonus squared x 1000; weapon enhancement bonus squared x 200; etc) and compoare it to the "average" wealth by level in your setting and adjust to make it roughly even.

The feat itself gives some interesting options for roleplaying and may add a cool dynamic to the group.  The VOP character definately should still get there "share" of loot (says so in the description), but they will choose give it away to others (read non-PC).  This keeps the other characters balacned in reference to the VOP character and can make for some interesting interactions.  

VOP charcter, "sorry, I know you guys want all of this cool stuff, but I'm going to take my part and give it to the local orphanage.  Yes I know little Billy really wants a toy horse, but he is just going to have to settle for full plate +2"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

> VOP charcter, "sorry, I know you guys want all of this cool stuff, but I'm going to take my part and give it to the local orphanage. Yes I know little Billy really wants a toy horse, but he is just going to have to settle for full plate +2"




Nah..not like that!  He'd probably donate the stuff for fundraiser auctions and raffles.

"The next item is a pristine Apparatus of Kwalish, only 2 previous owners, one of whom is our own beloved Brother Makkim DeWitt..."


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Nah..not like that!  He'd probably donate the stuff for fundraiser auctions and raffles.
> 
> "The next item is a pristine Apparatus of Kwalish, only 2 previous owners, one of whom is our own beloved Brother Makkim DeWitt..."



 Yup.  The up-side for the other players is that they can give the VoP character the magic items that are most useless for their value, since he doesn't care if he can use it since he's just going to sell it.


----------



## pbd (Nov 5, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think VoP is balanced for a Monk, and becomes unbalanced when it's used with non-Monk classes.




Just for fun, I made a VOP barbarian once, 12th level I think (gotta love hero forge).  The character was half-orc and weilded a great club (I think this should fit the requirements of the class, it is just a big log after all).  Think big friendly lug with a great big stick, loved kids (not just to eat) and didn't care about stuff.  It seemed balanced enough.  

Most classes can make it work; fighter or ranger may be a stretch, but I don't think it would be terrible to allow a single non-simple (maybe bow or longsword), non-magical family heirloom weapon to included.


----------



## pbd (Nov 5, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Yup.  The up-side for the other players is that they can give the VoP character the magic items that are most useless for their value, since he doesn't care if he can use it since he's just going to sell it.




Not even sell it, but give it away!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

> Most classes can make it work; fighter or ranger may be a stretch, but I don't think it would be terrible to allow a single non-simple (maybe bow or longsword), non-magical family heirloom weapon to included.




I wouldn't, personally.  The VoP PC still has access to crossbows and the Morningstar- both solid weapons.



> Not even sell it, but give it away!




I'd allow a sale, assuming all proceeds went to charity.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

pbd said:
			
		

> Not even sell it, but give it away!



 Well, they'd probably would sell the item and give the proceeds to charity.  I think we just found the perfect use for the Ring of Elemental Command (Water)


----------



## FireLance (Nov 5, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> A player wants to be a Paladin/Monk (taking the monastic training feat in Eberron which allows you to multiclass with one other class as a monk).



Side comment: Ascetic Knight from Complete Adventurer is much better for a paladin/monk since it allows you to multiclass freely between paladin and monk and gives some extra benefits as well (monk and paladin levels stack for unarmed strike damage and smite evil damage).


----------



## Drowbane (Nov 5, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> A player wants to be a Paladin/Monk (taking the monastic training feat in Eberron which allows you to multiclass with one other class as a monk). He wants to take Vow of Poverty. I've never seen it in use but, looking at it, it doesn't look that powerful in some areas and overpowered in others. How does it balance out? Is it broken?




No.

Vow of Poverty isn't remotely overpowered.  Nor is it broken.

The above only remains true if your DM keeps everybody close to (or slightly above) wealth-standard by level.  If your DM also makes sure you roleplay your Exalted status as well... the feat becomes almost weak.

Yeah, I said it! 

One of my favorite characters of all time was a Gestalt Monk / Paladin with Vows: Peace and Poverity.  So much fun... (read: tough to Roleplay)


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 5, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Unbalanced on the weak side I would suspect, right?




No, not at all.  A sorceror or wizard with VoP is too powerful.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

> Well, they'd probably would sell the item and give the proceeds to charity. I think we just found the perfect use for the Ring of Elemental Command (Water)




You mean for the Temple Chariot & Cart Wash fundraiser?


----------



## Bront (Nov 5, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> A player wants to be a Paladin/Monk (taking the monastic training feat in Eberron which allows you to multiclass with one other class as a monk). He wants to take Vow of Poverty. I've never seen it in use but, looking at it, it doesn't look that powerful in some areas and overpowered in others. How does it balance out? Is it broken?



FYI, technicaly, he also needs to take the feat to multiclass as a Paladin.

There are also 2 feats that let a Monk/Paladin cross over some of their skills in the Complete Adventurer.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No, not at all.  A sorceror or wizard with VoP is too powerful.



 He can't use a large number of his spells now (foci or material components), and the wizard could've been crafting far better items for himself (now he can't use item creation and he has to focus on metamagic with those bonus feats, which isn't so great for wizards).  He's become significantly weakened now.


----------



## Bront (Nov 5, 2005)

VoP is flavorful, and potentialy powerful, but is are many items.  If he can RP with it, I think it won't be under or over powered.  The Monk and Paladin have few synergistic abilities, and it will take as many as 4 feats to fix that, which means 6th or 9th level till he gets rolling, not counting VOP.

I don't think it's a bit issue, and think it won't cause much of a problem, especialy if you give out items at a somewhat reasonable level.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

> He can't use a large number of his spells now (foci or material components)




I don't know exactly what you mean by foci, but VoP doesn't prevent using or carrying material components, even expensive ones- it just prevents the PC from BUYING them.  He can exchange his labor for them.  They can be given to him.  He could even harvest them himself.

Certainly, a VoP PC would feel uncomfortable carrying certain material components, like the diamond for Stoneskin.  A VoP PC might 1) carry the stone until used, or 2) until he encounters someone in need of some money, or 3) might eschew even learning such a spell.

The last guy I discussed this with seemed to think that a spellcaster couldn't have a spellbook, since it, too, has great value.  However, since the only value of a spellbook is the spells contained within, its "valuable" only if the PC writes something in it.  Its a little tortured to think that a VoP spellcaster couldn't keep a spell he wrote down for reference because he has (essentially) just created a magic item.

Besides, as I pointed out to him, a super-tight, 100% literal reading of VoP would also keep a Bard from owning any instrument or art supplies, or a cleric from carrying his Holy Symbol- neither of which was intended, IMHO.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know exactly what you mean by foci, but VoP doesn't prevent using or carrying material components, even expensive ones- it just prevents the PC from BUYING them.  He can exchange his labor for them.  They can be given to him.  He could even harvest them himself.
> 
> Certainly, a VoP PC would feel uncomfortable carrying certain material components, like the diamond for Stoneskin.  A VoP PC might 1) carry the stone until used, or 2) until he encounters someone in need of some money, or 3) might eschew even learning such a spell.
> 
> ...



 According to strict wording, you can't have either the expensive components or the spellbook.  The component thing is asserted even more strongly by the section that suggests allowing them to cast for XP.


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 5, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No, not at all.  A sorceror or wizard with VoP is too powerful.



A Wizard with VoP is.... kinda crippled for later development.  Wizard: No spellbook -> Can only have spells garnered from the Spell Mastery feat (possibly Extra Spell, as well).  Up a level... and there's nowhere for those two new spells to go.  Find a scroll... and the Wizard can't scribe it.  Has to be donated to charity.  Even if the issue of not having a spellbook gets house-ruled, there's still the matter of scribing costs.....

A Sorceror, on the other hand, doesn't suffer that issue, due to the lack of a spellbook.

Edit: A bard can't get a real instrument, that is true... but the lowly 0th level Summon Instrument can get around the need to own one, and you can usually get Perform(Oratory) or Perform(Vocal) or Perform(Sing) or some such, and use the bard's own throat as the instrument.


----------



## Bront (Nov 5, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> According to strict wording, you can't have either the expensive components or the spellbook.  The component thing is asserted even more strongly by the section that suggests allowing them to cast for XP.



Rystil is correct.  While a wizard can use an expensive component, the component needs to be given to him and he then casts the spell instantly.  It can't be carried around, nor would he accept someone purchasing it for him and carrying it till he needed it (That's technicaly legal, but not realy right).

As for spellbooks and holy symbols, that's debatable, but a simple spellbook or wooden holy symbol shouldn't be too unwieldly.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 5, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know exactly what you mean by foci, but VoP doesn't prevent using or carrying material components, even expensive ones- it just prevents the PC from BUYING them.  He can exchange his labor for them.  They can be given to him.  He could even harvest them himself.




Yes, it prevents the character from using or carrying material components that are at all expensive (i.e. that which would not be in the "Standard" spell component pouch).  He cannot exchange labour for them.  And he cannot harvest them for himself.  If he somehow pulls a diamond out of his butt, he must give it away, and cannot use it himself.

You may beg for a material component for a spell that will be used immediately, but you cannot carry a diamond around that you previously begged.

And wizards cannot use spellbooks if they have VoP.

Read the feat description.  Then read pp. 30-1 for info. on expensive material components


----------



## melkorspawn (Nov 5, 2005)

I've been looking at VoP for a while now and I like what I see... not because it's overpowered, but it:

a) Provides a solid base for roleplaying
b) Takes away any worry of deciding what magic items to put in what slots for your ideal character build
c) If your character is kidnapped and stripped of all their belongings... you don't much care.

Depending on the makeup of my next party I was either going to:
VoP Monk it... straight up
Vop Swashbuckler/Duelist it
or Vop Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple it

The last option being just scary... magic, natural attacks, natural armor and insane ability bonuses.  yeesh.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 5, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> He can't use a large number of his spells now (foci or material components), and the wizard could've been crafting far better items for himself (now he can't use item creation and he has to focus on metamagic with those bonus feats, which isn't so great for wizards).  He's become significantly weakened now.




Re-read the feat.  You can keep and use most spell componants.  Nor have I ever heard of a DM not allowing the spellbook.

Metamagic not good for Wizards?  On what planet?!?  

I really think you are overestimating the power of crafting items.  Not to mention, he still can craft items, he just can't keep them for himself.

A VoP sorceror or wizard is overpowered.  If you don't believe me, go to the character optimization board over at WOTC and ask for some threads on the subject.  It gets ugly real quick.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

> Re-read the feat. You can keep and use spell componants.




Nope.  They can have the pouch of simple components.  But no expensive components.  Re-read other ramifications of poverty on 30-31.  



> Metamagic not good for Wizards? On what planet?!?




I said not _so_ good.  It's not so good for Wizards as it is for Sorcerers.



> A VoP sorceror or wizard is overpowered.




Give me standard wealth and I can easily buy my non-VoP wizard better stuff than the VoP wizard has.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

The exact wording of VoP simply states:



> You may carry and use a spell component pouch.




Without further modification, this would presumably allow the use of that pouch for any spell component.  There is no further modification on what may be in the pouch listed.

The section on "Other Ramifications of Poverty" says:



> A character who has forsaken material posessions may find himself at a marked disadvantage when it comes to certain neccessary expenses, such as expensive material components.  One option is for ascetic characters to beg components from other party members...




and goes on to mention the XP casting system.

"Other Ramifications of Poverty" means that they are contemplating what other (mundane) consequences follow from giving up money.  The section here is not barring the PC from possessing spell components, just stating that if he has no money, he can't buy things, like food, clothing, and as we have been discussing, spell components.

And, like I said, I agree that a strict RAW analysis of VoP means that a Bard may not have an instrument or art supplies, a Wizard may not have a spellbook, and a Cleric may not have a Holy Symbol.  It would further prevent anyspellcaster from using a spell with a focus or divine focus power.  While incovenient for the bard (who may still be a poet or singer), its crippling to the Wizard (who would be unable to rememorize spells) and deadly to the Cleric (who couldn't turn a damn thing), and would rob lesser spellcasters of almost all of their spellcasting ability.  Seriously-the logic against that reading is strongest with the Cleric- why would a divine being annoint a PC as an exalted being, and then rob him of some of his abilities that would most effectively show the favor the divine being has showered on the PC...Spells and Turning abilities.  It would definitely make the Exalted Turning Feat completely useless.

Hence, I feel that that was in no way the intent of the feat, and so would permit the ownership of such items, even under VoP.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 5, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Nope.  They can have the pouch of simple components.  But no expensive components.  Re-read other ramifications of poverty on 30-31.




I did.  It's not saying you cannot have expensive componants.  The implication is it's difficult to buy them.  However, you can keep and use a spell componant pouch (and by implications it's normal contents).  There is no "simple-componant-only" restriction.



I said not _so_ good.  It's not so good for Wizards as it is for Sorcerers.





> Give me standard wealth and I can easily buy my non-VoP wizard better stuff than the VoP wizard has.




You still get some benefits from your share of the treasure.  It's just not in the normal form.  I do not think the benefits of keeping and holding treasure outweigh the benefits of the feat for a Wizard or Sorceror.  And I say again, go check out the character optimization board if you actually have doubts about this.  They work it all out for you.  They would be happy to entertain your "easily...better stuff" claim.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

> You still get some benefits from your share of the treasure. It's just not in the normal form.




If you did, that would break the vow of poverty.



> And I say again, go check out the character optimization board if you actually have doubts about this. They work it all out for you. They would be happy to entertain your "easily...better stuff" claim.




I have no doubt that the WotC optimisers do something twinkish that will break the vow--or at least, you are the one making these claims of brokenness, so the burden of proof is on you to find a valid claim.  I don't really feel like surfing the Wizards boards looking for this, but if you think it will strengthen your argument, be my guest if you would like to do so.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think VoP is balanced for a Monk, and becomes unbalanced when it's used with non-Monk classes.




It's particulary broken for wizards. 


VoP _requires_ (if balance is to be ensured), that the wealth levels are within the guidelines.

Then the vow is completely fine.

In campaigns with less wealth or without the opportunities to spend it, as well as in campaigns with more wealth, the VoP character will be either over- or underpowered.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Nor have I ever heard of a DM not allowing the spellbook.




But that's entering house rules territory, right?



> Metamagic not good for Wizards?  On what planet?!?




Earth? 

There are _very few_ metamagic feats, which are worthwhile for a wizard (half a dozen at most, if you include the sudden ones). Of course, the pretty broken rods are always good. 



> A VoP sorceror or wizard is overpowered...




Yeah, if you break or at least highly bend the rules, that might be...

If you follow them, a wizard is completely unplayable, and a sorcerer is definitely not bad, but far from overpowered, except in situations, where magic items are restricted, removed, or whatnot. That's where VoP is really, really good, of course.

In any case, the sorcerer is one of the classes, who do greatly benefit from the vow, since they don't really need fancy items, having the bases covered is good enough for them. Their biggest downside is, that they will have really bad saves, and that is not good for a sorcerer.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 5, 2005)

Well, I'm not at all fond of the entire concept of Exalted feats, but that's neither here nor there.

The thing that I intensely dislike about VoP is the type of bonus it grants you - the completely nonstandard exalted (or sacred?  I may be misremembering) bonus.  Which, unlike magical items, stacks with everything you care to cast on yourself or have someone else cast on you.  With all the various buffing spells granting their full bonus on top of your pseudo-item bonuses, it can get pretty ridiculous.  That's are the grounds I dislike the VoP sorcerer on.  Change the feat's bonuses to enhancement, deflection, etc. (the standard magical item/spell bonuses) and it's balanced.   I still don't like it, but I think it's reasonable.

And of course, you have to cleave pretty closely to the standard wealth guidelines, and that's another pain for the DM if s/he doesn't already do that...

EDIT - Actually, the VoP psion would probably be the worst of the bunch.  But psion is questionably balanced to begin with...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

> The thing that I intensely dislike about VoP is the type of bonus it grants you - the completely nonstandard exalted (or sacred? I may be misremembering) bonus. Which, unlike magical items, stacks with everything you care to cast on yourself or have someone else cast on you. With all the various buffing spells granting their full bonus on top of your pseudo-item bonuses, it can get pretty ridiculous. That's are the grounds I dislike the VoP sorcerer on. Change the feat's bonuses to enhancement, deflection, etc. (the standard magical item/spell bonuses) and it's balanced. I still don't like it, but I think it's reasonable.




Take a look at the abilities again.  Only one of the many abilities grants an Exalted bonus--the AC bonus ability.  If you have a problem with that one, swap that one ability to an Armour Bonus and you'll be fine.


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 5, 2005)

Hmm...  Are you sure?  I was remembering it differently (I don't own the book myself), but nobody had mentioned it yet and so I thought I would throw in what had annoyed me.  Entirely possible I mis-somethinged it.    

Ah well, still don't like the feat, and still think the psion would be the worst with it.  From what I remember (obviously not as much as I would like), a monk/paladin would be okay as long as you're up for the extra hassle of making everyone's wealth line up.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

> Hmm... Are you sure? I was remembering it differently (I don't own the book myself), but nobody had mentioned it yet.




I'm staring at it right now, don't worry 



> Ah well, still don't like the feat, and still think the psion would be the worst with it.




Nah, the Psion would find herself running into redundancies with those abilities and some of her best buffs that overlap but do not stack with the abilities.  As a Psion, I would rather have a Torc of Power Preservation (@36,000 GP) than anything on the VoP list.  Also, Psions need to buy a lot of feats to be fully effective, so they really feel the loss of the two feats.


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 5, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Nah, the Psion would find herself running into redundancies with those abilities and some of her best buffs that overlap but do not stack with the abilities.  As a Psion, I would rather have a Torc of Power Preservation (@36,000 GP) than anything on the VoP list.  Also, Psions need to buy a lot of feats to be fully effective, so they really feel the loss of the two feats.




And how would magical items be any different?  Unless you don't buy stat-boosting and other vanilla items for your psions, which would be...  different from what I've seen.

Not like the character _has_ to take those buffs.  My experience may simply be different, but all of the psionic nastiness I've seen could probably spare a couple of feats and didn't rely all that much on whatever buffs it is you're talking about.

Losing the _torc_ would hurt, but that's mainly because that item is borderline insane.  There aren't really any other essential items that aren't covered by VoP.  And the psion's scaling _inertial armor_ is particularly effective in conjunction with the wiggy AC bonus from the feat - there's at least a clear non-redundancy with the psion's usual options.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> And how would magical items be any different?  Unless you don't buy stat-boosting and other vanilla items for your psions, which would be...  different from what I've seen.
> 
> Not like the character _has_ to take those buffs.  My experience may simply be different, but all of the psionic nastiness I've seen could probably spare a couple of feats and didn't rely all that much on whatever buffs it is you're talking about.
> 
> Losing the _torc_ would hurt, but that's mainly because that item is borderline insane.  There aren't really any other essential items that aren't covered by VoP.  And the psion's scaling _inertial armor_ is particularly effective in conjunction with the wiggy AC bonus from the feat - there's at least a clear non-redundancy with the psion's usual options.



 Admittedly the Exalted bonus to AC is nice for the Psion.  If you changed that one thing to an Armour bonus, the utility of the feat would markedly decrease.  As for Psions builds, the power builds usually include: Empower, Twin, Quicken, Psionic Meditation (to get focus back), Expanded Knowledge at least once (to get awesome powers on other disciplines' lists), Overchannel, plus usually some subset of Talented, Psicrystal Affinity, and Psicrystal Containment, as well as Boost Construct for the Construct lovers and Metamorphic Transfer if you have any transforming powers at all for some crazy Supernatural action.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2005)

Psionatrix would be another item, plus all those 'wands', 'scrolls' and 'staffs', which have different names, but are essentially the same. 

Also, all the stuff, that is nice for non-casters as well... invisibility, flying, etc.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 5, 2005)

Well of course there are a good number of excellent feats for the psion, but I don't think it's mandated that they need all of those, and I think VoP makes for a good swap-in for one of them.  Probably not hugely overpowered, I think, but an excellent alternative choice.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2005)

VoP costs two feats, tho, as Rystil mentioned, not just one.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 5, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> VoP costs two feats, tho, as Rystil mentioned, not just one.




I'm aware of that.  I can't speak to the other one, though, as I can't recall what it does.  It's probably fairly useless (like the equivalent Vile "look I sold my soul" feats), though I would hope it does _something_ worthwhile.

Anyway, forget the business about the psion - it doesn't really help the OP much, and I probably don't know what I'm talking about anyway.     (Although surely the psion is a more natural choice, and along the same lines, than the sorcerer for VoP, and several people commented on the sorcerer synergy as being the strongest.  Oops.  Okay, I'll stop now.)

Sheesh, haven't posted in a week and I pick something I have only vague memories of to comment on.  Lapse of judgment or something...

Fellow posters, let this be a revelation unto you - people on the Interweb don't always know what they're talking about!


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

> VoP costs two feats, tho, as Rystil mentioned, not just one.




Yup, exactly, although


> I think VoP makes for a good swap-in for one of them. Probably not hugely overpowered, I think, but an excellent alternative choice.



I agree with this too--its a good alternative swap-in for two of the feats, but I consider the other two feats plus the option of items to be better for the Psion.  That said, if VoP helps your concept, then it is a good alternative choice, as you mentioned


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 5, 2005)

> It's probably fairly useless (like the equivalent Vile "look I sold my soul" feats), though I would hope it does something worthwhile.




Yup, its pretty useless.  It gives a +2 perfection bonus to Diplomacy.  That's worse than Skill Focus: Diplomacy, and I've never exactly seen players standing in line to take SF: Diplomacy 



> Sheesh, haven't posted in a week and I pick something I have only vague memories of to comment on. Lapse of judgment or something...




No worries


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 5, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Without further modification, this would presumably allow the use of that pouch for any spell component.  There is no further modification on what may be in the pouch listed.




from the phb under "Spell Component Pouch": "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, *except for those components that have a specific cost*, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch".  (Emphasis mine)

If you put other components with a specific cost into your pouch, you are violating the VoP.  The VoP only allows the pouch and what came with it.  You can't put other material goods with a specific cost into it, as carrying those material good would be breaking the vow of poverty, just as it would be breaking the VoP if you carried gold coins in that pouch.  

You may beg for spell components with a specific cost (from other pcs or other npcs), to be used immediately (as you could beg to drink someone else's potion), but that's it.  You can't carry "spell components with a specific cost" around yourself.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 5, 2005)

Right now im playing a vop druid. I believe that I am the most powerful character in the group. 

I do not know if this is because of the druid or vop. 

I chose vop so I would not have to worry about magic items. Also I wanted to try something different and I wanted to role play a character that wasn’t greedy for a change. So far everything has gone well. 

One problem my character generally runs into is that he has lots of gold on him but... is put into situations whare he needs to use gold to salve problems, like getting his clothing sowed when it got all torn up. One of the players knows what vop is but the other player is newish, but has a good guess what vop is like (has as never asked about it) so the other characters usaly helps out my character when he needs a service of a low price. I almost lost vop when I was about to give gold to the tailor but I caught myself. Its awkward to role play the character when he has so much gold but bums from the other characters. I usaly find my way out by saying "this gold is not for me, but for the poor". Luckily no one has said... "but that would mean your poor", but I wouldn’t mind the challenge if it came up

I have looked at other classes but I think that vop for a druid must be the most powerful class for vop. Everything works in wildshape, so it’s like wearing magic items in wildshape. It’s very powerful. I have found myself not using spells and feat combos because it would be too powerful (quill blast and sudden maximize or green bound summoning or fleshrackers and venom fire) 

At the moment I think I have found a balance of power so my character isn’t stronger then the other characters. If they get broken items though, I might start pulling out the big bazooka spells to complete, but I think everything is fine for the moment. 

This was the first time I played a druid, but i think that vop gives a huge boost to the druid at its low levels before it has wildshape. Not really broken, but it lets them survive their weak stage. I think that vop looses its power at later levels, but this is compared to the early levels. One very powerful thing about vop for spell casters is exalted strike. Any spell that requires an attack role (usaly ranged touch) gets a bonus to hit and damage. I think all and all its not too powerful, but it is a very nice convenience in that one doesn’t have to worry about what items the dm gives the other players. Its also nice not to worry about the loot and focus on role playing. I think that as a druid, the character can overcome many of the vop shortcomings, like ability to fly and other things that vop doesn’t grant.  

I am sure my dm is going to start adding in difficult moral problems were someone can be saved with a druid only spell and they have a wand of it but none can use it. 

I look forward to this though. I have to say overall with a mature group of players, vop is very fun and should never be used for powergameing as a primary purpose for vop.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2005)

> If you put other components with a specific cost into your pouch, you are violating the VoP.




No, if you _accumulate wealth to buy or actually buy_ such components, you are violating the Vow.  Storing spell components and foci is the normal use of a spell component pouch, regardless of value.



> The VoP only allows the pouch and what came with it. You can't put other material goods with a specific cost into it, as carrying those material good would be breaking the vow of poverty, just as it would be breaking the VoP if you carried gold coins in that pouch.




No, that's incorrect.  A spellpouch is purchased (or otherwise obtained) containing, and is assumed to be full of at all times with material components of negligible value outside of spellcasting.  In that, it functions like a non-magical decanter of endless water- the caster need never replenish its cheaper contents despite the fact that those contents are being "annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process" (PHB p174)  It does not come with components with a specific cost or divine foci because _those must be obtained seperately_.  You know- "batteries not included."

Basically, the spellpouch comes with spellcaster's basic box of legos.  If he wants to do more with his legos, he has to acquire more legos from other sets.  Most spellcasters simply pay money and get the legos they need, but the VoP spellcaster has no money with which to purchase anything of value.  He will have to be content with his basic lego set until he finds more legos or someone gives him some more legos.  If he somehow acquires an expensive set of legos, he may still use and carry it, but he may give those legos to someone else.

Or, to put it another way, my car comes with room for 4 passengers and their luggage.  It does not come with those passengers or their luggage- those I must pick up along the way.



> A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, *divine focuses*, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch



 (PHB p130, emphasis mine)

This just reinforces my point that the VoP is not supposed to be used 100% RAW- the DM is supposed to exercise a little common sense.

Ask yourself: Why would a god's servant, seemingly blessed beyond most other mortals (in a real sense, the D&D equivalent to a living saint), _be robbed of his ability to cast divine spells?_  Most Paladin spells and many Clerical spells require a divine focus, yet RAW, the VoP would prevent them from carrying it.  Bless, something you think an Exalted Paladin or Cleric could cast, becomes unusable.  Calm Emotions? Identify? Owl's Wisdom? * Protection From Evil?  Raise Dead?* Regenerate? Spiritual Weapon? The Summon Monster spells? * Sunburst? Tongues?*- all are completely uncastable for a VoP PC in a campaign where the feat is used RAW.  That, BTW, is NOT a complete list, and I didn't even touch the ones that get knocked off the Bard, Druid & Ranger spell lists.

And once again, re:the spellbook- its a 15gp item when aquired- its only value lies in the spells the PC writes in it.  Its extremely odd to me that a VoP PC would have to give up his spellbook the instant he writes down a spell in it for future study and rememorization- odd enough to me that I would not make a VoP PC give it up.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 6, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, if you _accumulate wealth to buy or actually buy_ such components, you are violating the Vow.  Storing spell components and foci is the normal use of a spell component pouch, regardless of value.
> 
> Basically, the spellpouch comes with spellcaster's basic box of legos.  If he wants to do more with his legos, he has to acquire more legos from other sets.  Most spellcasters simply pay money and get the legos they need, but the VoP spellcaster has no money with which to purchase anything of value.  He will have to be content with his basic lego set until he finds more legos or someone gives him some more legos.  If he somehow acquires an expensive set of legos, he may still use and carry it, but he may give those legos to someone else.
> 
> ...




1) The RAW back me up.  The expensive legos/components cannot be carried around by the VoP spellcaster.  That is exactly why the character has to beg from another character to use the component on the spot (to cast the spell there and then), or else drain her own experience points to cast the spell.  A character could no more "Store up" expensive components for later than she could "Store up" more than one day's worth of food at a time.  The vow says "you may not carry or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions".  One of those exceptions is the "spell component pouch".  NOT "the spell component pouch (with any expensive components, foci, etc., you can jam into it)".  "The spell component pouch".  This item is defined in the equipment list of the phb very clearly.  To allow the VoP character to carry (for personal use) expensive components, foci, etc., in it, would be similar to allowing the VoP character to carry (for personal use) giant rubies in the sack the VoP character is allowed to have.

To use your analogy, you only get the basic set of lego, and cannot carry around the expensive legos in your cheapo lego box.  Or to use your metaphor, you get to drive the car, but can't carry any passengers or luggage.

2) The FAQ backs me up.  The Sage specifically says that VoP is for mature players who want to try characters with limitations.  That limitation specifically includes not using divine focus, and thus not being able to turn undead, or cast some spells (fortunately, they can cast other spells).  That sounds about right to me and matches my "Common sense" view that Vow of Poverty involves Sacrifice.  

3) The 15 gp for an empty spellbook is buying you paper that is bound.  Paper is not without cost in D&D, and neither is the binding service or materials.  If you do not think that a blank book has any material value, I suggest you try to take one out of a book store without paying for it and see what happense.  Carrying around an empty spellbook is like carrying around a "blank" book (say a diary or journal), and violating one's vow.  A wizard with VoP would be hurting, and would be well advised to take the Spell Mastery feat as often as possible.

Now if you want to house rule differently, that is fine.  Many DMs do just that on the holy symbol issue.  But this is not the house rule forum.  This is the D&D rules forum.

Oh, and Druids are ungodly powerful, but that is another topic.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 6, 2005)

I'm going to be playing a Cleric soon with VoP starting at 1st level. I'm doing it for RP purposes mainly, but I guess I'll find out if it's overpowered. Seems like a nice fit with the Cleric, though.

I do think, however, that I'm going to end up with more exalted feats than I can use. Most of them don't seem like they'll do me much good, but we'll see. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 6, 2005)

Vow of Poverty rule #1:  As the character with Vow of Poverty increases in level, the probability of that character becoming a light source approaches 1.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2005)

> 1) The RAW back me up.




I didn't say that it didn't.  In fact, I specifically said that it DOES but that using it RAW is not the intention of the designers.  I know that this is the D&D rules forum- where we discuss what the rules mean.  However, just because a rule is written a particular way, doesn't make it correct.  RAW is important, but using your brain to analyze RAW is every bit as important.  I'm not talking about house-ruling, but rather trying to decipher what the designers meant when drafted a rule a particular way.

Consider, for a moment, old errors from 2Ed.  In the 1st printing of 2Ed, Rogues were proficient in broadsword, and Bards were allowed to multiclass.  Problem- no broadsword was statted out in the book, and the next reprint of 2Ed omitted multiclassing Bards.  RAW, Rogues were proficient in a non-existent weapon; Bards could or could not multiclass based on which PHB you had.  The Monstrous Compendium listings for the standard vampire and Oriental vampire are identical- elsewhere they are not.

In other words, RAW is just the beginning of rules analysis.

My contention is that VoP (as well as some of the other vows) is meant to help players simulate the saintly human beings and dieties (depending on the particular theology) of the real world, like Padre Pio, Buddha, Jesus, etc.- to whom are attributed miracles.  Many of the Exalted Feats are obviously based on aspects of miracles attributed to such saints- Nimbus of Light, Stigmata.

To use a strict RAW reading of VoP would prevent such a PC from doing things that most closely resemble the very deeds such saints are said to have done seems, IMHO, ludicrous.

In my previous post, I bolded the spells I thought most closely resembled the deeds of the saints.  I should have included *Atonement, Prayer, and Walk on Water*...but the point is that many of the spells you would expect a god's _most favored servants_ are _precisely those that are omitted_ by using VoP RAW.  To further highlight the problem, I present the complete alphabetical list of Cleric/Paladin PHB spells not requiring divine foci (with level in parentheses), eliminating the evil spells as well, and domains listed when it is the only way to gain access to the spell:



> Animate Objects(C6th), Antilife Shell (C6th), Astral Projection (C9th), Augury (C2nd), Bane (C1), Banishment (C6), Bestow Curse (C3), Blade Barrier (C6), Bless Water (C/P1), Bless Weapon (C/P1), Blindness/Deafness (C3), Break Enchantment (C5/P4), Cat's Grace (C/P2), Cat's Grace, Mass (C6), Cause Fear (C1), Cloak of Chaos (C8), Command (C1), Contagion (C3), Continual Flame (C3), Control Weather (C7), Create Food and Water (C3), Create Water (C0/P1), Cure Critical Wounds (C4), Cure Critical Wounds, Mass (C8),  Cure Light Wounds (C/P1), Cure Light Wounds (C5), Cure Minor Wounds (C0), Cure Moderate Wounds (C2/P3), Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass (C6), Cure Serious Wounds (C3/P4), Cure Serious Wounds, Mass (C7), Daylight (C/P3), Death Ward (C/P4), Destruction (C7), Detect Magic (C0), Detect Poison (C0/P1), Dictum (C7), Dimension Door (Travel 4), Dimensional Anchor (C4), Dimensional Lock (C8), Disguise Self (Trickery1), Dispel Magic (C/P3), Dispel Magic, Mass (C6), Disrupting Weapon (C5), Divination (C4), Dominate Animal (Animal3), Elemental Swarm (Air/Earth/Fire/Water9), Endure Elements (C/P1), Energy Drain (C9), Enlarge Person (Strength1), Enthrall (C2), Entropic Shield (C1), Ethereal Jaunt (C7), Etherealness (C9), False Vision (Trickery5), Find the Path (C6), Find Traps (C2), Fire Seeds (Fire/Sun6), Fire Storm (C8/Fire7), Fog Cloud (Water2), Gate (C9), Geas/Quest (C6), Glyph of Warding (C3), Glyph of Warding, Greater (C6), Guidance (C0), Harm (C6), Heal (C6), Heal, Mass (C9), Heal Mount (P3), Hold Animal (Animal2),  Holy Aura (C8), Holy Smite (Good4), Holy Sword (P4), Holy Word (C7), Implosion (C9), Incendiary Cloud (Fire8), Inflict Critical Wounds (C4),  Inflict Critical Wounds, Mass (C8),   Inflict Light Wounds (C1),  Inflict Light Wounds (C5),  Inflict Minor Wounds (C0),  Inflict Moderate Wounds (C2),  Inflict Moderate Wounds, Mass (C6),  Inflict Serious Wounds (C3),  Inflict Serious Wounds, Mass (C7), Invisibility Purge (C3), Legend Lore* (Knowledge7),  Longstrider (Travel1), Make Whole (C2), Mending (C0), Mind Blank (Protection8), Miracle* (C9), Mislead (Luck/Trickery6), Moment of Prescience (Luck8), Mordenkainen's Disjunction (Magic9), Nondetection (Trickery3), Nystul's Magic Aura (Magic1), Obscuring Mist (C1), Order's Wrath (Law4), Plane Shift (C5), Power Word Blind (War7), Power word Kill (War9), Power Word Stun (War 8), Prismatic Sphers (Protection/Sun9), Produce Flame (Fire2), Protection from Spells (Magic8), Purify Food and Drink (C0), Read Magic (C0/P1), Refuge (C7), Remove Blindness/Deafness (C/P3), Remove Curse (C/P3), Remove Disease (C3), Remove Fear (C1), Remove Paralysis (C/P2), Repel Wood (Plant6), Restoration (C/P4), Restoration, Greater (C7), Restoration, Lesser (C2/P1), Screen (Trickery7), Searing Light (Sun3), Shambler (Plant9), Shapechange (Animal9), Shield of Faith (C1), Shield of Law (C8), Shield Other (C/P2), Silence (C2), Slay Living (C5), Soul Bind (C9), Status (C2), Stoneskin (Earth/Strength6), Storm of Vengeance (C9), Symbol of Death (C8),  Symbol of Fear (C6), Symbol of Insanity (C8), Symbol of Pain (C5), Symbol of Persuasion (C6), Symbol of Sleep (C5), Symbol of Stunning (C7), Symbol of Weakness (C7), Teleport (Travel5), Teleport, Greater (Travel7), Time Stop (Trickery9), True Seeing (C5), Undetectible Alignment (C/P2), Wail of the Banshee (Death9), Wall of Thorns (Plant5), Word of Chaos (C7), Word of Recall (C6)




(* Note: Some of these spells, such as Legend Lore, and Miracle have expensive components, but I didn't want to take the time to examine component costs for all of these spells.)

If you don't see one you expect, there's a reason. 

VoP Clerics and Paladins can't bless anything but water or weapons, cast  most protection spells, can't consecrate anything, can barely detect or dispel anything that REALLY needs detecting, help anyone atone, or bring back the dead..what kind of divine servants ARE these guys?  (Note, of all the 2nd level buff spells, only the 2 Cat's Grace spells don't require a DF- I suspect a typo.)

And since they aren't allowed Holy Symbols, they not only won't be able to turn any undead, they can't use any of the feats that present alternative uses for turning.

I ask you, _what is left_?



> That is exactly why the character has to beg from another character to use the component on the spot




Nope.



> One option is for ascetic characters to beg components from party members, who are probably gaining as much benefit from having ths spell cast as the caster is.



BoED p30

*Absolutely no mention is made of the timing of the begging.*



> 2) The FAQ backs me up.




How?  Specifically.



> 3) The 15 gp for an empty spellbook is buying you paper that is bound. <snip> A wizard with VoP would be hurting, and would be well advised to take the Spell Mastery feat as often as possible.




OK.  Here are the consequences of using VoP RAW in that case.

Assuming a 1st lvl Human Wizard with Sacred Vow & VoP, plus any Exalted feat you like, as per the benefits of VoP...

The PC will be able to cast one 1st level spell...TOTAL...until he reaches his 3rd character level and can take Spell Mastery.  That spell will be Read Magic, since he cannot own a spellbook from which to rememorize other spells and Read Magic is the only spell he can cast without one.  He'll be having a lot of fun casting Read Magic over and over, then whacking someone in the head with his staff, and being stabbed by the opponents.

Do you honestly think that a Wizard who can only cast Read Magic will last 3 levels as an adventuring PC?

Assuming an Elf Wizard who takes Sacred Vow at 1st, then VoP at 3rd...

He will first cast off his spellbook and accumulated foci and magic items.  He will then exhaust the spells he has memorized on his next adventure or so.  Then he will only be able to cast Read Magic over and over again until he reaches 6th level and can take Spell Mastery.  See above.

A PC Wizard taking VoP at ANY level (in a RAW VoP campaign) will fall into this trap.  While he will be gaining Exalted feats as bonuses, once he takes VoP, he will be a powerless spellcaster until he earns his next bonus feat due to PC advancement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2005)

> The 15 gp for an empty spellbook is buying you paper that is bound. Paper is not without cost in D&D, and neither is the binding service or materials. If you do not think that a blank book has any material value, I suggest you try to take one out of a book store without paying for it and see what happense. Carrying around an empty spellbook is like carrying around a "blank" book (say a diary or journal), and violating one's vow.




A little more on this.

The VoP does not restrict you from carrying _anything_ of value, nor does it keep you from carrying any money- just most of it.  It demands that you minimize the value of what you carry, and through this, your life, as evidence of your devotion to a particular god.  That blank spellbook pales in value next to a decent assortment of weapons.  A VoP PC could carry a Heavy Crossbow and 20 Bolts at 52gp, a nice Morningstar at 8gp, and a dagger at 2gp (all simple weapons, thus permissible)- for a grand total of 62gp.  (Note that the Vow doesn't limit the # of weapons, just their kind.)

At some point, the VoP Pc will need to reload his bolts, or at the very least, get some more food.  His foodbag has only 1 day of food.  Like anything else on his person, he'll have to pay, beg, or work to refill it.



> Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not neccessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure!  An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self denial.  The *majority* of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy, either directly...or indirectly..."



 (BoED p30-31, emphasis mine)

Note that the language used is "majority" not "all."  The VoP PC is thus presumably allowed to keep enough money to feed himself for a day, assuming he is not carrying that much food (as is mentioned on BoED p48).


> One of those exceptions is the "spell component pouch". NOT "the spell component pouch (with any expensive components, foci, etc., you can jam into it)". "The spell component pouch". This item is defined in the equipment list of the phb very clearly.




Like I said, the reason its defined the way it is so that PC's can't buy a 5gp spell component pouch and get a 300gp+ worth of spell components.  Instead, you get a simple bag with the cheap stuff thrown in, and its up to the caster to obtain the more expensive components seperately.

If, for example, it included a divine focus (usually, a holy symbol), the caster would be getting a 6gp value for 5gp.  What merchant would make THAT deal?  He's already thrown it a bunch of spices, dirt, gravel, etc. that all those wierdo spellcasters need- why give away something he can actually SELL?

A literal reading of VoP would result in scenarios like:

Diety: You have taken 2 sacred vows to me, my son, including a Vow of Poverty, so I will grant you many abilities.
Ascetic: Thank you, my lord!
Diety:  Oh, by the way, small caveat- you won't be able to turn undead, consecrate areas, raise the dead in any form, detect or protect from evil in any way...but you'll glow in the dark!
Ascetic: Ok...so what you're saying is for any of THAT stuff, I'll have to send supplicants to the corrupt bishop down the road who barely pays you lip service?
Diety: Yep.
Ascetic: Is it too late to change my mind about this vow?

Oh, and btw, VoP will bar the PC from using many of the spells from BoED (if using VoP RAW).

It will also make several of the Exalted Feats useless, so be careful and count out the number of feats you'd find useful before taking the Vow.  VoP starts off by making Consecrate Spell Trigger and Purify Spell Trigger unavailable since a VoP PC can't use Spell Trigger devices.  But on top of that, it bars others if you use VoP RAW.  Familiars are not available (too expensive to summon), so scratch _Celestial Familiar_.  You can't turn, so forget _Exalted Turning_.  You won't be able to cast _Align Weapon _(DF required) so _Sanctify Weapon_ is gone.  And _Words of Creation_ gets gutted- the Creation section is useless (most of those spells require DF), Exalted Power (usable only with Good spells, most of which require DF) and True Name (required spells have expensive components and require DF and the ability itself costs gp as well) abilities.

With that in mind, you'll have to ask yourself if a RAW VoP PC can still find enough useful Exalted feats as per the chart on BoEDp31 (which, BTW, does not include the 1st level bonus exalted feat mentioned on BoED p30).  If you take the VoP at 1st level, you'll have to find 10 or 11 useful Exalted feats (depending on race) -and don't forget that some are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 6, 2005)

It might help to think of the "VoP guy" as someone who has their own, special, spell list.  So paladins have different spells from clerics, and VoP clerics have different spells from non-VoP clerics.  No one expects the paladin to resurrect anybody, and so it is not impossible that  the VoP cleric would do different tasks than the non-VoP cleric would do.  This might help with the cognitive dissonance you are feeling.  VoP is restrictive.  It also gives the character a ton of abilities.  That is why it is a trade-off.

I would not expect wizards to take VoP until they are high enough level to have Spell Mastery under their belt.  

As for why the FAQ backs me up on divine foci, look it up.  It is a free download.  I don't have the ability to cut and paste parts of a pdf.  It basically says "Yep.  The VoP character is not meant to have divine foci, but you could house rule one in if you want."

And I can piece together 11 exalted feats.  They might not all be "the awesome !!!11!1!!" but it can be done.  There are, for instance, more vows to take.

In any case, there is no rule saying the VoP has to be taken at 1st level.  History talks about people having careers as soldiers/lords/etc., and retiring to become hermits/monks.  This vow could follow that idea.  This would solve the "Food!" problem of a pre-5th level VoP guy, as well as the "Scarcity" problem of feats.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 6, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> BoED p30
> 
> *Absolutely no mention is made of the timing of the begging.*




The fact that no mention of timing is made, actually favors my argument:

Here is my argument for why time = immediately when casting the spell.  Expensive spell components are not on the specific list under the feat Vow of Poverty.  Expensive spell components are not part of the Spell Component Pouch.  Therefore the character cannot carry expensive spell components.  They may use such, if they beg for them.  Your interpretation would allow a character to beg for 12 days worth of food at one time, and carry it around "for later use", which would similarly violate the "one day limit" of how much food one is allowed to carry.  There is a specific exception on p. 30 that allows one to use expensive spell components by begging for them (thus giving them access to spells they would otherwise be unable to cast), but no mention is made of carrying them around (the word "carry" does not appear on p. 30 in the relevant paragraph), therefore the rule under the feat about what you can carry still applies.  The rule under the feat does not allow one to carry expensive spell components.


----------



## Christian (Nov 6, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> FYI, technicaly, he also needs to take the feat to multiclass as a Paladin.




Well, no, actually ... "Pick one class. Taking levels in this class does not prevent you from taking monk levels ... If the selected class also has restricted advancement, such as the paladin class, taking monk levels does not prevent you from advancing in that class." (ECS pg. 57)


----------



## Rashak Mani (Nov 6, 2005)

I'm currently playing a human VoP Monk of 16th lvl... its quite an amazing character... but its certainly now overpowerful. His ability to survive, high AC and great saves is certainly a bit over the top. Yet these things won't kill the bad ass monster.

  All our PCs are a bit min maxed... or might I say optimised ? So the Monk compares equally to the other PCs... even if there are somethings the VoP gives that are otherwise incredible. 

   So as per rules the VoP is fine.... unless your world is magic deficient. If magic items are hard to come by then the Monk will outshine the others.


----------



## glass (Nov 6, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No, not at all.  A sorceror or wizard with VoP is too powerful.



A wizard with VoP is very weak. You can only get so many Spell Mastery feats.


glass.


----------



## Wish (Nov 6, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz, you seem to be under the impression that every class must be a valid choice for a VOP character.  I don't see why you would make that assumption.  If VOP means you're going to lose large chunks of your class abilities (as with wizards or clerics), that simply means that a VoP probably isn't the correct choice for your class.  It doesn't imply that the authors of VoP intended you to simply ignore that drawback.  Don't play a VoP wizard.  It's really simple.  Some feats just aren't for some classes, even if they qualify for them.


----------



## Goolpsy (Nov 6, 2005)

Well... i guess VoP fits best for a Monk, as other fighter types need weapons to fight properly... Casters will get hampered by the feat i think. A level 20 Cleric could get so much stronger boosting herself (for the entire day) and with the use of... i dunno... 10000 gold...


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 6, 2005)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> Well... i guess VoP fits best for a Monk, as other fighter types need weapons to fight properly




THe fighter can use simple weapons, at least (and there are some feats in Complete Warrior that give benefits for using such simple weapons as the Quarterstaff, the Light Mace, the Morningstar or the Heavy Mace).

I think a SoulKnife with VoP would be interesting, as would a Psion.


----------



## 3.5newbie (Nov 6, 2005)

At mid- to high levels, I agree that the "no magic items vs. VoP bonuses" is the critical issue. Starting a 1st level monk, I have another concern: it's highly painful to part with two feats for a starting character.

Starting with a human monk with two UA flaws you can put together a mix of six feets (including IUS). With those feats one can -- barely -- create an effective offensive package, with Imp. Int., Pwr Strike, Flying Kick, Power Attack (Iaj.), & Stunning Fist, for example.

Delete any two of those choices to lock in VoP and you'll have a character with a nice AC but is anemic offensively and behind in the race for complete MA styles and prerequistes.

I'd say VoP is pretty balanced overall, but, despite the awesome AC bonus, maybe a little bit of a disadvantage in the early game.


----------



## Goolpsy (Nov 6, 2005)

The ac isn't that awsome... a well equiped monk could easily get about +60 AC at level 20.. even get more than 70.. and STILL have like half their gold left for other interesting stuff


----------



## Hawkeye (Nov 7, 2005)

What about a character with VOP that is gifted with something like a Monk's tattoo or a power gives him another permament stat boost, but its not something they asked for.  Does that violate the vow?

Hawkeye


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 7, 2005)

Hawkeye said:
			
		

> What about a character with VOP that is gifted with something like a Monk's tattoo or a power gives him another permament stat boost, but its not something they asked for.  Does that violate the vow?
> 
> Hawkeye



 The FAQ says a tattoo or graft violates the vow and suggests that you just let him remove the tattoo or graft without gore unless you want to handle that kind of thing.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 7, 2005)

Isn't it presumptuous for one who has sworn to a life of poverty and humility to ask for the ability to raise the dead? Shouldn't he be prepared to weather the discomfort caused by undead creatures and not shelter behind his power?

Why SHOULD a wizard be allowed to gain the benefits of the VoP? Isn't he reaching beyond reality to grasp at power? That shows faith in his god how?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 7, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I think a SoulKnife with VoP would be interesting, as would a Psion.




I tried a VoP Psion in an epic game.  I didn't want to have to worry about items.

The only real issue is that there aren't any Exalted feats specifically for psions.  It's kinda annoying.

Brad


----------



## Hawkeye (Nov 7, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The FAQ says a tattoo or graft violates the vow and suggests that you just let him remove the tattoo or graft without gore unless you want to handle that kind of thing.




So, the character gets drugged or drunk and wakes up with a new magical tattoo that can't be removed.  What then?

Hawkeye


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 7, 2005)

Hawkeye said:
			
		

> So, the character gets drugged or drunk and wakes up with a new magical tattoo that can't be removed.  What then?
> 
> Hawkeye



 The same as what happens when they get stuck with a Cursed item that they cannot get rid of--they lose all vow powers until they get rid of it and Atone.  It's harsh, but those are the breaks.


----------



## Hawkeye (Nov 7, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The same as what happens when they get stuck with a Cursed item that they cannot get rid of--they lose all vow powers until they get rid of it and Atone.  It's harsh, but those are the breaks.




Well that is certainly a good way to fully screw a character.  Didn't cursed items at one time have a negative gp value?

Edit:  Or just have someone reverse pick pocket a few cursed GP on the VOP character and there goes everything.  I would think the Powers that Be would be a bit more relenting and thoughtful with that sort of thing.

Hawkeye


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 7, 2005)

Hawkeye said:
			
		

> So, the character gets drugged or drunk and wakes up with a new magical tattoo that can't be removed.  What then?
> 
> Hawkeye



 They get it dispelled ASAP and move on with things.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 7, 2005)

Hawkeye said:
			
		

> Well that is certainly a good way to fully screw a character.  Didn't cursed items at one time have a negative gp value?
> 
> Edit:  Or just have someone reverse pick pocket a few cursed GP on the VOP character and there goes everything.  I would think the Powers that Be would be a bit more relenting and thoughtful with that sort of thing.
> 
> Hawkeye



 Although if an enemy has the opportunity to do this, he probably also would have had the opportunity to take away the items from a non-VoP character.  There will always be ways to screw over a character if you are mean enough.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 7, 2005)

Hawkeye said:
			
		

> What about a character with VOP that is gifted with something like a Monk's tattoo or a power gives him another permament stat boost, but its not something they asked for.  Does that violate the vow?




Under the spirit of the rules as I would interpret them, the PC in question has a duty under his oath to make a good faith effort to rid himself of all wealth, and if that proves impossible for some bizarre reason he should avoid gaining any benefit from that wealth.

If my friend the Wizard sneakily figures out how to give me a +2 Str boost that I feel is morally inappropriate under the obligations of my oath, I would attempt to not use all my available physical Str until the time comes I can rid myself of the enchantment.  And I would probably Atone for the sake of roleplaying the Vow, even though I am unsure it would be required by the rules.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 7, 2005)

Most cursed items do not have an effect on you unless you attempt to use them.  In general, cursed items look attractively magical; being attractive and worthless looking is a bizarre combination.

As Rystil Arden says this could be harsh but it is nearly impossible to occur unless the character is extremely sloppy or the DM is out to get him.  When the DM is out to get you, nothing can really help you anyway.

The only reasonable scenario I can think of where this is likely to catch a VoP PC is if he is betrayed by another PC.  Again, if _that_ is in the cards, what can you do?


----------



## Sarellion (Nov 7, 2005)

The divine focus is the holy symbol of your faith, right? I am not so familiar with eastern religions but western monastic orders who took vows of poverty were allowed to wear a cross.

No St.Franciscus, you may not carry around this wooden cross amulet because of your vow. 

Yeah I know D&D is not reality but that´s just mindboggingly stupid.


----------



## Nyeshet (Nov 7, 2005)

The VoP has been argued _ad nauseum_ on the WotC BoED board. I think about a quarter to a third of all posts on that board are actually about this particular feat . . . .

Most there seem to agree that the vow is poorly worded, and several have openly wondered if the descriptive text and the mechanics text were perhaps written by different people - perhaps even at different times and without any communication between them prior to publishing the book. 

The lack of allowance for a divine focus, for instance, seems to be minor oversight (they included a spell pouch, after all). And while allowing for simple weapons seems like a good idea, consider the crossbows - each more expensive than most martial weapons. Technically a VoP N/PC can own and use a heavy crossbow, regularly buy numerous bolts for it (there isn't a gp limit stated anywhere, after all - just a limit on having masterwork or magical items). 

And I won't even go into the confrontations / arguments that have been made regarding using another's wand of cure wounds upon a dying companion unable to ask for it - or an item that neutralizes poison or disease, etc. I've seen so many - by RAW - lose / lose situations described there that I've finally accepted that any use of the VoP by any PC requires house rules to make up for the ambiguities, uncertainties, and loopholes in the RAW. 

- - - - -
A Monk / Soulknife is a valid and interesting choice for the VoP. The vow is not broken so long as normal wealth guidelines are being used. 

An understanding and realistic DM should allow some minor alterations to the vows pre-reqs in regards to classes with special considerations - Divine Focus, for instance, should be allowed so long as simply constructed from inexpensive material. I myself would also allow the two spells gained each level by the wizard to effectively be learned as via Spell Mastery. He would still have fewer spells known per level than the sorcerer, but at least he might be playable - for a minor NPC, anyway. 

Despite what some are saying, however, not all the classes - nor even most of them - are significantly hurt or rendered nearly unplayable through use of the VoP. 

Bards still have their voice. Barbarians are reduced to clubs rather than greatclubs (which is odd - greatclubs being martial, I mean), but otherwise are as effective as ever. Clerics need a divine focus houserule and then they're fine. A VoP cloistered cleric allowed a divine focus actually sounds rather fun to play. Druids - once houseruled for allowance of a divine focus - are similarly playable. Most of the time they'll be using their wild shape's natural armor and natural attack methods anyway. Fighters can make use of their numerous feats with simple weapons as readily as martial. Granted, their lack of armor / martial weapons decreases their AC / dmg, but then they gain some compensation from the vow itself. 

Monks are obviously what they had in mind for the vow, so there is no problem there. Paladins - allowed use of a divine focus - are as playable as ever. With this vow they come across as saint-like figures, actually. Rangers can use quarterstaffs or slings to get by as normal with their combat styles. Rogues may have a little trouble due to lack of tools, but if they really want to focus upon opening locks and disarming traps, I believe there is a dual skill feat that grants +2 to each (negating the penalty for lacking tools). Their weapon choice is a little more limited, but otherwise they are the same as ever. Sorcerers work well with it - better even than the wizard, actually, and unless a means is gained for scribing spells they will actually have more spells known than the wizard (suggesting that the PC may wish to reconsider their class, actually, if they wish to play a pure arcane casting VoP character). 

Wizards are the only core class that is significantly adversely affected. They can replace expensive components with xp costs, but the lack of a spellbook combined with a lack of automatic spellmastery of the two spells gained each level results in a caster with fewer spells known than the typical sorcerer. Even _with_ auto-spell mastery for those two spells gained each level they _still_ have fewer spells known than the sorcerer. Unless you create a houserule means of gaining more spells they are simply not viable. Perhaps allowing the learning of new spells (as if with spell mastery) if an xp cost is paid equal to what is normally used to scribe the spells into the spell book? That would equal about 500 XP per spell level, if I recall correctly (2k gp per page - one page per spell level) - a large cost, granted, but it would make the class viable (if two are auto-learned per level and xp replaces expensive components).

Hmm, I haven't much thought about the non-core base classes (hexblade, ninja, spirit shaman, warlock, etc), but except for those that scribe spells (with an attendent cost to the scribing; the new Arcanist from HoH may or may not actually have a cost for scribing) I can't see any overt problems to playing one with the VoP. As stated, any class specials with gp costs can be paid instead with xp. 

Hmm, the Samurai (with ancestral relic) may have a problem, as they are required to sacrifice a rather large quantity of gp every now and again to further empower their weapon, but I can't see why an XP cost could not be used instead. On the other hand, the weapon effectively becomes a magic weapon - expressly forbidden by the vow, so perhaps Samurai is as crippled as the Wizard.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 7, 2005)

Druids gain the most (or any character that can Polymorph).

The main disadvantage of Wildshape or Polymorph is that your magic items don't work; but the VoP bonuses still do.

Geoff.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2005)

> Your interpretation would allow a character to beg for 12 days worth of food at one time, and carry it around "for later use", which would similarly violate the "one day limit" of how much food one is allowed to carry.




No, because there is a specific limit listed for how much food a VoP PC can carry- one day's worth.



> Dannyalcatraz, you seem to be under the impression that every class must be a valid choice for a VOP character.



*
Absolutely not.*  I'm not contending that VoP is a good choice for every PC class.  However, I think that it is poorly worded, and that the best evidence thereof is how it affects Paladins and Clerics.

My contention is that VoP, alongside the other vows, is meant to help simulate a "saintly" PC by allowing the PC to make certain commitments to his deity.  In exchange for these vows, their deity grants them, for lack of a better word, "Holy powers."

Thus, VoP should be ideal for PCs who are already intensely devoted to the divine- Clerics, Druids, Monks and Paladins.  Yet the VoP RAW _guts_ 2 of those classes.

Unlike a RW saint, a VoP PC _actually loses_ powers and abilities normally attributed to saints.  Saintly beings could do things like detect evil (they would know if someone was posessed, or were sent by evil persons) and create barriers against it, cast out demons, and alleviate the sorrows of supplicants.  VoP PCs cannot do ANY of that- they cannot cast *Detect Evil (or Undead)*, *Protection from Evil* or *Magic Circle against Evil*.  They cannot help "sinners" cleanse themselves with *Atonement*.  They cannot *Bless* or use *Prayer* to aid their allies.

Instead of becoming the best living evidence of a deity's power by acting as his agent on earth, he is weakened.

Essentially, were a RW saint converted into a D&D PC with VoP, he could not do many of the things he was supposed to be able to do (as evidence of his divine favor).  Despite taking vows of poverty, chastity, and celibacy (like every other priest), Padre Pio didn't lose the ability to absolve sinners of their sins- he was still a priest- yet as a VoP PC, he couldn't perform the rite of absolution.

Or look at it this way: Examine the Domains:

Assume a cleric with VoP has the *Good* domain- excellent choice?  Nope- because of the divine focus requirement, he can only use the 4th, 6-8th level domain spells.  *Law* is much the same- only the 4th, 7th and 8th level spells are available.  *Death* is a much better choice, with viable Domain spells of 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 9th level being available!  *Destruction* is best of all- 1-6th and the 9th level spell are all available.

The saintly VoP Cleric should chose *Death & Destruction* over* Good & Law*?  Does that sound right to you?



> Isn't it presumptuous for one who has sworn to a life of poverty and humility to ask for the ability to raise the dead? Shouldn't he be prepared to weather the discomfort caused by undead creatures and not shelter behind his power?




Except raising the dead is a miracle attributed not only to Jesus, but to other holy personages through history (in many different faiths, not just Christianity).  Ditto to being beset by devils and demons.

And if a regular priest can Turn Undead, why would a deity strip this power from those he most favors?  Is he trying to get his saints killed?

"You are my blessed one, Father Ted...but you'd better run from those skeletons!"

I mean...an average believer in the faith could present a holy symbol and keep a Vampire at bay for a short time, but a VoP Cleric or Paladin is just a big squeezy bottle of blood to Count Dracula!  (That 1d4 damage from *Holy Radiance* is just going to make that blood "spicy" like a Bloody Mary with Tabasco.)



> So, the character gets drugged or drunk and wakes up with a new magical tattoo that can't be removed. What then?




If he lost control voluntarily, he'd lose his VoP abilities until he Atoned.  If he didn't, he'd keep his powers, but he wouldn't go anywhere or do anything before going someplace to have the tattoo removed or at least disenchanted.  If he delayed disenchanting that tattoo for anything but the legitimate reason of doing the deity's will, he'd lose his VoP abilities until he Atoned.



> The divine focus is the holy symbol of your faith, right? I am not so familiar with eastern religions but western monastic orders who took vows of poverty were allowed to wear a cross.
> 
> No St.Franciscus, you may not carry around this wooden cross amulet because of your vow.
> 
> Yeah I know D&D is not reality but that´s just mindboggingly stupid.




Agreed.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 7, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If he lost control voluntarily, he'd lose his VoP abilities until he Atoned.





Far as I know, there is no 'atoning' when you lose the VoP abilities. Once lost, it can't be regained.

As for a divine focus, where does it say you can't have a simple, mundane divine focus?


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2005)

Perhaps y'all aren't thinking evil enough for VoP.  I've seen a friend of mine play 2 variants on the VoP.

A Monk, and a fighter.  His plan, be completely free from item dependency.  He'd work to get high enough level to become a Forsaker.  All of that combined meant he'd simply go adventuring, take his share of the loot, destroy it, and reap the rewards.  His biggest limitation was that he couldn't get his damage levels significantly higher, than if he'd been a normal character.  His advantage, he'd get all sorts of crazy benefits and never worry about the DM taking his items away (unlike other characters in the party).

From what I could tell, he kicked some serious butt.  VoP was simply a step on the path, the Forsaker class is what the ultimate goal was.  The guy played 2 Forsakers in a row (hasn't had to make a new PC yet, nor has either PC died), that tells me there is something along that plan that is a bit over powering, if he'd continue to choose it as his favorite combo.

Janx


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2005)

> Far as I know, there is no 'atoning' when you lose the VoP abilities. Once lost, it can't be regained.




True.  But since in the hypothetical, the VoP was "under the influence," I'd allow an atonement to work since the decision was due to an altered state of consciousness.  And that only once if the intoxication was voluntary, I might add.  A god might understand a mistake made while drunk once, but never twice.

If the intoxication was invloluntary, I'd be even more lenient.



> As for a divine focus, where does it say you can't have a simple, mundane divine focus?




By a RAW interpretation of the Vow, a divine focus (DF) is not listed among the items a VoP PC may carry.

Some (including, apparently, someone who answered a FAQ) have interpreted the fact that a spell component pouch does not include a DF (or any other foci or more expensive components) to mean that a VoP PC cannot carry one of those either.  I follow the approach that a DF is not in a standard spell component pouch (as listed in the PHB) because is something that needs to be aquired seperately since:

1)  Even a wooden Divine Focus costs 20% of the value of a spell component pouch, so its extremely unlikely a merchant would just "throw one in" for free.  That rationale goes for any component ≥ 1gp in value.

2)  The most likely source of a Divine Focus is going to be the temples and clergy of the faith, not a standard merchant.

3)  Divine Foci differ from faith to faith, so there's no way a merchant would include ALL of them in a pouch or would even have all of them in stock.  Some would even be outlawed depending on politics or alignment- and note that good faiths would NOT be immune from this.  Consider the RW conflict between Islam and the other "Religions of the Book" (Judaism & Christianity): while some Islamic countries have a high tolerance for the symbology of Judaism and Christianity, some others bar any non-Islamic symbology or religious books (even if they permit the practice of the religion, its trappings may be banned).

4) It is also perfectly possible for a PC to create a DF with the appropriate craft skills.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 7, 2005)

What about, say, a Druid? They can't have a twig of mistletoe? That would break the VoP?

I think not letting a cleric have the Divine Focus because it's not considered part of spell component pouch is pretty extreme. I might agree that a 50gp silver cross might be a little much for a VoP, but a piece of wood carved into his god's holy symbol? I just can't see that (or most divine foci) not being allowed.


----------



## 3.5newbie (Nov 7, 2005)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Under the spirit of the rules as I would interpret them, the PC in question has a duty under his oath to make a good faith effort to rid himself of all wealth, and if that proves impossible for some bizarre reason he should avoid gaining any benefit from that wealth.




I have to disagree. A monk's tattos are essentially a class ability (assuming he's getting them from the PrC and nowhere else). They don't violate the vow any more the the still mind ability, for example, does. They produce spell-like effects, but rather than being analogous to magic items which produce spell-like effects, they are comparable to a spellcaster's ability to cast actual spells (which, like the tats, become available at certain levels and are usable a certain number of times per day.)

Wealth denotes something of value which can be exchanged. Magic items, cash, and property fit this description, and are covered. Spells, feats, and class abilities (including tats) do not, and are not.


----------



## Legildur (Nov 8, 2005)

From the 3.5E FAQ:



> *How does Vow of Poverty apply to a tattooed monk
> (Complete Warrior, page 82)? Are tattoos considered
> material possessions or are they more like spell-like
> abilities?*
> ...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 8, 2005)

Legildur said:
			
		

> From the 3.5E FAQ:



 The poster earlier was not talking about the PrC abilities, I believe, but rather about magical tattoos that are purchased rather than received as a class feature.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2005)

> The poster earlier was not talking about the PrC abilities, I believe, but rather about magical tattoos that are purchased rather than received as a class feature.




This I agree with 100%, and that obtaining such magical tattoos would violate the VoP stricture that an ascetic may not "use any magic item or any sort, though (he) can benefit from magic items used on your behalf..."


----------



## Nyeshet (Nov 8, 2005)

Janx said:
			
		

> He'd work to get high enough level to become a Forsaker.  All of that combined meant he'd simply go adventuring, take his share of the loot, destroy it, and reap the rewards. _(emphasis mine)_



Therein lies the error. By taking and destroying the looted magic items he was effectively using them (to empower his class features), thus breaking his vow. 

The Vow of Poverty does not mean that one is simply to live in poverty. They do not simply allow their comrads to take and use their share of the loot. It is _expected_ that one will still recieve their fair share of the loot - but not use it for themselves or their allies. Instead they seek out the destitute, those truely in need, and use the loot to aid them. Perhaps they negotiate with a local lord, giving him the nice +2 Mithril Chain Shirt he found in exchange for the lord building (or sponcering the building of) a shelter for the homeless or a new church (of a religion known for helping the pour - not one that typically deals with the wealthy, etc). Perhaps he will use his share of the gold in the last adventure to help rebuild the homes destroyed in a recent fire. 

He does _not_ waste the items (such as tossing the gold down a well or into the sea) or use them for himself (either using the items directly or "giving" them to others in exchange for later favors). The Forsaker cannot destroy any magic item looted as such would come under one or both of the prior reasons. The only benefit from the destruction (unless the object was innately evil - such as a lich's phylactery, a sentient evil weapon, an artifact / relic of an evil deity, etc) is to the Forsaker. He is both gaining from the use of the magic items (in destroying them) and wasting wealth better spent toward the betterment of others less fortunate. 

Your friend seemed so powerful because he was misinterpretting the rules and the DM didn't catch him at it. By the RAW what he was doing was not in the spirit of the vow. He should have lost it (or received a warning) after the first time he destroyed a (not innately and irrevocably evil) magic item. And considering that there are rules in the BoED for removing the taint (and subtype) of evil from such items, it is even less likely that he will ever come upon magic items he can destroy while remaining in the spirit of the vow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2005)

> ...The only benefit from the destruction (unless the object was innately evil - such as a lich's phylactery, a sentient evil weapon, an artifact / relic of an evil deity, etc) is to the Forsaker. He is both gaining from the use of the magic items (in destroying them) and wasting wealth better spent toward the betterment of others less fortunate.




I agree with most of that...

If the Forsaker only destroys evil items, I'm OK with it.  That he's benefiting from their destruction is not a problem- Ascetics are forbidden from _using_ magic items, not from benefitting from them.  They can, after all, drink a potion they have been given to heal their wounds, ride a companion's magical mount, etc.

Everything else, however, had best go to a fundraiser or something!


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 8, 2005)

By the raw, a wizard cannot gain much benefit from vop as it narfs his class abilities, however, I do not think it is too far fetched that a wizard couldn’t put two spells per a level in his spell book, but is bared from scribing the scrolls and writing spells in his spell book. Sure the book has a monetary value to another wizard, but using the basic book and only two spells a level doesn’t actually coast anything and may be appropriate. However, I think the wizard is screwed if this book gets stolen as getting a new book is expensive. 

Remember the two spells a level and the initial book are class features rather then wealth spent at first level, so it should be ok. 

I herd that from someone in a post far and away that one of the guys that wrote vop (not sure what part) said that its a major oversight not to allow a divine focus and is really just a mistake. I dont have any proof to backup this claim, but i thought i would mention it anyway.


----------



## gabrion (Nov 8, 2005)

I just want to chime in to offer a few things on this topic.

I frequent the COB at wizards and it is usually accepted that a character well suited to the feat (soulknife, monk, druid, and others depending on how your DM treats this), is better off than a standard wealth character up till about level ten.  After that things go downhill for a VoP character and by 15th level they fall far behind the party curve.

That said, I will second the point already brought up that druids are really the ideal class for this feat.  The reasons are...
The feat benefits low level character more than high level ones.  Something that helps druids before 5th level is better in a certain way than stuff that helps them after that point (wild shape).
On a similar note, feat selection for druids before 6th level is arguably less important than some other classes, so a human druid using both first level feats to get VoP won't be hurting the same way a monk or psion would.
Wild Shape!  Some of the best wild shape forms lose the benefits of equipment, so if unless you are going to be running around as a legendary ape all the time (which is a fine alternative as well), you won't really lose anything by using the VoP.
No MAD.  Unlike monks, druids only need to worry about one stat, so the fact that they can't spend money to boost multiple stats isn't really an issue.
Spellcasting.  Druids (for some crazy reason) are full casters, so they can overcome a lot of obstacles that non-casters need to use magic items to overcome.  As such they aren't limited as much by the VoP restrictions.
Exalted Feats.  A lot of these feats are of great use to druids.  Animal Friend, Intuitive Strike (if you leave your wild shape for some reason or it has a lower STR than your WIS), exalted animal companion, exalted wild shape, Nymph's Kiss (extra skill points are good for anyone), stigmata (if your DM doesn't give you extra HP for the CON change when you assume wild shape), and Touch of Golden Ice+Venomstike are all good options.  If you don't like the available feats, you can always wait till you have enough money to buy a Tome of Clear Though +5 and then take VoP the next level.

To say a few quick words about a monk, I think the class doesn't do so well with VoP.  It is nice for RPing an ascetic, but since monks are weak to begin with, careful feat and gear selection is crucial.  

Anyway, I love druids almost as much as I love clerics.  Nothing is more fun than a Venerable Jermlaine VoP druid!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2005)

> Spellcasting. Druids (for some crazy reason) are full casters, so they can overcome a lot of obstacles that non-casters need to use magic items to overcome. As such they aren't limited as much by the VoP restrictions.




Unless, of course, you are playing with VoP RAW and your druid plans on casting spells that require a DF...which many do:  The Summon Nature's Ally spells, Reincarnate, Goodberry, Control Plants, Delay Poison, Animal Shapes, Air Walk, Flaming Sphere, Freedom of Movement, etc.


----------



## Legildur (Nov 8, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The poster earlier was not talking about the PrC abilities, I believe, but rather about magical tattoos that are purchased rather than received as a class feature.



Ahaa.  I see, I see.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Hawkeye (Nov 8, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The poster earlier was not talking about the PrC abilities, I believe, but rather about magical tattoos that are purchased rather than received as a class feature.




That is exactly what I meant.

Hawkeye


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, you are playing with VoP RAW and your druid plans on casting spells that require a DF...which many do:  The Summon Nature's Ally spells, Reincarnate, Goodberry, Control Plants, Delay Poison, Animal Shapes, Air Walk, Flaming Sphere, Freedom of Movement, etc.



 So you're saying that, according to the RAW, a PoV Druid can't have a twig of Mistletoe? By that logic, then, that same Druid can't pick a flower and stick it in his (or hopefully her) hair to be cool? (Or not cool, as the case may be.)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, you are playing with VoP RAW and your druid plans on casting spells that require a DF...which many do:  The Summon Nature's Ally spells, Reincarnate, Goodberry, Control Plants, Delay Poison, Animal Shapes, Air Walk, Flaming Sphere, Freedom of Movement, etc.



Considering that the druid divine focus is an item explicitly defined as being without any gp value, I don't consider such an interpretation RAW, I'd call it punitive. Unless the same dm would de-vop a non druid VoP character who picked a wildflower to wear in her hair, I don't buy it at all.

For clerics and palys, I would never deny them a wooden DF, though it would be a nice touch if they threw a couple of ranks in craft: woodcarving and made it themselves. And once you take the nimbus or stigmata feats, as far as I'm concerned, you *are* a divine focus.   

Remember, the mature audience includes the DMs, and some logic and attention to the spirit of the rules will be needed. If you are allowing a "simple" heavy crossbow and forbidding a sprig of holly, I would rethink if VoP blongs in your game at all.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So you're saying that, according to the RAW, a PoV Druid can't have a twig of Mistletoe? By that logic, then, that same Druid can't pick a flower and stick it in his (or hopefully her) hair to be cool? (Or not cool, as the case may be.)




I independantly used that same comparison. I knew I shouldn't have stopped to spellcheck!


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 8, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I independantly used that same comparison. I knew I shouldn't have stopped to spellcheck!



 Great minds think alike.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 8, 2005)

I hate the VoP. I think it is broken and a sure-fire way to cause problems in a party. Plus it is poorly thought out. A Poverty Dude can weild a crossbow but not an axe?  That makes no sense.  

Plus the whole part about having to donate treasure to charity is a problem.  If you don't want to sully your nature by having material goods, fine, just don't take any treasure. I certainly don't want to give up a whole share of loot to someone who professes to be "above material goods."  And what are these mystical magical charities you're donating to? Are you sure giving a temple a Rod of Lordly Might is going to make the world a better place? What if the money is embezzled? Handing out piles of money to random "poor folks" is also fraught with problems; how do you decide if they are worthy of the money?  Can you be sure they are really deserving? Will throwing money at the poor people's problems solve anything?

If you're in my party and have a VoP, don't expect me to give you anything.  You get no share of the money, and if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with your abstract-source-of-exhalted-magic.


----------



## Hawkeye (Nov 8, 2005)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I hate the VoP. I think it is broken and a sure-fire way to cause problems in a party. Plus it is poorly thought out. A Poverty Dude can weild a crossbow but not an axe?  That makes no sense.
> 
> Plus the whole part about having to donate treasure to charity is a problem.  If you don't want to sully your nature by having material goods, fine, just don't take any treasure. I certainly don't want to give up a whole share of loot to someone who professes to be "above material goods."  And what are these mystical magical charities you're donating to? Are you sure giving a temple a Rod of Lordly Might is going to make the world a better place? What if the money is embezzled? Handing out piles of money to random "poor folks" is also fraught with problems; how do you decide if they are worthy of the money?  Can you be sure they are really deserving? Will throwing money at the poor people's problems solve anything?
> 
> If you're in my party and have a VoP, don't expect me to give you anything.  You get no share of the money, and if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with your abstract-source-of-exhalted-magic.




Hmmm.  You must play a lot of chaotic neutral characters.    

Hawkeye


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 8, 2005)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I hate the VoP. I think it is broken and a sure-fire way to cause problems in a party. Plus it is poorly thought out. A Poverty Dude can weild a crossbow but not an axe?  That makes no sense.
> 
> Plus the whole part about having to donate treasure to charity is a problem.  If you don't want to sully your nature by having material goods, fine, just don't take any treasure. I certainly don't want to give up a whole share of loot to someone who professes to be "above material goods."  And what are these mystical magical charities you're donating to? Are you sure giving a temple a Rod of Lordly Might is going to make the world a better place? What if the money is embezzled? Handing out piles of money to random "poor folks" is also fraught with problems; how do you decide if they are worthy of the money?  Can you be sure they are really deserving? Will throwing money at the poor people's problems solve anything?
> 
> If you're in my party and have a VoP, don't expect me to give you anything.  You get no share of the money, and if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with your abstract-source-of-exhalted-magic.



 I read that part as more optional. I don't think a VoP character MUST take a share of treasure and donate it. But he can if he is so inclined.

As for the axe vs crossbow thing, you do have a point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2005)

> So you're saying that, according to the RAW, a PoV Druid can't have a twig of Mistletoe?




Yep- that's been part of this whole thread.

See, a sprig of mistletoe or any other divine focus is not listed under the enumerated things a VoP PC may carry under the description of the feat...except POSSIBLY under the umbrella of "spell component pouch."

Some, including a person who wrote a FAQ entry, but NOT ME, believe that since such a component pouch does not include foci of any type, nor any material component above 1gp in value, that a VoP PC can NEVER put such foci or material components into such a pouch.

To which I replied:



> I follow the approach that a DF is not in a standard spell component pouch (as listed in the PHB) because is something that needs to be aquired seperately since:
> 
> 1) Even a wooden Divine Focus costs 20% of the value of a spell component pouch, so its extremely unlikely a merchant would just "throw one in" for free. That rationale goes for any component ≥ 1gp in value.
> 
> ...



+++++


> A Poverty Dude can weild a crossbow but not an axe? That makes no sense.
> 
> As for the axe vs crossbow thing, you do have a point.




Here, I disagree.  Crossbows were THE missile weapon of choice for relatively untrained troops- they're fairly simple weapons to use.  You can train somebody on the Crossbow in an amazingly short period of time (assuming you just need a certain rate of fire and aren't looking for accuracy).

Using an axe as an effective weapon (as opposed to as a tool) requires a LOT of training.  Anyone can swing one, yes- and die in seconds against even a moderately trained opponent.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yep- that's been part of this whole thread.
> 
> See, a sprig of mistletoe or any other divine focus is not listed under the enumerated things a VoP PC may carry under the description of the feat...except POSSIBLY under the umbrella of "spell component pouch."




Well, mistletoe is a component for at least one spell. So the Druid would, in fact, have what is necessary in a mundane spell component pouch to have his divine focus. So, according to the RAW, a character can in fact have a divine focus. Depending on what that focus is.

I think some people are making the mistake that the list of items in the VoP is exhaustive. I don't think it is.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Here, I disagree.  Crossbows were THE missile weapon of choice for relatively untrained troops- they're fairly simple weapons to use.  You can train somebody on the Crossbow in an amazingly short period of time (assuming you just need a certain rate of fire and aren't looking for accuracy).
> 
> Using an axe as an effective weapon (as opposed to as a tool) requires a LOT of training.  Anyone can swing one, yes- and die in seconds against even a moderately trained opponent.



but VoP has nothing to do with training. Its about belongings and the idea that you can have a weapon which is complex to produce if not to use, but not one which costs literally 1/10 as much is foolish. (specifly thinking of greatclub here)


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 8, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> but VoP has nothing to do with training. Its about belongings and the idea that you can have a weapon which is complex to produce if not to use, but not one which costs literally 1/10 as much is foolish.



 That's a good point. Many characters are proficient in a large number of weapons before they even take the vow, so it's not necessarily about training and ease of use. It should be more about simplicity and cost/value. That is why, I imagine, the quarterstaff is singeled out as a weapon of choice. Doesn't get much more simple and cheap.


----------



## gabrion (Nov 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> See, a sprig of mistletoe or any other divine focus is not listed under the enumerated things a VoP PC may carry under the description of the feat...except POSSIBLY under the umbrella of "spell component pouch."




Neither is dirt, but I bet the VoP character walking around barefoot collects quite a bit of it on his feet.  Dirt is worth money (although very little) and it is not enumerated under the VoP feat.  I hope you are consistent in saying that the dirty VoP monk has broken his vow.  

The point here is that there are a ton of things not enumerated under VoP that could be considered to have value, but are simple parts of life.  Following your logic, VoP is simply impossible for all.  As someone said above, this approach to the feat indicates that maybe the mature line shouldn't be used in your games.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm not debating the simple-martial weapon proficiency categories; I just think it is counter to the spirit of the VoP that you can use a crossbow (one of the most expensive weapons) because it is a "simple" while you can't use a cheap old axe. Or nunchuks. You can use a heavy mace, but not a hammer? Is a mace somehow less "worldly goods" than a hammer?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Here, I disagree.  Crossbows were THE missile weapon of choice for relatively untrained troops- they're fairly simple weapons to use.  You can train somebody on the Crossbow in an amazingly short period of time (assuming you just need a certain rate of fire and aren't looking for accuracy).
> 
> Using an axe as an effective weapon (as opposed to as a tool) requires a LOT of training.  Anyone can swing one, yes- and die in seconds against even a moderately trained opponent.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

> Well, mistletoe is a component for at least one spell. So the Druid would, in fact, have what is necessary in a mundane spell component pouch to have his divine focus. So, according to the RAW, a character can in fact have a divine focus. Depending on what that focus is.




As some argue, by RAW, he cannot, because the basic spell component pouch doesn't contain any foci at all, including divine foci.

Unless you are saying that a sprig of mistletoe is a non-divine focus spell component for at least one Druid spell...



> I think some people are making the mistake that the list of items in the VoP is exhaustive. I don't think it is.




I agree 100%



> The point here is that there are a ton of things not enumerated under VoP that could be considered to have value, but are simple parts of life. Following your logic, VoP is simply impossible for all. As someone said above, this approach to the feat indicates that maybe the mature line shouldn't be used in your games.




Whoa! Whoa! Whoaaaaa!  I'm not in the pro-RAW VoP camp!  In fact, I'm one of the most ardent posters AGAINST using VoP RAW.

I feel that VoP RAW does not model what it seems to be trying to model- that is, an ascetic holy man.  Why?  Because if it is interpreted in such a way that DF's are disallowed, Clerics and Paladins (presumably the most holy of a deity's followers) find their basic holy powers annihilated, and become unable to perform many of the typical duties for such a personage.

Sir Reginald, A fallen Paladin, comes to Brother Lumen...

Sir R: "Oh most holy Brother Lumen, I have violated my vow to our god, and I must set things aright in order to resume my crusade against evil!  Can you purify me, and restore me to my status?"

Br. Lumen, Regular Cleric: (casting *Atonement*) "Sir Reginald, arise and sin no more- continue to do thy good works in the name of the Shining One!"

Br. Lumen, Exalted VoP Cleric: (casting *Slay Living*) "Sir Reginald, you have failed to keep thy vow sacrosanct...would that I could purify thy soul for you have been a mighty and righteous blade in the divine hands of the Shining One.  But as one of the most holy chosen of our shared faith, I have no choice but remove the ill-formed sketch of your personage from the beauteous and perfect painting of the gods!  DIE, VILE SINNER!"

...simply because *Atonement* requires a divine focus, and *Slay Living* does not.


> I'm not debating the simple-martial weapon proficiency categories




Nor am I, not really, nor am I really concerned about the cost.  I'm just saying that a VoP PC is to be more interested in things divine than in things martial, so they would gravitate to weapons that would require less training.  Using a Crossbow effectively requires about the same amount of training as a sling, despite its cost.  In contrast, an Axe requires a lot of training to use with any skill as a weapon.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And if a regular priest can Turn Undead, why would a deity strip this power from those he most favors?  Is he trying to get his saints killed?



See, I think this is where you're making your mistake. Saints get the 'saint' template. People who are willing to give up everything for their god take vow of poverty


> "You are my blessed one, Father Ted...but you'd better run from those skeletons!"



Father Ted could always break his vow, grab a holy symbol and turn the skeletons. The ability to do so is already granted to him as one of his favoured without needing the vow. This goes for every one of your other examples. If the character is willing to break his vow, his powers come back. He also gets the nifty ability to accumulate wealth, etc. The vow is supposed to be difficult. It just happens to be quite easy on a monk.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Unless you are saying that a sprig of mistletoe is a non-divine focus spell component for at least one Druid spell...




Yep, that's what I'm saying. I'm about 90% sure that there's at least one Druid spell where mistletoe is the component. Don't remember what it is, though. (And, to be honest, I don't even know if it was 3.0 or 3.5.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

> See, I think this is where you're making your mistake. Saints get the 'saint' template. People who are willing to give up everything for their god take vow of poverty




Fair enough...but the Saint template models ONLY someone like a Jean D'arc.  The majority of saints and holy personages were not warriors in the martial sense.

Thus, my point from the real world remains- used RAW, VoP does not model what it is supposed to model.

There is not a single saint or holy personage I can name who 1) took a vow of poverty AND 2) lost power.

Examples:

Both Padre Pio and Saint Francis of Assisi took a vow of poverty.  Both are universally depicted wearing a cross.  Both remained members of the clergy and could and were expected to perform ALL the duties of a priest, including hearing confessions (the real world source from which *Atonement* was modeled).  Both were allowed to own a book of prayers.

Siddartha Gautama (Buddha) took a vow of poverty.  Then he founded a religion.  Presumably, despite his vow of poverty, he was not less powerful than those who followed him.

Mahatma Ghandi took a vow of poverty.  He was a fully practicing member of his faith.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

> Yep, that's what I'm saying. I'm about 90% sure that there's at least one Druid spell where mistletoe is the component. Don't remember what it is, though. (And, to be honest, I don't even know if it was 3.0 or 3.5.




Well, I took a look.  Of the Druid spells in 3.5 with M components that are not DF:  *Fire Seeds* requires acorns or holly berries; *Fire Seeds* requires 25gp of gold dust; *Ironwood* requires shaped wood; *Jump* requires a grashopper leg; *Longstrider* a pinch of dirt; *Move Earth* requires a bag of mixed dirt; *Spider Climb* requires eating both a live spider and bitumen; *Stoneskin* requires granite and 250gp of diamond dust; *Sympathy* requires 1500gp of crushed pearls and a drop of honey; *True Seeing* requires 250gp of an ointment made of fat, mushrooms and saffron; *Unhallow* (yes, I know its an evil spell, but I'm including it for completeness) requires herbs & oils of 1000gp, +1000gp/spell level of spell linked to the base spell.

Oddly enough, *Hallow*, not only requires the same herbs & oils, but unlike its evil counterpart, requires a divine focus.

The spell you're thinking of may be a 3.0 spell.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 9, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No, not at all.  A sorceror or wizard with VoP is too powerful.



A wizard with VoP isn't allowed to own a spellbook.  A sorcerer might indeed have an advantage.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 9, 2005)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> By the raw, a wizard cannot gain much benefit from vop as it narfs his class abilities...




Grr... nerf!  It's nerf!  Like the toy.  A nerf sword does less damage than a steel sword, hence the analogy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

Continuing the chain of thought from post #110:

Modeling any of the Apostles in D20 would require the VoP, yet they were the ones who set up the structures of the early Christian church, including the rites and rituals that spells like *Atonement* were based on, and performed such acts that spells like *Bless* and *Tongues* were based on.

And yet VoP RAW would prevent them from doing just those things...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 9, 2005)

i feel sad for anyone that reads vop and applys raw to it. You have more problems then just vop.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 9, 2005)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> i feel sad for anyone that reads vop and applys raw to it. You have more problems then just vop.



 Wait for it...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 10, 2005)

Moon-Lancer, I know you're new here, so I'm going to leave just a warning.

In the future, please refrain from blanket statements like that.  One of the things we enjoy at ENWorld is a level of civility that is not served by stirring up a raw vs. non-raw political camp debate.


----------



## Elric (Nov 10, 2005)

Is VoP overpowered in a campaign where you have a normal amount of wealth that you get to spend relatively freely?  In general, no.  Rystil has this right- the freedom to choose your magic items is worth a lot.  That said, this won't always be the case.  

It's threads like this that make me think that the D&D Rules Forum creates more problems than it solves at times.  Mutants and Masterminds (2nd edition) has a great Rule Number One: The first, and most important, rule of Mutants and Masterminds is: *Do whatever is the most fun for your game.*

People have different preferences about things like this so it's often best if they do things in different ways.  If you can't figure out how Grapple works, I assume this forum is great.  If you want to know how VoP works and everything turns into an endless ego battle played out through D&D rules- not so great.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 10, 2005)

> It's threads like this that make me think that the D&D Rules Forum creates more problems than it solves at times.




Nah...it may get heated, but it does get people thinking!  *Especially* about the way they phrase things.  This is important not just for understanding this game's rules, but any game's rules-or any kind of conceptually dense text for that matter.

Discussions like this help not only gamers, but the game designers out there (pro and would-bes).

My first year of law school, I was taking Criminal Law with a professor who had helped on (what was at the time) the most recent revision of Tx Penal law.  He was discussing a particular one when a hand in the class shot up...

A young lady who was ESL (english as a second language) was confused by the law and asked how you could apply it in a particular case.  He told her how.  She then pointed out that the language of the law didn't permit what the prof was saying.

He stopped.  Looked.  Read.  Thought.

The language of the law was seemingly very specific, but it had a second, contradictory interpretation due to a little sloppy drafting and the inherent sloppiness of English that makes it so hard for non-natives to learn.

He said he'd point out the problem to his fellow drafters, and shortly after he did, the law's language was tightened up.


----------



## amethal (Nov 10, 2005)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> Rangers can use quarterstaffs or slings to get by as normal with their combat styles.



Dammit, now you've got me wanting to play a vow of poverty Ranger.

Living off the land, getting by on nature's bounty, helping the honest folk of remote communities - and smiting the bad guys with his trademark quarterstaff. 

Couldn't you have waited until _after_ payday before making me want the BoED?


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 10, 2005)

I too feel sadness for anyone who reads a *rulebook* and for some bizarre reason comes to the conclusion that it has *rules* in it that are meant to be followed. :\ 



			
				Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> i feel sad for anyone that reads vop and applys raw to it. You have more problems then just vop.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 10, 2005)

lol. Let me clarify. I mean that looking at the words with no intention can but not always will lead to undermining the intent of what the words might be trying to say. I didn’t see that someone had posted about reading raw right above my post, i did not mean it as a personal attack in anyway. basically i was blanketing my idea with simple words because I had to get to class. 

I realize that one must understand language but not understanding the intention of that language can lead to abuse of the rules (intention can do this as well), but i see to often people who use rules to undermine intent. I also see this alot in d&d. take pun pun. when the game designers were thinking of some of the abilities pun pun uses, i am sure they were not thinking that the intention of the abilities used to could be combined to create pun pun, but exploitation of the raw as permitted it. 

A campaign played with just raw will find many soft spots in the rules. How does one continue to  play a game strictly by the rules if the rules have holes in them. Something must be used to fill theses holes. One must look at the rules and analyze how it applies to the rest of the game, and then try to figure out how it was intended to fit. 

Other times the rules have oversights. Like karmatic strike. You get an attack of opportunity when you are hit, but attacks of opportunity come before the hit, but to get the attack of opportunity you must first be hit. how does one decide if the rules are inherently flawed. adding trip with the attack of opportunity can prevent the attack of opportunity from even happening. Its a basic time paradox. You go back in time to kill your mom before you were born. What happens? Do you inherently fail no matter what you do because time and destiny are the same river? or can you actually kill your mom altering time, or creating a parallel universe? 

The raw can only go so far. intention can be used to fill the gaps. A campaign that relies only on raw will have greater problems then just the current rules that are creating problems. So I stand by statement, but i should have been more clear.

One could also argue that raw doesn’t exist, that no matter how you write something, someone will read it differently and its intention will change from person to person.

The sun is yellow.

Do I mean 

1: the sun happens to create a interpretation of a collection of radiation that hits the retina of our eyes and gets processed by our visual cortex? 

or do i mean 

2: the sun is a incarnation of yellow, and in a Socratics sense. the sun is a foundation by which we deprive and pervert the idea into a crayon called yellow?

The statement is shallow, but if i add to this statement ...

Socrates is coloring a picture using crayons
the sky is blue and the sun is yellow

This still can be ambiguous, but I can more safely assume that we are talking about #1. The sun is yellow in the sense of color.

Raw is limited in understanding, but likewise Rai (rules as indented) can be equally devastating if one is not understanding the language of which the intention was written in. the problem with Rai is that sometimes personal agendas can be mixed with the intention as it can be different from person to person. I think a small part of intention is clear to everyone (in some cases), some people just have their eyes closed or don’t care about the intention because the raw is in their favor. It has blinded me more then just once in the name of power and greed. 

Now you ask ... what’s the point? well in terms of vop we can read over and over what a vop character can and cant have. Even in raw their are arguments to what this may entail. The intention of vop i believe is to create a true carnation of someone who forgives the material in favor of immaterial. it is also intended to give up and forsake the ownership and use of magic items.

I think that vop was based off monks of the monasteries of erup and the temples of tidbit. I believe this tidbit of history needs to be added to the purpose of vop. I think their is allot of good to vop, but as written it has lots of holes and a complete misunderstand of the real vows of poverty that history has shown us. 

When dm with vop you should ask yourself, is allowing a vop character to do X breaking the intent of vop (see real life monks as part of vops balance and restrictions is the role-play aspect)  and is X unbalancing the game in terms of pure numbers and mechanics.

I was going to write about vop and clerics and druids, and the absurdity of a druid not being able to carry holly. I think other arguments have stated this argument. But let me say that I think vop should be based off allowing x item and limiting any iteam to 5 gold peaces of value. This fits the intentions of not owning something very valuable (like a cross bow). Crossbows are simple weapons to use but are complex in creation. I think a vop should even perhaps create everything they use via craft. If they can find the martial though foregoing they should be able to create it and own it (not magic items though for balance). 

What made me stop my long argument was this line its alittle to raw for me, but perhaps it will satisfy thoughs who feel raw is the letter and is the balance. 

It says a vop character can sacrifice xp for expensive components (under ramifications of poverty). A wooden divine focus is one gold peace. It is 1xp for 5 gold peaces. This by the raw… hahah… might mean that a vop character would have no need for a df because he would sacrifice the 0 xp for the 1 gold peace of a df. 

As for the druid… well I think that its silly to think that druid that picks a df off a plant and uses it, he is violating the intent of vop.  Perhaps it is not in the rules, but boed is for mature audiences, and vop is sacrificing a lot, but how does one answer questions like if a vop character gets dirt on their feat? Do the break their vow? Its not on the list… but one has to look outside of these lists and use commune sense or logic. However uncommon it may be. 

If anyone is offended don’t be, its not my intent. haha get it?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 10, 2005)

What if a VoP druid finds the rare Blood Lotus, a valuable flower (5,000 gp value) that can be used in a powerful druidic ritual.  Is it okay to take it with her and then use it in the ritual?

If so, is it okay for a VoP Wizard who goes mining for jewels to keep that 10,000 gp black sapphire he found as a spell component?  Or diving for pearls to cast spells that require those?

What if he finds a magic item lying around on the ground?

Where do you draw th line?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 10, 2005)

With roleplaying elements- ask what is the intent.

If he just found the lotus by happenstance, sure.  If he went questing for it in order to make himself a complete badass?  No.

If the mining is done by him in order to find material spell components for a spell that will permanently banish all of the evil in the world for 1 year (or some similarly other-oriented reason), especially if its at the direction of his Church or Deity, sure.

If he's just doing it to increase his personal power, no.

And if he encounters someone who could make better use of the wealth those items represent than the use for which he intended them, like a farmer about to lose his land because his crop failed, he should surrender that material component to that person.

I also want to point out that I feel that its a cop-out to let the VoP PC use material components others are carrying- its a tactic to circumvent the spirit of the VoP as surely as having someone carry extra stuff for a Paladin to use against specific opponents.

Either the ascetic can obtain and carry the material component, or he can't use it at all.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> What if a VoP druid finds the rare Blood Lotus, a valuable flower (5,000 gp value) that can be used in a powerful druidic ritual.  Is it okay to take it with her and then use it in the ritual?
> 
> If so, is it okay for a VoP Wizard who goes mining for jewels to keep that 10,000 gp black sapphire he found as a spell component?  Or diving for pearls to cast spells that require those?
> 
> ...




The line is pretty bright:  both of these cases are not acceptable.

On the other hand, finding an item and using it immediately MIGHT be permissible.  Certainly, if someone gives it to you to use you may do so - but you cannot keep it for even one round.

Clearly, the VoP does NOT work for all classes - at least not as written.

I'd like to see this vow re-written for non-exalted characters.  Requiring two feats is still okay, but I'd like to see the role-playing restriction of being "exalted" removed.

If I were to re-write it I'd allow a spell component pouch, ONE spell book (no backup copies), one no-value divine focus and maybe even one set of low-value thieves tools (no masterwork allowed).


----------



## Conaill (Nov 11, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> [...] but you cannot keep it for even one round. [...]



So then how would donating a share of treasure work in general, if the VoPper cannot even hold on to his share of teh treasure until he reaches civilization?

Does he need to ask one of his party members to hold on to the loot until he reaches an appropriate charity?


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 11, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> So then how would donating a share of treasure work in general, if the VoPper cannot even hold on to his share of teh treasure until he reaches civilization?
> 
> Does he need to ask one of his party members to hold on to the loot until he reaches an appropriate charity?



 Exactly! As someone mentioned before, it's really all about intent. I just don't think VoP can be played if the DM isn't willing to look at intent and not just star at the RAW. Doesn't hold up very well otherwise.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Exactly! As someone mentioned before, it's really all about intent. I just don't think VoP can be played if the DM isn't willing to look at intent and not just star at the RAW. Doesn't hold up very well otherwise.




Right.  Holding on to expensive spell components so you can use them later is clearly not within the intent - however, you may use magic items given from another player if you use them in the same round they are given (that's in the feat description), so I applied that to expensive spell components as being pretty similar and within the intent that you can use something that you have if you use it right away.  Otherwise - it's a violation of the vow.

I do think the vow should not only be re-written to be available for non-exalted characters, but also a mechanism put in place for atoning for breaking the vow - at least for violations that are not deliberate and/or are unintentional.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 11, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Examples:
> 
> Both Padre Pio and Saint Francis of Assisi took a vow of poverty.  Both are universally depicted wearing a cross.  Both remained members of the clergy and could and were expected to perform ALL the duties of a priest, including hearing confessions (the real world source from which *Atonement* was modeled).  Both were allowed to own a book of prayers.



While it is true that both confession and the atonement spell have similarities, they're hardly the same thing. Neither of the two individuals you list carried holy symbols for the purpose of producing miracles - they carried them to brand themselves members of a faith. Flinging miracles around has never been in the list of "things that a christian priest does".


> Siddartha Gautama (Buddha) took a vow of poverty.  Then he founded a religion.  Presumably, despite his vow of poverty, he was not less powerful than those who followed him.



He may well have been less powerful. Religion in the real world has nothing to do with |_||+1|\/|@+3 |*0\X/3|2. It's generally about who's the most enlightened, and often not even that.


> Mahatma Ghandi took a vow of poverty.  He was a fully practicing member of his faith.



Who never once dropped a flamestrike on anyone's butt.

These guys gave up all their material wealth because they thought it was the right thing to do, not to get boons from their god.

Real world religion!=D&D religion

Saint != D&D style Vow of Poverty feat.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 11, 2005)

DannyAlcatraz said:
			
		

> If the mining is done by him in order to find material spell components for a spell that will permanently banish all of the evil in the world for 1 year (or some similarly other-oriented reason), especially if its at the direction of his Church or Deity, sure.
> 
> If he's just doing it to increase his personal power, no.




Okay, following that line of thought, if a VoP Paladin's church asks him to quest for Evilsbane, a mighty Artefact Holy Avenger sword that in the hands of a paladin of his faith is the only hope to defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom, he can use the sword to attack the demons without violating his vow?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay, following that line of thought, if a VoP Paladin's church asks him to quest for Evilsbane, a mighty Artefact Holy Avenger sword that in the hands of a paladin of his faith is the only hope to defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom, he can use the sword to attack the demons without violating his vow?




I think in a case like this, the unique situation and role-playing concerns should trump a strict reading of the rules. It's clear that the VoP Paladin doesn't own the sword but it's also clear that the order wouldn't mind him using it as needed, at least for the duration of the quest and until they can reassign it to another member of the order who hasn't taken the vow of poverty.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think in a case like this, the unique situation and role-playing concerns should trump a strict reading of the rules. It's clear that the VoP Paladin doesn't own the sword but it's also clear that the order wouldn't mind him using it as needed, at least for the duration of the quest and until they can reassign it to another member of the order who hasn't taken the vow of poverty.



 But then what's the point of the Vow of Poverty?  What if I'm the player of a VoP Paladin and I take all my quests directly from the church and they're all like this, so the church always winds up lending me powerful magic items for each quest?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 11, 2005)

i would think that vop paladin couldn’t use the sword and he would have to quest for someone that could. I think this because if vop may be broken only when it counts, then vop is not really the role-play restriction it was meant to be. I remember a wrote post that was long and far away compared vop to Galahads chastity. Basically a girl wanted him, and he had made a vow to stay pure. When he denied her, she said  she would kill herself. He Denied her again, and she killed herself. He kept his vow even if it might have been the wrong thing to do at the time. To him, his vow was more important then her life. He was forced with chooseing between two wrongs, … and yada yda yada.. well  you get the picture.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> But then what's the point of the Vow of Poverty?  What if I'm the player of a VoP Paladin and I take all my quests directly from the church and they're all like this, so the church always winds up lending me powerful magic items for each quest?




As one would presume the church is roleplayed by the DM, I am not sure how this could ever be a real problem.  The church should only be lending out magic items for the most exceptional situations.  If not, the DM has already kissed goodbye any normal sense of balance as implied by the ruleset.

Under the logic of the mechanics, the VoP abilities is a compensation for the items the PC does not possess.  Is it a "problem" if a normal (non-VoP) Paladin is handed a superpowerful item for a special occasion?  Of course not.  Ditto for the VoP Paladin.

If a DM wants to make an exception for a good campaign reason, I do not see a problem with fudging mechanics so that certain items are neither wealth nor possessions.  How about a sentient weapon that contains the soul of a saint or angel?  Can such an item be possessed?  That is really a DM call.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 11, 2005)

Except that these are player characters - the exact people who go on those one in a million quests, nine times out of ten.  Hence they will spend a disproportionate amount of time precisely with those "rare" cases.  Hence while VoP would still be meaningful to NPCs, it would be much less so to to PCs.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 11, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Except that these are player characters - the exact people who go on those one in a million quests, nine times out of ten.  Hence they will spend a disproportionate amount of time precisely with those "rare" cases.  Hence while VoP would still be meaningful to NPCs, it would be much less so to to PCs.



 Exactly.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay, following that line of thought, if a VoP Paladin's church asks him to quest for Evilsbane, a mighty Artefact Holy Avenger sword that in the hands of a paladin of his faith is the only hope to defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom, he can use the sword to attack the demons without violating his vow?




No.  Period.

Not the way the vow was written - this violates both the letter and spirit of the feat as presented in BoED.

This is a way for a player to get all the advantages of the feat for her character and then side-step a key restriction.

Now, if one were to re-write the feat so that, for example, using a weapon in a case like this would impose negative levels (maybe 2) for, say, during the time the weapon was carried plus one month, than maybe this would work better.  The month of negative levels would represent atonement time for violating the vow for the greater good.

The point, I think, is to find a way to allow certain violations of the vow without opening it up for abuse.

Hmmm....  How about 1 negative level per week, cumulative, maximum 4, resets after 1 month.  Reminder:  For each negative level:  -1 on all skill and ability checks, -1 attacks and saves, -5 hit points, 1 fewer spell of the highest level.  I think that would keep abuse this in check, perhaps.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 11, 2005)

Okay, now to those who have been following my line of examples--if we head back to the Blood Lotus, worth 5,000 GP, that the PC found in the forest, or the sapphire, worth 10,000 GP, that the PC mined in the ground (and I completely agree that they should _not_ get to keep these), assuming you also think that the VoP character should get to have the 'pretty flower in the hair' , what distinguishes the other cases from the pretty flower to make it so.  Is it raw value?  In which case, what if the PC picks the Blood Lotus and puts it in her hair without knowing the cost?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 11, 2005)

A lot of real life stuff gets transmuted into material for DnD.  Although real life religion != DnD religion, there is a bit of simulationist in most games, and you are definitely going to see things based on real life sources.  For instance, Elisha drops flame strikes on some soldiers in II Kings 1:10.  (There are lots of cool druid/cleric effects in I and II Kings, btw).  While I am doubtful of the historicity of the passage, it is certainly a real life text.

Acts 3:6 has Peter saying to a crippled beggar: "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."  And the beggar is healed.  Or maybe _healed_.  

The story goes that Thomas Aquinas surprised Pope Innocent II as he was counting stacks of money. The pope said, “Brother you see that Peter can no longer say ‘Silver and gold have I none.’” 

“Quite true,” replied Aquinas, “But Peter can also no longer say to the lame man, ‘Rise up and walk.’”

Sometimes it's St. Dominic being given a tour of the Vatican.  In other versions of the story it is St. Francis.  The pope is usually unnamed, but I've seen Innocent II and Innocent IV.  The details don't really matter; it's a cool story.

And, without gettng sidetracked with real life religion, it illustrates how people might want to associate poverty (lack of silver and gold) with divine gifts. So if for some reason you are modeling miracle workers (especially saints or apostles) in D20, you might link clerical spellcasting with taking (and living) the appropriate vows. 

That said, I suspect it might be a good idea not to have the VoP be quite so black and white.  To borrow from real life rules you might have a "mitigated vow of poverty".  Or a "simple vow" as opposed to a "solemn vow."  Maybe you could compare the character's wealth to the wealth by level guidelines, and give him the difference in vow related powers.

For instance, if a 10th level character with the vow has 6th level wealth, he has the VoP benefits of a 4th level character.  They would also need permission from their superiors to use particular items, and the use would have to be justified.   A holy sword to slay the BBEG, etc..  Not just any bunch of loot.  The character would not actually own the item; he couldn't sell it or give it away, and he would have to return it at his superior's request. 

I don't know if this would be balanced, or even makes sense (I gave away my copy of BoED) but something like this might work in some cases.  But not in others: if you are running a D20 modern game with low magic, you'd probably want to require the full vow, and give nothing for mitigated or simple vows.  Lots of people in real life take a vow of poverty (I'm one of them), but it almost never applies as strictly as the BoED describes it (I have access to a computer, for instance, which I am using right now).  And almost none of these people have magical powers (at least, I don't! )


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Except that these are player characters - the exact people who go on those one in a million quests, nine times out of ten.  Hence they will spend a disproportionate amount of time precisely with those "rare" cases.  Hence while VoP would still be meaningful to NPCs, it would be much less so to to PCs.




But these quests are also designed by the DM. If he's fine with the VoP character using a quest item in certain circumstances, then that's fine. If he's not, he'll design questions where this question won't even come up.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But these quests are also designed by the DM. If he's fine with the VoP character using a quest item in certain circumstances, then that's fine. If he's not, he'll design questions where this question won't even come up.



 What if he doesn't have the time and picks up a module, like say The Temple of Elemental Evil with that ridiculous holy sword?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay, now to those who have been following my line of examples--if we head back to the Blood Lotus, worth 5,000 GP, that the PC found in the forest, or the sapphire, worth 10,000 GP, that the PC mined in the ground (and I completely agree that they should _not_ get to keep these), assuming you also think that the VoP character should get to have the 'pretty flower in the hair' , what distinguishes the other cases from the pretty flower to make it so.  Is it raw value?  In which case, what if the PC picks the Blood Lotus and puts it in her hair without knowing the cost?




WRT not knowing the cost:
Is it possible to break the VoP without knowing it? I don't see how it can be. If your character or the player honestly doesn't know that the vow is being broken, I don't see how a DM can enforce it. I'd include in this the player knowing the item's value but honestly saying that the PC would not and having the credibility to back that up.

If the player is metagaming it in order to have an expensive item, then I'd say the vow is broken.

If the vow can be broken unknowingly, with both the PC and the player not knowing and without there being a reasonably easy way to tell if the vow _would_ be broken, then I think there would be too much room for shameless DM entrapment. And that's not fair.


----------



## Scion (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> What if he doesn't have the time and picks up a module, like say The Temple of Elemental Evil with that ridiculous holy sword?




If there is absolutely no other option other than for the vop character to violate his vow then that is railroading of the worst kind.

There should always be options. I dont know much about that module but maybe they could go to a church nearby and grab someone who can weild that weapon or maybe one of the characters could commission some gloves that would allow them to weild weapon type X or something.

But, there should 'always' be options, even if they are difficult. Keeping the vow doesnt have to be easy, but violating it should never be mandatory. Especially since that basically means it is time to roll up a new character.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> What if he doesn't have the time and picks up a module, like say The Temple of Elemental Evil with that ridiculous holy sword?




From a realistic standpoint, what religious organization is going to send their minions on a quest for a powerful holy item and then not expect them to use any powers at their disposal to bring the item back? Rules be buggered, it would be silly to expect a VoP character to not use the quest item if the situation is dire enough. 
And even if the DM doesn't have a lot of time and uses modules, the quest for Temple of Elemental Evil, for example, doesn't have to be the retrieval of a holy sword. It could be bringing back proof of the banishment of the demon lord entrapped there.

Even in modules, there's usually plenty of wiggle room to pick one aspect of the adventure to be the quest rather than some item or other filthy lucre.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> ...Rules be buggered, it would be silly to expect a VoP character to not use the quest item if the situation is dire enough...




Could you give me your opinion of post #137?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 11, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No.  Period.
> 
> Not the way the vow was written - this violates both the letter and spirit of the feat as presented in BoED.
> 
> This is a way for a player to get all the advantages of the feat for her character and then side-step a key restriction.




As I see it, making an exception is  a way for the _DM_ to get all the advantages of a PC having the feat and then side-step a key restriction.

In general a good DM should not be including major quests in his campaign that would absolutely require a PC to break such a vow without clearly warning the player ahead of time.  That would be very sloppy DMing.

If a DM chooses to take the campaign outside the bounds of the general assumptions on which the rules were built, a perfectly valid choice, then some elements of the RAW will inevitably break.  The VoP feat only makes sense as written within certain general assumptions about the power balance in the campaign.  If the DM shifts the balance by introducing extremely powerful factors not anticipated by the RAW, adjustments needs to be made to the RAW.

BTW, Rystil Arden earlier in the thread made the general comment that the VoP is too powerful in a magic poor world, too weak in a magic rich one.  Throwing in major artifacts suggests a campaign which is very magic rich.  VoP is the a sucker's play in such a campaign.  The DM should either adjust the VoP or dissuade the PC from taking the VoP in the first place.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 11, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay, following that line of thought, if a VoP Paladin's church asks him to quest for Evilsbane, a mighty Artefact Holy Avenger sword that in the hands of a paladin of his faith is the only hope to defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom, he can use the sword to attack the demons without violating his vow?



_In-game_, I would say that any paladin worth his salt would gladly give up whatever personal vow he made, and all the benefits that come with it, in order to "defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom" at the request of his own church.

Personal sacrifice should pale in comparison to the greater good, and the paladin shouldn't even think twice to make that choice. Just like he shouldn't think twice to give his own *life* (let alone some ability bonuses) for the same goal.

As for breaking a promise he made to his god... if his god asks him to break that promise, who is he to refuse? Unless he believes the orders of his church contradict his gods wishes (e.g. a corrupt church hierarchy), he should follow them regardless of personal loss or prior arrangements. It would be supreme arrogance to claim that a paladin's word to his god outranks that gods wishes...


_Out of game_, I think it's probably not the best idea for a DM to put his paladin player into a situation like that. Although the paladin player should be able to figure out what to to quite easily (see above). It may lead to some cool roleplaying to strip the paladin from his VoP powers while he's in posession of the sword (which probably gives him some additional powers anyway). But it would be cruel and unfair of the DM not to restore those powers after the quest has been completed...


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> From a realistic standpoint, what religious organization is going to send their minions on a quest for a powerful holy item and then not expect them to use any powers at their disposal to bring the item back? Rules be buggered, it would be silly to expect a VoP character to not use the quest item if the situation is dire enough.




Would it be equally silly to expect a paladin to refrain from torturing people to get information on where that item is, assuming that that is the "only" way to get the item?

The biggest point that BoED makes is that the ends NEVER justify the means.  To use evil to further a good cause is explicitly disallowed.  By analogy, to use that magic item breaks VoP and one loses those benefits.  Period.

If you argue from a more utilitarian framework for your gameworld, you will have to change a lot more about the rules than VoP.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Could you give me your opinion of post #137?




I think it's a little too fiddly. I think a better alternative would be to assign some kind of atonement task to the PC once the quest is successfully completed and then consider the vow broken if the PC does nothing to advance that atonement task in good faith. 
Note that this also requires the DM to come up with the task and give the PC the chance to actually make good on it. I think a period of dedicated penance at the church or some other god-indulgent austerity would be fine, as well as embarking on a short program of good works.
Basically, since the quest had been assigned by the church in the first place, the atonement should fit in with the church and its ethics, and be interesting to role-play out as appropriate.

In general, I'm more in favor of appripriate, in character atonement to be done after the infractions are committed whether they are vow-breaking (by the rules) or paladin code-breaking.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> ...The biggest point that BoED makes is that the ends NEVER justify the means.  To use evil to further a good cause is explicitly disallowed.  By analogy, to use that magic item breaks VoP and one loses those benefits.  Period...




Correct.  That's the way it is written.  Exalted characters live to different standards than the rest of the world.

The *concept* of VoP is great, but the implementation is rather... harsh.   The biggest problem I see is the failure to include a mechanic for allowing for some sort of oath violation and atonement.

Again, I think the solution is to pull it out of the Exalted book and make it an ordinary feat chain with some mechanic that allows for penalties for violations of teh oath wihtou losing all benefits permanently.

This is where I think negative levels could be used very effectively.  There is some precedent for this type of use of negative levels, after all, of not an exact parallel.  Anyway, maybe something with negative levels and maybe even atonement on top of that - something along those lines, anyway.

No matter how it is handled, it is very clear that, as written, no owning or use of equipment is allowed except as specifically laid out in the feat.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think it's a little too fiddly. I think a better alternative would be to assign some kind of atonement task to the PC once the quest is successfully completed and then consider the vow broken if the PC does nothing to advance that atonement task in good faith. ...




Fair enough.  Your method would work, too.  My attempt was to try and find a way NOT reliant on role-playing and such so that what will happen is very predictable.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Would it be equally silly to expect a paladin to refrain from torturing people to get information on where that item is, assuming that that is the "only" way to get the item?
> 
> The biggest point that BoED makes is that the ends NEVER justify the means.  To use evil to further a good cause is explicitly disallowed.  By analogy, to use that magic item breaks VoP and one loses those benefits.  Period.
> 
> If you argue from a more utilitarian framework for your gameworld, you will have to change a lot more about the rules than VoP.




The difference is that the VoP character is on a quest for his church, presumably the earthly representatives of the very god he swore his oath to. That should mean something in the final accounting.
And if that is the only way to get the item, the DM has some explaining to do to his players.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The difference is that the VoP character is on a quest for his church, presumably the earthly representatives of the very god he swore his oath to. That should mean something in the final accounting.
> And if that is the only way to get the item, the DM has some explaining to do to his players.




Well, it's the player who chose to use VoP knowing it's limitations.  The DM really should put his players in position that cause real dilemmas for things like VoP.

The DM also should modify VoP enough to allow at least some way of atoning for failing to live up to the vow.

However, the end does NOT justify the means whatsoever for an Exalted character.  If VoP is the divine source of your power and you fail to live up to it - too bad for you!  Remember that VoP Exalted characters really do believe they are better than everyone else and have their own standards of conduct that other may simply not understand.

A "no-win" situation for a VoP character should be coinsidered a divine test.  I see three possible outcomes:

1.  The character stays true to the vow and somehow find a way to complete the mission.

2.  There is no possible way to complete the mission without violating the vow.  The gods set this up, and, if the character does give up the vow for the mission, the gods reward this decision by doing something really cool to the character.  Perhaps the lesson learned is that poverty is NOT the correct path for this characte and the gods (aka DM) retrofit the character to remove the vow and replace it with something else.

3.  The character fails to complete the mission as he sees his vow as being more important. In such a case Bad Things may happen because of the failure of the mission, as well as, no doubt, falling out of favor with the church hierarchy.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> A "no-win" situation for a VoP character should be coinsidered a divine test.  I see three possible outcomes:
> 
> 1.  The character stays true to the vow and somehow find a way to complete the mission.
> 
> ...




or 

4. The quest item desired by the church is such an exalted item that it is an honor for the faithful to use it, overriding any other vows or considerations and allowing them to bask in the glory of their god's radiance through his relics on earth.

If a VoP paladin of St. Cuthbert was sent to retrieve the actual floppy hat or cudgel of St. Cuthbert, two very holy artifacts, then I should hope that it wouldn't break their vows, of any sort, to actually use it them appropriate situations.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> or
> 
> 4. The quest item desired by the church is such an exalted item that it is an honor for the faithful to use it, overriding any other vows or considerations and allowing them to bask in the glory of their god's radiance through his relics on earth.
> 
> If a VoP paladin of St. Cuthbert was sent to retrieve the actual floppy hat or cudgel of St. Cuthbert, two very holy artifacts, then I should hope that it wouldn't break their vows, of any sort, to actually use it them appropriate situations.




See my above post.  Using either of these would MOST CERTAINLY violate the VoP.  As to what happens after that - again, see my above post.

Now, if you think it would be better if it did not violate the oath, that's fine - but that's re-writing the oath, really.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The difference is that the VoP character is on a quest for his church, presumably the earthly representatives of the very god he swore his oath to. That should mean something in the final accounting.
> And if that is the only way to get the item, the DM has some explaining to do to his players.




Allow me to rephrase:

Would it be equally silly to expect a paladin (on an exactly similar quest for his church) to refrain from torturing people to get information on where that item is, assuming that that is the "only" way to get the item?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> If a VoP paladin of St. Cuthbert was sent to retrieve the actual floppy hat or cudgel of St. Cuthbert, two very holy artifacts, then I should hope that it wouldn't break their vows, of any sort, to actually use it them appropriate situations.




"I sent you clowns to rescue the princess, not use her in an appropriate situation!"

(Okay, low blow.)

Seriously: you have sworn a vow of poverty. You had better not ever touch a holy relic with intent to use it like an owner would. The only reason for you to be bringing back a holy relic would be for someone else's glory.

This is part of why the Feat is annoying: it forces players out of certain spolight situations.

 -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

Cheiromancer, thanks for the nice quotes...saves me some time!



> *Saveomagy*
> While it is true that both confession and the atonement spell have similarities, they're hardly the same thing.






> *Atonement*
> This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject.  The creature seeking atonement must truly be repentant and desirous fo setting right its misdeeds.  PHB p201






> *Sacrament of reconciliation/Confession*
> The Catholic sacrament of penance and reconciliation is the method given by Christ to the Catholic Church by which individuals may confess sins committed after baptism and have them absolved by a priest...In order for the sacrament to be valid the penitent must do more than simply confess his known mortal sins to a priest. He must a) be truly sorry for each of the mortal sins he committed, b) have a firm intention never to commit them again, and c) perform the penance imposed by the priest. Also, in addition to confessing the types of mortal sins committed, the penitent must disclose how many times each sin was committed, to the best of his/her ability.  Catholic Catechism post Vatican II




As we can see, *Atonement* is essentially the D&D version of the sacrament of confession and reconciliation, and if you compare the texts further, you'd find that the requirements of Divine foci and prayer beads closely mirror the practice in not only the Roman rite, but the simliar practices in the Anglican church and Eastern Orthodoxy (which requires the sacrement be performed in the presence of an Icon of Jesus).

Look at it from the deity's standpoint:  Clerics and Paladins are his representatives on earth.  What good deity in his right mind would reward an expressed and avowed devotion to the deity that is beyond most of his clergy and other faithful_ by stripping away his powers_ by denying him the use of a Divine Focus?  The denial of the game mechanic of the Divine Focus removes the ability of the Cleric (and to a certain, lesser extent, the Paladin) to perform many of the basic and core duties of being within a church heirarchy.



> Okay, following that line of thought, if a VoP Paladin's church asks him to quest for Evilsbane, a mighty Artefact Holy Avenger sword that in the hands of a paladin of his faith is the only hope to defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom, he can use the sword to attack the demons without violating his vow?




The VoP is a Sacred Vow _to the deity the PC serves_.  It is evidence of the extreme devotion the PC feels for his deity...essentially "I give up everything to follow you, O Shining One."  The benefits are a 2 way street- the ascetic gains abilities to compensate him for his sacrifice, and the deity gains an exemplar on earth to whom people can point and say..."Man, I want to be like that...", drawing others to belive.

Presumably, the Shining One is not interested in having demons overrun the world.  He sends the Ascetic Paladin on a quest to recover Evilsbane (for whatever reason, the Ascetic is the only representative of the faith who can be called upon for this duty).  Presumably, Evilsbane is to be used by one of the Shining One's Paladins, of which the Ascetic is one.  However, the Ascetic feels it is not his place to use the weapon, except as a last resort.  Thus, the Ascetic will not use Evilsbane until he is given no other choice- be it the death of all other Paladins of his faith in the area, or having the demons change their plan and actually launch a preemptive strike on the Ascetic and his party- and he may even try to keep his vow until he is the last man standing...

But in the end, the deity (in the form of the DM) should not put the Ascetic in the position of keeping his vow and dooming the world or saving the world by breaking his vow, since defeating the demons and keeping the vow are* both duties to the same master*.  In other words, while use of Evilsbane may technically violate the VoP, the one who adjudicates the Vow and his Paladinly powers would most likely give him a pass on this one.



> Real world religion!=D&D religion
> 
> Saint != D&D style Vow of Poverty feat.




To which we could add Saint PrCL!=RW saint, but my point is what were the various Sacred Vows and the Saint PrCl emulating- what were their primary inspirations and models- if not the saints and other holy personages of various real world religions?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 13, 2005)

You have to be careful not to get so carried away with flavor (and real world parallels or inspirations count as flavor) that you forget how the feat was balanced.

If the feat was balanced on the consideration that you could never, ever use magic items, then allowing a VoP character to use a magic item (let alone an artifact) is not balanced.   It's like giving a character an item whose value is way over the recommended treasure per level.  A 1st level character with 15th level gear or something while the other PCs make do with their starting gp.  This is unbalanced, but sometimes you might want to do it; the story might even demand it.  As the DM you could do it, but you shouldn't say that it is balanced.

So it is, imho, with the vow of poverty.  The recommended treasure per level for a VoP character is virtually zero.  Any exceptions should be as watched as vigilantly as letting a first level halfling have a cursed ring of improved invisibility as a plot device.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

I agree, Cheiromancer.  A VoP PC using a magic item should be as rare an occurence as...C'thulhu being invited over for Kung Pao Squid at a Bar Mitzvah.

However, if the DM places the VoP PC into a_ Kobiashi Maru_ situation, where the only way out is for THAT PC to use a magic item, then the DM has no justification for stripping the Ascetic of his abilities...unless he's actually looking for a TPK.

To me, that would smack of a DM realizing he somehow erred in letting a PC take VoP in the first place, so now he has to remove the offending feat and screwing the player be damned.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 13, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Allow me to rephrase:
> 
> Would it be equally silly to expect a paladin (on an exactly similar quest for his church) to refrain from torturing people to get information on where that item is, assuming that that is the "only" way to get the item?




Again, I notice that you've put the only in quotes. Presumably, you don't really mean that's the only way to get the information and in most D&D games, that's true. Various charms and compulsions and divinations get you there without torture. So, no, it's not silly at all. 

But we are talking about very different issues here. One, torture, is notoriously unreliable even when used and there is more reliable magic available in general. The other is using a quest item that, given the VoP, is not going to remain in the PC's possession.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> ... The other is using a quest item that, given the VoP, is not going to remain in the PC's possession.




And, again, even _using_ a magic item is against the vow.

Of course a DM can change the vow or decide that it's okay to break it, if that's how he wants to play it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

My point was more like:


> *Day 1*
> 
> Deity: "Sir Reginald, my most faithful one...I call upon you to deliver Evilsbane unto the city of McGuffin-on-the-River, to deliver that, my holiest city, from the clutches of the demon horde that e'en now descendeth upon it."
> 
> ...




Hardly seems right, does it?


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 13, 2005)

Obvious answer:

"I will not break my Vow of Poverty, oh Deity.  Since we are talking right now, you can send in a Solar to take this weapon and use it to kick butt, or you can watch your favorite city fall.  I will use my mighty Karate chops in thy name, instead."


----------



## Nifft (Nov 13, 2005)

*Good* is about doing the right thing, for the right reasons (and by this I mean objective, story-book Good, not the stuff we have here in our grey-to-midnight real world).

*Good* is not about taking shortcuts.

*Good* does not want to hear "the ends required the means".

*Good* will not bow to pragmatism.

*Good* is granted miracles.

If you can't find a clever way to keep your Vow and finish the darn story arc, it's your own darn problem. Or it's your DM's problem. Either way, it's not a problem with the Vow.

 -- N

PS: Think of it this way: what if a Cleric of Lathander / Pelor / The Silver Flame was stuck in a graveyard with a Rod of Undead Legion Control, while an army of goblins attacked his favorite holy city? Would the nice Cleric's deity understand if the Cleric raised a legion of damned and screaming souls to unholy servitude _just this one time_?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

Particle_Man your answer goes DIRECTLY back to my comment about DM's forcing the PC into a corner of "use a magic item or everyone dies."  It should not be done, but if it is, he shouldn't penalize the PC & player.

You are absolutely right that if the Ascetic is in direct contact with his god, he is well within his rights to say "Take this cup from mine hands." and send another emmisary to do the job.  (Of course, the person who originally posted the scenario said that Evilsbane could only be used by a Paladin of the faith- presumably, that will not be a Solar or any other celestial angel-esque NPC.)

But, if the divine personage (as played by the DM), _to whom the vow is given, _demands the Ascetic PC use Evilsbane, then he's way off base in penalizing the PC for following the_ direct orders_ of his god.

Consider Abraham, ordered by God to slay his only son.  Abraham had his son on the altar, the knife upraised when God revealed unto Abraham a ram for sacrifice.  _God_ relented.  Had he not, Abraham would have slain his son out of devotion to God.  Would God then have damned Abraham for completing the sacrifice asked of him and violating his stricture against killing?  Doubtful.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 13, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Obvious answer:
> 
> "I will not break my Vow of Poverty, oh Deity.  Since we are talking right now, you can send in a Solar to take this weapon and use it to kick butt, or you can watch your favorite city fall.  I will use my mighty Karate chops in thy name, instead."





			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right that if the Ascetic is in direct contact with his god, he is well within his rights to say "Take this cup from mine hands." and send another emmisary to do the job.



Screw that! Sure, he can *ask*, but if he turns down a direct request from his god, he may as well kiss all his god-given powers goodbye.

The Vow of Poverty is a promise of the PC to his god, to the greater glory of that god. If the god has other plans for him, who is the PC to refuse his god? It's sheer arrogance and hubris for the PC to hold on to his vow against the wishes of his god.


----------



## brehobit (Nov 13, 2005)

I'm a big fan of the VoP, but let's look a bit smaller.  A VoP character is ambushed along with one other.  The other is bleeding to death and further more baddies are on the way.  His buddy has a potion of cure moderate wounds.  What does he do?

The BoED would argue either
a) Don't put PCs in this situation.
b) Try to stabilize the friend and pray for help.  

I'd lean more toward a than b.  Bit I don't really like either one.  Letting him use the potion  and keeping VoP leads to a slippery slope.

(Humm, could a VoP character summon a creature and have the creature give his friend the potion?  That may actually work by the rules but I dislike it a lot.)

Mark


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 13, 2005)

I find it interesting that everyone seems to assume that an Exalted character who stays Exalted but annoys their deity could lose the feat at the deity's whim.  There's nothing saying that the deity is granting the powers rather than the perfection brought about in the one taking the feat--in fact, according to the feat, you can take a vow to a cause (perhaps the cause of Poverty or something like that) and not a deity at all, if you want.


----------



## Bront (Nov 13, 2005)

Good point.  While much of the exhaulted stuff is deity specific, not all of it is.  Some of it could be the "Grace of Goodness".  Why not in a magical world?

BTW, why is it when a good player takes a vow or makes some other sacrifice, people hunt for ways to make him break it?  While it's supposed to be a challenge, there are rewards for the challenge, and it's supposed to be fun.  No need for the "Let's corupt the paladin" mindset.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Nov 13, 2005)

Here here ... if only there was a DM out there who enjoyed working with the players rather than always trying to screw them over!  Now ... where does one find one of those ...

Anyway, back on topic:  I tend to take a hard line on the VoP and *use* of non-mundane items or *spending* of money.  Its never allowed.  Sorry.  That's just the way I DM.  [I do not consider outright donation to the poor/needy/church be a part of "spending."]

But, I also never put my players in a situation where it is "Keep your vow and forget the quest OR Break the vow and finish the quest."  To me that is just bad planning on the DM.

In My Homebrew World (Key words being My and Homebrew) the church would be smart enough not to send in said VoP person alone to rescue the famed _Glorious Holy Artifact of Vow of Poverty Breaking_.  The VoP player might be sent in as an assistant to someone who could bring forth the item ... but give organized religion some credit, please.  Deities are supposed to have it all figured out.  Churches have many followers - even the secretive ones.  Find a companion (or six) for the VoP character so that the VoP character can have fun with their vow and someone else can stand in the limelight and actually tote the thing home.

VoP characters seldom get the glory for the BBEG, but they earn the respect of the commonfolk.  Seriously, if you were starving out on the street and someone came by toting the huge sword and someone else came by and gave you enough money or food so that you could eat for the rest of the week ... who would you remember?  That is the kind of glory that an exhalted character taking the VoP seeks.

And lets not forget, people.  VoP characters are not just good, they are infact exhalted.  That is significant.  Your ordinary good paladin and a VoP character need not be the same mindset at all.


----------



## Darmanicus (Nov 13, 2005)

In answer to your question VoP isn't broken at all. If anything I'd say it was slightly underpowered.

A fully equipped character according to DMG guidelines will WOP the VoP.....anyday IMHO.

And just remember, an AM field will negate a lot of those abilities as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

> I'm a big fan of the VoP, but let's look a bit smaller. A VoP character is ambushed along with one other. The other is bleeding to death and further more baddies are on the way. His buddy has a potion of cure moderate wounds. What does he do?
> 
> The BoED would argue either
> a) Don't put PCs in this situation.
> ...




This is a bit of an oddity...after all, the VoP specifically allows the Ascetic to recieve the benefits of "a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives (him)." (BoED p48).

(And, lets be honest- that is clearly an example of the Ascetic using a magic item.)

So, if he can use it on himself...he should be able to use it for another, especially since it is the buddy's potion being used for the buddy's well being.



> Screw that! Sure, he can *ask*, but if he turns down a direct request from his god, he may as well kiss all his god-given powers goodbye.




That was kinda my point.  The DM is basically not playing fair if he has the Ascetic's deity make the choice between losing his VoP-based abilities and his deity's direct demands.  (I'll even go so far as to say that this is even more the case when a VoP PC is sworn to an ideal or cause rather than a specific deity because a cause is non-sentient, and cannot make exceptions.)

His choices become:

1) Keep the Vow and lose his other abilities until he Atones (assuming he survives the encounter or his deity's wrath), or

2) Break the Vow, do as his deity demands, and lose all of his VoP abilities, or

3) Break the Vow, do as his deity demands, and keep his VoP abilities because breaking the Vow serves the greater purposes of the deity to whom he made the Vow.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 13, 2005)

I agree with alot of the posters on page five. If a dm puts a character in a position whare in both cases, he is going to loose his vop, then that’s not very mature, and the dm shouldn’t be using vop. 

(unless the dm is testing the player to see if he would break his vow. the corrent responce is that a vop charicter should uphold his vow now matter what. like aberham and god, or ghalahad and the girl, the vop charicter breaks his vow... then oops. a god that asks a vop charicter to break his vop, and takes away his vow if he doesent, then its really not a good god afterall, and shouldent be worshiped.. If he falls out of favor of a god, why couldent he just atone or find a new god?)

if vop is followed by the dm and the player, its a balanced feat. Its unbalanced when many exceptions are made (like the holy sword). 

Vop can be hard or easy depending on the dm. I like the feat. Its not far from raw to let a cleric use a wooden holy symbol, a wizard to get only 2 spells a level and only have one book, a druid use holly or to allow for craftable weapons that would have to be made without the proper faculties, tools, and the materials would have to be scrounged up or foraged. 

My dm has said that using wood shape would be ok to use a bow and arrow, as long as its not a composite. She took away crossbows because although they are simple to use, they are not simple to make and they are expensive.

She also has allowed key mundane items (like pc's mothers neckless) to be worn or use a wizards spell book to help with scrying (one could say its using the magic items, but not as its intended to be used). 

She also has allowed the vop character to gain benefit of key story items (nothing like swords) but say there is a mirror that the pc's travel through to get to plane to plane. the vop character can use things like that (in her campain), but she would never allow the character to use a wand for any reason, or use a magic iteam that is directly effecting the vop charicter, that isent just a story mechanic that is used outside of combat.

A sword can be a story mechanic, but its also combat based, so its unbalanceing for a vop charicter to get to use relecis or swords or things to fight bbeg. Now if a dm wants to have things like this, and have the vop charicter able to use final battle eq, it should not be a real iteam. Maybe allow the player (if a caster) to get a sudden use of a near epic spell, or maybe have a sword like soul reaver for a fighter, (like a mindblade) so it could never really be sold, or used persay but comes from the pc in question and goes away after the fight.

Its really the same thing, so a dm should be weary of doing things like this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

> She also has allowed key mundane items (like pc's mothers neckless) to be worn or use a wizards spell book to help with scrying (one could say its using the magic items, but not as its intended to be used).




Well, that's not really using the book as anything but as a wizard's personal property to help focus a scrying attempt...not really using the item as an item.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 13, 2005)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I'm a big fan of the VoP, but let's look a bit smaller.  A VoP character is ambushed along with one other.  The other is bleeding to death and further more baddies are on the way.  His buddy has a potion of cure moderate wounds.  What does he do?
> 
> The BoED would argue either
> a) Don't put PCs in this situation.
> ...



Well _that_ case at least is easy. Administering a potion to someone else strictly speaking is only helping the *other* person use it. So the VoP character never goes against his own vow. 

A trickier situation would be if the other person had a *wand* of CMW. In that case, the VoP character would have to use it himself.

Potions work on the user, wands work on a designated target...


----------



## Conaill (Nov 13, 2005)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> the corrent responce is that a vop charicter should uphold his vow now matter what.



Even against his own gods wishes? I don't think so...

It's not a sacrifice if you get so many powers in return that you don't want to give them up. The real test of faith should be whether the PC is willing to give up those powers to answer his god's call.

Of course, out-of-game, such choice by the player to give up the VoP should be *rewarded*, not punished. In the example way up above, the PC gets to carry some artifact sword to defeat the demon army. The DM might attach enough special powers to the sword itself to make up for the loss of VoP abilities. Or he might judge that placing the PC in the central of attention for several sessions is sufficient reward for the player. Or he might decide that the god is generous enough to let the PC keep his VoP powers while he is on this mission. In either case, the PC should not be *worse* off after fulfilling the quest, so the VoP powers should simply be reinstated, or replaced by some other benefits to make up for it.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 13, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Even against his own gods wishes? I don't think so...




If your god is telling you to do something that would violate your Paladin's Code of Honor, or your Vow of Whatever, your god is being roleplayed poorly. Your DM should be smacked. It's not a useful situation to consider.

So, let's drop it.

 -- N


----------



## Nail (Nov 13, 2005)

Is someone claiming the Vow of Poverty restrictions are independent of their god's wishes?

(shrug) Could be, I suppose, given a polytheistic universe.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Is someone claiming the Vow of Poverty restrictions are independent of their god's wishes?
> 
> (shrug) Could be, I suppose, given a polytheistic universe.



It depends on who the vow is to, I suppose. One could have an exalted character even in an atheistic universe, and the vow would be only to himself. If a VoP character has had an expereince with his specific god in making the vow, then certainly I'd consider that god to be responsible for the restrictions and benefits and able to made adjustments in either. But every exalted character does not have to be in the service of a single god, or any god.


----------



## Nail (Nov 13, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> But every exalted character does not have to be in the service of a single god, or any god.



Exactly.  

YMMV, IMC, etc.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 13, 2005)

At least according to the rules, the vow does not need to be to a god.  And for a polytheistic or irreligious exalted character, that would be rather clear-cut.  But what about the guy who makes the vow to the cause of good itself, not Pelor, but he does choose Pelor as his patron deity (though he's a Monk, so it's not like he's getting divine spells from Pelor).  Then it could indeed come up that Pelor's church conflicts with his vow.  More interesting would be someone who made the vow to the cause of good first and then impressed Pelor, becoming a Paladin of Pelor.  Pelor's Neutral Good dogma could put the player between an interesting rock and hard place--stuck between his Vow of Poverty and his Paladin's duty to follow Pelor.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 14, 2005)

I still believe a vop character should uphold his vop under any other circumstance. it balances the feat somewhat. If my characters god told me to use a sword to smite bbeg, I would tell that god, that it would violate my vow. If the god gets angry at being declined because she (ehlona) wanted my character to do something that would violate the vow, well  that god is just going to have to grow up. 

It says exaltedness shouldn’t be used as a commodity or sacrifice to stop evil. I think that some mentality should be used on sacred vow feats. Vop is not something to throw away or sacrifice for the greater good. By breaking your vow you are helping evil in the long run (even if you kill the bbeg who might have distoryed the world)  

Exaltedness isn’t so much like the human condition that we face everyday, so if one trys to understand good and evil in conventional methods, one is only going to upset themselves. This is why boed is mature. 

Read the book if you don’t understand. Its explanation of good and evil may differ from yours but it really sets things into perspective for vop.

It’s quite interesting in the campaign I am in though. We are playing with a freer alignment  system then vop should have, where nothing has a predestined alignment (except for undead) so i can’t just kill orcs because i know that all or orcs are evil in the monster manual. Also detect evil spells detect evil from your perspective (clear cutters might be evil from a druids point of view) (more like real life) its quite fun. This is probably going to add fun role play situations of moral and ethics. It’s going to get challenging trying to keep exaltedness when none is truly good or evil, or right and wrong, but its going to be fun. It’s a more exiteing challenge then trying to beat the dm. I still try to adhear to the code in boed's though.

I hope everyone has fun with vop and exalted play. It has brought up many political and social sciences and addressed many issues of thought. yay Socrates… my hero!!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2005)

> I still believe a vop character should uphold his vop under any other circumstance. it balances the feat somewhat. If my characters god told me to use a sword to smite bbeg, I would tell that god, that it would violate my vow.




My overall position on Vow vs Religion is this:
*
If the Sacred Vow and VoP are to a cause or philosophy, and the PC is devoted to a god (or vice versa), then there is a conflict that is (possibly) resolvable through roleplay.*  That is permissible.  There may even be an establishable heirarchy within the game world to help resolve such a conflict.

The real problem comes when any of the below is true:

*If the Sacred Vow and VoP are to a god, the same god the PC is devoted to, then the SV & VoP are subordinate to the PCs overall duty to his god- the god has the final say as to what the PC can get away with.*  The DM really has no business in putting a player in the position of having to decide between the relative importance of 2 divine orders from the same divine being, the Ultimately Supreme source of rules within his clergy.  Presumably, if the god is asking you to do something that is outside the bounds of your normal scope of abilities (as in, it is circumscribed by your vows to the deity), that god has a good reason, and shouldn't penalize you for doing what he asked you to do.  This is especially the case if we are dealing with a good god, as we are in this specific case.

*If the Sacred Vow and VoP are to a cause or philosophy, the same cause or philosophy the PC is devoted to, then the SV & VoP are usually subordinate to, but possibly co-equal to, the PCs overall duty to his cause or philosophy.*  There may be an in-campaign process for resolving this conflict, but its not likely.  This is the most problematic of the situations because a cause of philosophy is not, by itself, sentient, so it cannot aid in the decision making process.  If, as has been suggested, that a Cleric or Paladin devoted to a cause/philosophy is granted his abilities by any/all gods of like viewpoints, the SV & VoP may be in conflict with more than one god's desires...a recipe for a minor holy war.  Once again, it is unfair of the DM to put the player in such a situation.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 15, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Once again, it is unfair of the DM to put the player in such a situation.



Keep in mind that "unfair" may not even come into play. It's pretty easy to come up with a scenario where in-game circumstances beyond the DM's control may put the player in such a situation.

For example, what if the party is heading for a TPK, and the only one left standing is the VoP character. Should he let the hordes of hell be unleashed upon the world? Or should he pick up the Sacred Key (which had been carried by another party member) and close the portal? In a situation such as this, it's essentially up to the VoP character to judge what the will of his god would be.

If something like that came up in a game I was running, and the player chose to give up his VoP in exchange for saving the world, I would make damn sure his character would be rewarded for that action. (I would probably consult with the player and see whether he wants the VoP to be reinstated, or whether he'd want the character to take a different direction.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 15, 2005)

> It's pretty easy to come up with a scenario where in-game circumstances beyond the DM's control may put the player in such a situation.




I'm sorry, but that is a bit of a cop-out.  By definition, in-game situations are ALWAYS within the DM's control.

For example, the scenario you outlined is very similar to the Evilsbane scenario discussed previously.

Simply put, IMHO, if the Ascetic is put in a situation of VoP vs World destruction, he should not lose the benefits of his VoP because he chose the greater good.  Assuming the Ascetic is the devotee of a sentient being or beings rather than a mere philosophy, there is no logical reason why a good god would put the VoP before the good of the world and his worshipers he purports to care about, except pure _spite and pettiness._

(If the VoP is to a philosophy, and this situation arose, I'd probably HR to allow _Atonement_ to be effective.)

But regardless, its still a situation in the control of the DM.  Its up to him to consider the possibility that the Ascetic in his campaign may be the last man standing if he's designing an adventure that *requries* doing something an Ascetic cannot do.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 15, 2005)

> But regardless, its still a situation in the control of the DM. Its up to him to consider the possibility that the Ascetic in his campaign may be the last man standing if he's designing an adventure that requries doing something an Ascetic cannot do.




That's hardly fair, though--doing that would basically be allowing the player to metagame force the GM's hand away from a large number of perfectly valid possibilities that anyone but the ascetic could do and there is no in-game reason it needs to be the ascetic rather than another normal party member (unless everybody else dies).

That said, I allow Atonement due to the note on page 39 that says you can regain Exalted feat benefits with an Atonement, even after committing a truly evil act.  So if you can kill babies, atone, and get back your power, then why not get them back after saving the world by using an item and atoning?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 15, 2005)

> That said, I allow Atonement due to the note on page 39 that says you can regain Exalted feat benefits with an Atonement, even after committing a truly evil act.




Except that the BoED expressly states:



> Vow of Poverty...If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. (BoED p48)




unlike other vows that specifically allow_ Atonement _as penance, like the Vows of Abstinance, Chastity, Nonviolence, Obedience, Peace & Purity.

VoP is the exception.  No _Atonement_ allowed, RAW.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 15, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Except that the BoED expressly states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Which is why I said _I allow it_, not that it is RAW.  I'm well aware of that particular clause.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 15, 2005)

It's still pretty silly though:

"Okay next Atonement.  Brother Evilor, what did you do this time?"

"I raped virgins and sacrificed them to Grazz't.  But I realised the errors of my ways.  Can I have my Exalted feats back?  I can't do it again without my Exalted feats."

"Why certainly.  May you be atoned under the light.  There.  Next?  Brother Penurio?"

"Uhh...my companions and I tracked down a holy artefact of goodness, but they all died battling the demons to get it, so I activated it and destroyed the demon army of Grazz't that somebody seems to have summoned to our kingdom...but it broke my Vow of Poverty, though I only did it to save the defenseless folk of the land.  I am truly repentant and shall flagellate myself mightily.  Can I have my Exalted feat back?"

"Of course not!  Defendor, god of saving defenseless folk of the land despises your foul acts of inquity!  Get out of my sight!"


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 15, 2005)

in most situations, atonment wouldent work on someone who dident truely are not in remose... at least i think so...?

anway vop is a hard line to walk. It would be nice for a dm to allow atonments for vop. It would make me feel alot safer playing vop. My guess is, in that situation of enevatable world distruction, a vop charicter might minipulate a downed charicter to use the artifact, insted of himself. 

Much like Genie in disneys Aladin?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 15, 2005)

I like Rystil Arden's example.  

I think it illustrates that VoP is indeed broken; not necessarily in the sense that it is overpowered, but that whoever balanced it left no margin for error.  Even a campaign where there are no alignment dilemmas and no one has any doubts about what a paladin should do- even such a campaign could run into trouble with VoP.

__________________
[Highlight]Tales of Wyre: Compiled Sepulchrave Story Hour (updated 05-15)[/highlight]
and associated Rogue's Gallery (master list of links)


----------



## Conaill (Nov 15, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Simply put, IMHO, if the Ascetic is put in a situation of VoP vs World destruction, he should not lose the benefits of his VoP because he chose the greater good.



I would rephrase that:

_The player should not be punished_ because his VoP character chose the greater good.

This leaves open the possibility of the PC making a true sacrifice for the greater good. Otherwise, you may as well say "the DM should never kill a PC because he chose the greater good". How the player is rewarded for his roleplaying is up to the DM. Reinstatement of VoP powers after saving the world is one option. Letting him keep his VoP powers is another (although perhaps less inetersting from a pure Rp perspective). Making up for the loss fo VoP powers through other benefits would be acceptable as well.

As long as the player doesn't come away from the experience thinking "well that sucked... next time I'm following the RAW instead of roleplaying my character's beliefs accurately"...


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 15, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> I would rephrase that:
> 
> _The player should not be punished_ because his VoP character chose the greater good.
> 
> ...




Exactly.

Seems to me I said exactly this quite some number of posts ago!


----------



## Conaill (Nov 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Seems to me I said exactly this quite some number of posts ago!



Well, not *exactly* the same. Besides, great truths deserve to be repeated. 


Meanwhile, I still don't have an answer to the eminently practical question I asked earlier:

How is the VoP character supposed to donate his share of the proceeds of the adventure, if he isn't even allowed to carry the loot out of the dungeon in the first place?   

In a more extreme example: What if he is the only survivor of a near-TPK... is he allowed to gather his former companion's belongings and return them to their families or donate them to charity? Or is he obliged to leave all that wealth where it lies, no matter who it might benefit? 

How about carrying an evil artifact to its place of destruction? In this case he never intends to use it, he may not even be able to use it, or using it may only harm rather than benefit him. But there's no doubt it's actually in his _posession_...

If the RAW void the VoP under these circumstances, what would be a good houserule to deal with them? Especially for the "carrying his share of the loot to be donated" situation, which is bound to come up in most campaigns.


PS: I don't have the VoP in front of me, so if someone knows of a way around these situations within the RAW, please do pipe up!


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 16, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> How is the VoP character supposed to donate his share of the proceeds of the adventure, if he isn't even allowed to carry the loot out of the dungeon in the first place?




A question: where does it say a VoP character isn't allowed to carry stuff? The wording is "you may not own or use any material possessions, except..." Doesn't say you can't carry loot that is going to be donated. Doesn't say you can't carry a companion's gold if he's incapacitated. You just can own stuff or use it. With that wording, you could carry the party artifact strapped to your back, but if you ever use it or claim/assume ownership of it, then you've broken your vow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 16, 2005)

Actually, the real wording is:  "You may carry and use..."

Once again, another indication that the VoP is poorly written.

RAW, an Ascetic cannot carry an incapacitated person to safety, or a deceased person to a proper burial.

I'll stick to my looser version of the VoP, thank you- call it HR if you will- that conforms to the spirtit, if not the letter, of the VoP by allowing things like divine foci and dead people to be carried without penalty.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 16, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *snip*



Dannyalcatraz, _why_ did you have to go doing that? 

. . . making sense, that is. 

IT'S NOT IN THE RAW!!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 16, 2005)

Its that damn law degree...I keep looking for "drafter's intent," reading between the lines, etc. :\


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 16, 2005)

> If the RAW void the VoP under these circumstances, what would be a good houserule to deal with them? Especially for the "carrying his share of the loot to be donated" situation, which is bound to come up in most campaigns.




I would say that the most fair way to houserule it is that the VoP character is only allowed to carry objects of value in his sack if anything that enters in his sack is considered to not exist until it gets to charity (or its destination if it is something else).  That means if he is going to donate the healing potions of his part of the share to charity and he puts it in his bag and everyone in the party is about to die without those potions, he still cannot use those potions without breaking the vow.  Same goes for if they find a magic sword and give it to the VoP character to donate and then the fighter's sword is sundered the next fight--he cannot lend it to the fighter for the next battle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 16, 2005)

Actually, using a potion of curing wounds is a listed exception if a friend gives him the potion...

_which is so...FRUSTRATINGLY...inconsistent with the VoP RAW & spirit.  After all, are you really living up to your VoP if you're on your friend's luxury yacht and eating the food he gives you...from the 12 course meal?  How is drinking a potion NOT using a magic item?  And if that isn't using a magic item, how is giving it to someone else using it? ARRGH!_  

errr...back to the point...

Since they're a group possession, he could use them.  The group is giving them to him to use.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 16, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, using a potion of curing wounds is a listed exception if a friend gives him the potion...
> 
> _which is so...FRUSTRATINGLY...inconsistent with the VoP RAW & spirit.  After all, are you really living up to your VoP if you're on your friend's luxury yacht and eating the food he gives you...from the 12 course meal?  How is drinking a potion NOT using a magic item?  And if that isn't using a magic item, how is giving it to someone else using it? ARRGH!_
> 
> ...



 If a friend hands him one of the friend's potions, then he can use it, but anything the VoP character is carrying is _not_ a group possession or else his vow has been broken.  If he's carrying it, it is already a donation.


----------



## Bront (Nov 16, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, the real wording is:  "You may carry and use..."
> 
> Once again, another indication that the VoP is poorly written.
> 
> ...



This is something I discussed my GM, particularly in light of money and doing works with it.  And the line we decided on:

The VoP Player may accept money or payment, but said money and payment must go to the proper works, be it given to the poor, a charity, a god, or whatever.  It must not be used for personal gain or even for questional works (assuming the VoP is aware of the 'questions').  So, there is no reason a VoP character can't carry 20 gold, so he has coin to give to the poor he may find on the street.  He just can't buy a meal with it himself (or at least explicetly for himself, feeding everyone, including himself with the money seems fairly reasonable, depending on the cercumstances.)

The idiocy of having other PCs carry his gold and items and use them on his behalf is ludicris.  If they want potions for him, they can buy them themselves and give them to him to use if/when he needs them, but he would not ask them to buy them on his behalf, only to do what they felt is right.  Someone else carrying your wealth still means you maintain wealth, which is not the purpose of the feat.

Basicly, with any moral character, or vow, it should be worked out with the GM, and should be a matter of roleplay.  A character should feel pure in his intent when he takes an action, and a GM should take that to heart, since often morality is the spirit more than the leter of the law.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 16, 2005)

> The idiocy of having other PCs carry his gold and items and use them on his behalf is ludicris. If they want potions for him, they can buy them themselves and give them to him to use if/when he needs them, but he would not ask them to buy them on his behalf, only to do what they felt is right. Someone else carrying your wealth still means you maintain wealth, which is not the purpose of the feat.




Amen!


----------



## Conaill (Nov 16, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I would say that the most fair way to houserule it is that the VoP character is only allowed to carry objects of value in his sack if anything that enters in his sack is considered to not exist until it gets to charity (or its destination if it is something else).  That means if he is going to donate the healing potions of his part of the share to charity and he puts it in his bag and everyone in the party is about to die without those potions, he still cannot use those potions without breaking the vow.  Same goes for if they find a magic sword and give it to the VoP character to donate and then the fighter's sword is sundered the next fight--he cannot lend it to the fighter for the next battle.



Yeah, that's more or less what I'm converging to as well. 

Essentially, assume that everything that goes into the sack _is already donated_.

"I'm sorry, but I cannot give you that healing potion I am carrying in my sack. That potion is property of the poor orphans of Mudsville, and I cannot just give it to you without their permission. You wouldn't steal a healing potion from some poor orphans, now would you?"


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 16, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's more or less what I'm converging to as well.
> 
> Essentially, assume that everything that goes into the sack _is already donated_.
> 
> "I'm sorry, but I cannot give you that healing potion I am carrying in my sack. That potion is property of the poor orphans of Mudsville, and I cannot just give it to you without their permission. You wouldn't steal a healing potion from some poor orphans, now would you?"




Oh, I think it would be okay - so long as it was replaced with something of equal value!  Same for the sword.

Of course, also so long as it was being carried arond only until such time as it could be donated.  It's an abuse to carry around spares that are "bought" off the VoP character as needed.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 16, 2005)

I think when I start playing my VoP character, I'm just going to treat all treasure like Kryptonite. That should simplify things...


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 16, 2005)

Basically a Vow of Poverty dude is a slacker who wants to sleep on your couch, watch your TV, use your bathroom, etc. all the time saying he is beyond material needs.  "Dude, I am truly free from material goods, which is why I can't carry around that potion stuff. But if you see me bleeding on the ground don't hesitate to use the one you have..." Good Grief.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, using a potion of curing wounds is a listed exception if a friend gives him the potion...
> 
> _which is so...FRUSTRATINGLY...inconsistent with the VoP RAW & spirit.  After all, are you really living up to your VoP if you're on your friend's luxury yacht and eating the food he gives you...from the 12 course meal?  How is drinking a potion NOT using a magic item?  And if that isn't using a magic item, how is giving it to someone else using it? ARRGH!_
> 
> ...


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 16, 2005)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Basically a Vow of Poverty dude is a slacker who wants to sleep on your couch, watch your TV, use your bathroom, etc. all the time saying he is beyond material needs.  "Dude, I am truly free from material goods, which is why I can't carry around that potion stuff. But if you see me bleeding on the ground don't hesitate to use the one you have..." Good Grief.



 Is there a difference between that or having the party Cleric heal the VoP guy with a Cure Light Wounds spell? Unless you're saying magical healing, or any other spells cast on the VoP guy, is off limits, I don't think it's too big an issue.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Oh, I think it would be okay - so long as it was replaced with something of equal value!  Same for the sword.
> 
> Of course, also so long as it was being carried arond only until such time as it could be donated.  It's an abuse to carry around spares that are "bought" off the VoP character as needed.




Or a slightly greater value.  Then if the VoP character refuses, he is denying the profit to the orphans of mudville, which is the same as stealing from them, and so would lose his exalted status.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 16, 2005)

If you use that definition, the potential for "Exalted Bob's Swapmoot and Lend-Lease Trade-o-rama" disgusts me, though.  

"Sure, you can have that +3 sword I was going to donate to replace the one the dragon broke, Jack.  But I expect payment of equal value plus a 10% finder's fee and 100% annual interest, compounded daily.  Oh, and if you don't pay up, I'm taking a pound of flesh!--I can always atone for evil acts, but not for upsetting the most holy Vow!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 17, 2005)

> *lukelightning*
> Basically a Vow of Poverty dude is a slacker who wants to sleep on your couch, watch your TV, use your bathroom, etc. all the time saying he is beyond material needs. "Dude, I am truly free from material goods, which is why I can't carry around that potion stuff. But if you see me bleeding on the ground don't hesitate to use the one you have..." Good Grief.




Father Big Lebowski?  Brother Bill & Brother Ted?  Cardinal Jay and Bishop Silent Bob?

Pope Bob Marley?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 17, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Is there a difference between that or having the party Cleric heal the VoP guy with a Cure Light Wounds spell? Unless you're saying magical healing, or any other spells cast on the VoP guy, is off limits, I don't think it's too big an issue.



Yes there is (a difference).

The VoP guy might well have access to Cure Light Wounds himself. No problem there, either. Doesn't even have to use a freakin' focus - which is not explicitly allowed, right?

On the other hand, he has a big problem with _owning or carrying_ potions that do the exact same thing. Oh, but it's fine if that pack mule over there, er I mean that slave over there, er I mean that companion over there, carries some extra just in case the VoP guy needs them, and hands them over on demand.

The issue might only come up when everyone's out of mana or otherwise indisposed, so to speak, but hey it sure is there.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 17, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think when I start playing my VoP character, I'm just going to treat all treasure like Kryptonite. That should simplify things...




especially if you role play it that way


----------



## Conaill (Nov 17, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think when I start playing my VoP character, I'm just going to treat all treasure like Kryptonite. That should simplify things...



Until your opponents figure out they can *really* hurt you with a silver-tipped Xbow bolt! 

Hmm... do you "own" a xbow bolt if it's stuck in your butt, or are merely in posession of it? And if the latter, does the VoP character need to return it to it's proper owner, or can he donate it to charity instead?


----------



## Bront (Nov 17, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> carries some extra just in case the VoP guy needs them, *and hands them over on demand*.



Untill you added that last point, you were ok.  If Fighter X wants to carry an extra potion or two for VoP person Y, that's his perogitive, and the VoP character will be grateful he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart, but he won't demand or expect it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 17, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> Untill you added that last point, you were ok.  If Fighter X wants to carry an extra potion or two for VoP person Y, that's his perogitive, and the VoP character will be grateful he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart, but he won't demand or expect it.



It was tongue-in-cheek - "when needed" was probably the better choice than "on demand". My apologies.

It's a set of rules and attendant arguments that will often set me to nearly falling off my chair laughing. Please excuse my apparent lack of sobriety - and thus precision - therefore.


----------



## Bront (Nov 17, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> It was tongue-in-cheek - "when needed" was probably the better choice than "on demand". My apologies.
> 
> It's a set of rules and attendant arguments that will often set me to nearly falling off my chair laughing. Please excuse my apparent lack of sobriety - and thus accuracy - therefore.



No problem, but I was pointing out the difference.  The VoP is leaving it up to the good graces of his companions and his god.  It's faith.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 17, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> No problem, but I was pointing out the difference.  The VoP is leaving it up to the good graces of his companions and his god.  It's faith.



What if they don't have a god? This _was_ about a _character_ now, wasn't it? . . .


----------



## Bront (Nov 17, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> What if they don't have a god? This _was_ about a _character_ now, wasn't it? . . .



Then his god won't be there to help him then will he?


----------



## Nac_Mac_Feegle (Nov 17, 2005)

Greetings, my first post on the boards. I have read most of this thread, but I am at work shirking resposibility, so I cant read all of it 

Anyway, I am going to speak of VoP from my own perspective of a Level 18 elven Monk

My character was powerful, the stacking bonus of a monks wisdom to AC, meant if you take the stat bonus on wisdom first, dex second, then cone then strength, you become quite power, nice high AC (highest AC I have ever seen in any of our groups was 45) immune to a large number of affects, high hit chance, very decent stunning fist ability

The down side was no potions, no gear, the inability to tailor magic items to what I wanted, so no ghost touch etc, meanin incorporeal beings were a pain.

Having said that, my character was great to play, versatile, and in some situations, god-like, in others, a waste fo flesh

I had a high number of attacks, with a high probobility to hit and she worked even better when surrounded. She wore loose fitting robes, and carried only a simlpe broom to assist in paying her own way in life (The broom was only by DM consent, as it went more with the monk vision, but against the VoP rules) She carried no gold, insisting that her share was given to charity (Should have seen one party memebrs face the first time this came up, thinking the loot only had to be split 4 ways instread of 5 because of VoP   )

As a monk, she niether ate, drank or breathed, and only required 4 hours reverie per night, as a party member, she was invaluable.

To the person thinking of getting a monk drunk and sticking a tattoo on them good luck with that, monks are immune to poisons, and alcohol is a poison, thats why it has the effect it does on the human body. Add to that the fact you dont need to eat or drink, means your not "Accidentally" ever going to get drunk/drugged.

In regard to the Forsaker, the argument has been made that only destroying evil items would be suitable for the character, but a forsaker regards ALL magic as evil, so regardless, if you allow him VoP only if he destroys evil magic items, then any magic Item to a forsaker is open season

Personally, as I stated above, my monk never laid fingers on any item, there were good  aligned characetrs in the party who ensured her wishes/beliefs were respected and carried out. I saw no reason to actually burden myself with trinkets and heavy gold.

I did feel in some respects my monk was overpowered, but it mainly came in the form of versatility, certain areas she lacked, but an ill equipped party (no ghost touch) wouldnt have faired any better, and her number of attacks usually made up for shortcomings. I find the idea of a VoP Druid intriguing, and shall be hiting the books tonight to look over this Sorceror/VoP/Dragon Disciple to see how it fairs

VoP can be overpowered, and I think it does relly on a player who knows not ot oiverstpe boundaries, and is prepared to retire a character if the GM feels your overstepping the boundaries or imbalancing the party

On a side note, how the hell do you get an AC of 60-70 asuming a max levle of 20, bnest I have seen is 57 (10 Base, Dwarven Platemail +5 (13) Dex 16+ (3) Large Shield +5 (7) Sword +4 defender (+4) Improved Weapon Expertise (+10) and ring of defence +5 x2 to give 10+13+3+7+4+10+5+5 = 57)

Feegle Out


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 17, 2005)

Glad to see you like vop as much as I do. 

It sure is fun when the dm has common sense by allowing a broom (although its really just a quarterstaff as I see it… but with flavor). Its probably a simple weapon anyway so it wasent really a need to house rule.

My dm has allowed two re designs of the clubs. The first was a boken, and the other was a gauntlet made of wood and leather. Ah the versatility of the 1d6 wooden weapon. So many ways to make it cooler then fat stick and thin stick (club and staff)


Most high ac builds rely an something wonky (like mechanis darkleaf armor) or just plan strang things that would make a normally character unplayable. shape change however is a exception i think. 

Yeah, my character tends to act as if most magic items, are cursed but he is chaotic, so he doesent impose this on the other characters (a lawful character might but in no way a given) He have been taking a third of the gold so far and giving it to those who he sees in need. he dosent donate to charity as this is an institution and he feels that he can do a better finding who needs charity and who dosent. 

The problem is he usaly forgets to take the magic items so the rest of the party is almost dubble their wealth level. My character is is very strong, but from now on i think im going to try to remember to grab a third of the eq as well. I think i am going to ask the characters also too see if they have anything they want to get rid of or that they dont need ( we are at a point in the game where their is allot of poor people because they were kicked out of this one country because they are anti magic.)

I like making vop more about the evils that money can have and the corruption that it instills in others. I also added to the back story that he used a magic device and it killed a little kid by acadent. Very fun background stuff.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 17, 2005)

Welcome to the boards, Nac Mac Feegle!


----------



## Nac_Mac_Feegle (Nov 18, 2005)

Thanx for the welcome 

I had a discussion about this last night with the guy who was GM when I ran my VoP Monk. In particular, I mentioned the Subject of the very expensive flower someone brought up. If you were to get some belly button fluff, and stick it on eBay, almost gauranteed someone will buy it. Anything can have value if someone is willing to buy it.

Take a druid form a desert campain, the high level spell might require a flower found in that climate, not the one mentioned earlier, now the druid travels to temperate climes, and find a field of these flowers, and make a necklace from them, to him thay have no value except aesthetics (sp?) but to anyone else hes wearing a necklace worth 500,000 gold

Its at this point that the rule of law falls down, who is to say what is valuable, what is not.

To me a Vow of Poverty means you live of the land, and other peopels generosity, you take no part in the comforts afforded by wealth. You take what nature throws at you. If offered a bed for a night in a masion, you accept with good grace, for it has been given to you free of obligation, if all you can find for the night is a stable, then you accept that, you truely take what the world gives you, probably more in tune wiht natures whim in some respects than a druid.

You find a diamond on the floor of a mine, you pick it up, not so you can sell it and benefit, but because someone else can benefit. As long as you take no rewards of wealth, you are maintaining the vow. Picking a flower and putting it in your hair is fully acceptable. It was on the ground, and now its in your hair, so what, you are not living a life of luxury just because you put a flower in your hair, and you still dont possess the flower, and just because some idiot would pay 50,000g for it, still doesst make it a valuable possession, infact once its picked form the gournd, its dying, unless kept fresh, it may well be useless as a spell component, so now its worthless. To the VoP its still a pretty flower and worth hanging onto.

There are lots of considerations when using VoP, the most important is common sense. Water in a desert campaign is more valuable than gold, but your not going to deny a VoP character fomr carrying one days worth of water are you?

I think VoP is a great idea, lets you mess around wiht the other players, the kind that always put greed first, you take your share (in gold and magic items) and give ti to good chruches, it literally kills them inside.

As for remebering to take your stuff, you have some choices, we used to d20 roll an item between all those who could use it, so items I could use, I would roll on, and they would go into my pool of items for charity, if a PC wanted to "Donate" the gold value of what I would get for the item at a shop (half Price) to my cause, I would let him take the item, this stopped them getting all the magic items, and only giving me a cut of the final loot, which as you say, make them quite powerful.

In my youth I used to play a lot of evil character, usually NE, but I have found more fun recently playing the good guy, in a way the good guy forces you to maximise your potential more than evil, becaue an evil character takes shortcuts, and trys to use force to get his way, and if your good character cant stand up to them, they get away with murder, and its also good to try and show those who havent grown up yet, that its not always about "ph4t l3wt".

One last thing, for all those saying that a cleric cannot carry his holy symbol, but could carry a simple weapon, if the holy symbol is his focus for divine power over undead etc, isnt his holy symbol actually a weapon? It is a weapon of good over evil, you employ your gods power through this weapon to strike down evil, or to help those in need.

If your going to rule that a wooden holy symbol compromises VoP, then your campaign isnt ready for VoP.

Feegle Out


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 18, 2005)

Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
			
		

> One last thing, for all those saying that a cleric cannot carry his holy symbol, but could carry a simple weapon, if the holy symbol is his focus for divine power over undead etc, isnt his holy symbol actually a weapon? It is a weapon of good over evil, you employ your gods power through this weapon to strike down evil, or to help those in need.
> 
> If your going to rule that a wooden holy symbol compromises VoP, then your campaign isnt ready for VoP.




It does not count as a weapon.  "Weapon" (and "simple weapon") describes a set of items, listed as such, in the phb and other gamebooks.  None of those game books lists holy symbols as simple weapons.

As for your second comment, you are entitled to your own opinion, but my campaign runs just fine w/o allowing holy symbols for VoP characters, and no one seems to mind.  Personally, I think it is a sign of mature gaming, and the writer of the FAQ agrees with me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 18, 2005)

Public service, dude...I'm trying to find a BoED FAQ and I can't find one...got a link?

Ah...nevermind- I found it.



> *BoED on VoP p17 of 2005 3.5Ed FAQ*
> A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the items...A cleric who must give up his holy symbol (effectively preventing him from turning undead or casting any spell that requires a divine focus) could be a very interesting challenge for a player who's "done it all" and wants to try something unusual.




Interestingly enough, the next entry in the FAQ contemplates the combination of a Kensai taking VoP, and the writer does an interesting tap dance about how broken the combo could be...

And the entry after _that_ expressly allows the tattooed monk's tattoos as a "class feature"... as if turning undead or casting key clerical spells were not.

I've seen this kind of tap dancing in depositions and testimony.  WOTC is aware of the problem with the wording of VoP...but won't correct it.

I've said it before: IMHO, the stricture against a holy symbol is nonsensical and antithetical to the purposes of the intent of the VoP.  Its contrary to the inspirational sources of the VoP, and it removes the ability of the cleric to perform core, essential clerical duties...and I mean that not just in the game mechanical way (turning) but also in the heirarchical, day-to-day duties of a priest or holy man (the power and duty to offer absolutions and blessings, to consecrate holy ground, or sanctify the vows of others).  A priest who cannot do these things is no priest.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 18, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Public service, dude...I'm trying to find a BoED FAQ and I can't find one...got a link?



 It's in the general FAQ. It reads, "A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the item."

Of course, a strict reading of the feat disallows (as mentioned before) a flower in the hair...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 19, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> Then his god won't be there to help him then will he?



They don't have to follow a deity to take Sacred Vow (or Vow of Poverty, therefore). 

From Sacred Vow: "You have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity *or cause*, (...)" - maybe their cause will be there to help them out. Er, or something. Vow of Poverty has no explicit requirements either way.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 19, 2005)

"writer of the FAQ agrees with me."

um.. the same guy who write the polymorph section in the faq? He inset a very good sage in my opinion (which is fallible), so his view on holy symbols and that exculding them is making for a more mature game dosent hol any water for me. A mature gamer can see through the vale and understand where inspiration from vop comes from. A mature gamer is one that can deal with, and understand the spirit of the text rather then the absurdities of reading JUST the raw. (raw is ok, but sometimes doesn’t work with boed as well as other books or topics)

It’s important to understand what the raw is saying, but equally important to understand what the text means as well. Understanding game balance also comes into play. Cannot understand how any dm with any sense about them could say a druid can carry a crossbow with as many bolts as they want but can’t pick up a holly off a plant. Its non magical and is a focus, it has no value tied to wealth

Value is a hard thing to judge. what’s worthless to one person is valuable to another. If something coasts no money to posses or find, how in the world can a dm justify that its breaks vop? Is breathing air breaking vop? It doesn’t say you can posses air particles to use them right? so i guess vop character suffocates when they take the vow in order to uphold it? Yet how can a dm with a straight face can say a leaf, something with no gold value, is thematically breaking your vow to not own equipment because its not listed in the things a vop character can own? Can the one own the dirt on their feat? Can they own their memories? Can they not own bodies? What about their soul? How About their dignity? What about a holly leaf or a peace of carved wood found and made in a forest? 

spells, souls and bodies and memories can be taken and owned by someone else in d&d, thus making them possessions. All in all though, The very idea of possessions is kind of absurd and is not in anyway proven to exist or not exist. How can one judge what can be owned or not? is a druid owning a holly leaf? Or his the leaf owning the druid? One could say holy symbols are owned by the gods, not the followers that are barrowing them. 

Is it the mature or immature dm that would slam a vop charicter because of his misguilded notion of possession and value, and say having dirt on ones self is ownership and breaks vop? What about a dm that says something with no value in terms of gold, and can be found in any forest, is a violation of an oath to own no monitary things of value and never to own or use things that are magical.

Anyway I tend to think like an Indian Amarican. You cant posses another living thing … in this case holly. 

I draw the strict circle with vop and I do think it should be followed harshly but with cheap or fee holy symbols within the things a vop character can use. This is because any importants in terms of role-playing vop is lost without holy symbols (lets forget about their actual purpus in d&d for one moment.)

I think I will say this again, although let the fires consume me, using raw with vop is a mistake. It takes more then understanding what the words in a vacuum mean to understand what vop is and how it should be played. They must be judged by intent and spirit as well, and cross referenced by an understanding of game balance.

Good dms know that the rules don’t exist in a vacuum. They cant, and generally create problems if later down the road if one assumes this is true. 

The boed is a mature book becuse so much role playing is put into the balance of the game, and for someone who only sees the raw in boed isent looking at the bigger picture and is missing part of main point that it is mature book and the rules of how to understand how to use a supplemtn is slightly diffrent with boed, then lets say, one of the compleat books

It takes body and mind to be a person, why would d&d be any different? 

I think it is the sage who is the one that is not mature in this case. 

Hello sage, you may be a great guy, but your not a very good sage in my opinion. polymorph and alter self? What were you thinking? (Referring to the new faq)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2005)

Um, I think what M-L is saying is:

*RAW is a starting point for rules analysis, but not an excuse to eschew critical analysis in favor of following the rules slavishly.  If a rule clearly doesn't make sense, change it.*

IMHO, I think I've shown why Clerics, Paladins and other divine spellcasters should not be denied their Holy Symbols because of a VoP, drawing on comparisons of the real world inspirations for such classes and how those people function and are expected to act, the duties they must perform, and their D&D analogues.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Nov 20, 2005)

sometimes i am too wordy, but that is basicly what i am trying to say. Thanks for the M-L interpritation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 20, 2005)

No prob, M-L!  I actually get a kick out of editing other people's work...

I just completed an MBA this year, and spent a good portion of the last year of it on 4 teams doing 60+pg projects where, on average, 3 of the 5 contributors spoke Chinese or Japanese as a primary language.  I took on the editing duties out of a sense of survival.


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

Ok so obviously I'm a bit late into this discussion but. .  I'm deployed in Afghanistan right now and am wanting to make a Monk type character with VoP (I've done lots of research into it already but am having an extremely difficult time convincing my DM that it's not obscenely overpowered the way he thinks it is) and am just looking for some things that I could use to argue my point with, granted it's a different style of play then I'm used to since we're not using traditional DnD rules (It's a bit weird I must say)

What he's doing is giving us "Build Points" and gave us a list/chart of things we can purchase with these points, feats, skills, abilities, stats, etc. and giving us a starting gold amount of 10k (not sure if that's standard, as it's been a while since I've played last) to a group of level 5 'characters' (each player gets to start at level 5)

I've noticed in here that when it comes to VoP in a standard DnD campaign that, albeit the relatively strong start offs (Levels 1-6), that once the character starts reaching mid levels that it slowly becomes less useful than a normal character that would have access to magic items and the like, and just to note I've also offered the option to try and take some flaws (1 or 2, not that many) to try and degrade form the usefulness of it(Low Pain Threshold comes to mind to effectively eliminate the DR bonuses all the way to level 15!)


Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've said it before: IMHO, the stricture against a holy symbol is nonsensical and antithetical to the purposes of the intent of the VoP.  Its contrary to the inspirational sources of the VoP, and it removes the ability of the cleric to perform core, essential clerical duties...and I mean that not just in the game mechanical way (turning) but also in the heirarchical, day-to-day duties of a priest or holy man (the power and duty to offer absolutions and blessings, to consecrate holy ground, or sanctify the vows of others).  A priest who cannot do these things is no priest.



I think we can bypass this issue by worshiping a god whose holy symbol is your FIST planted firmly in the enemy's bruised and bleeding FACE.



> Ok so obviously I'm a bit late into this discussion but. . I'm deployed in Afghanistan right now and am wanting to make a Monk type character with VoP (I've done lots of research into it already but am having an extremely difficult time convincing my DM that it's not obscenely overpowered the way he thinks it is) and am just looking for some things that I could use to argue my point with, granted it's a different style of play then I'm used to since we're not using traditional DnD rules (It's a bit weird I must say)
> 
> What he's doing is giving us "Build Points" and gave us a list/chart of things we can purchase with these points, feats, skills, abilities, stats, etc. and giving us a starting gold amount of 10k (not sure if that's standard, as it's been a while since I've played last) to a group of level 5 'characters' (each player gets to start at level 5)
> 
> ...



I don't suppose a full casting class with a few metamagic feats is actually low on your DM's build point chart?

I know it isn't what you're going for, but I figure it's easier to play something that won't have the DM watching you like a hawk and waiting for the first excuse to nerf your character into oblivion with a looming Sword of Damocles hanging over your head.

Also, spellcasters really do have an easier time with low wealth settings than melee classes, and there are many wonderful guides on how to play spellcasters written by smart and handsome people such as this one.


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

Well see since there's really no rule on how you go about spending your points I was intending on making a Monk like character with Psionic abilities (btw my deity was going to be Ilmater) Just to try and offer some variety with my character since generally I don't try to do TOO much with my characters, I'm a fairly experienced DnD player (been playing for roughly 14 years now) and always try to do something different with most of my characters.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 9, 2011)

A monk with psionic capabilities is a good idea. Best done as a Monk2/Psychic Warrior 18 with the Talashlatora feat.


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

Dandu said:


> A monk with psionic capabilities is a good idea. Best done as a Monk2/Psychic Warrior 18 with the Talashlatora feat.




See here's the thing with that, is were not taking ACTUAL classes, it's up to us to BUY the things we want our characters to perform (for example, it costs 50 points to buy a spellcaster/psions spell/ability progression, or 50 points to buy a monk's progression)


----------



## Dandu (Sep 9, 2011)

... one of those things is overpriced compared to the other.


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

That was just an example I'm not actually fully briefed on the cost of everything, but before we get too off track. . . Is there anything I can possibly do to convince my DM to allow me to take VoP?


----------



## Dandu (Sep 9, 2011)

Well, you can point out that powergames (like me) think it's underwhelming. If that means nothing to him, then there is nothing more you can do.


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

Well I've done that and am currently awaiting a response, as I've posted SEVERAL links on the matter that it simply doesn't compare to your average adventurer in a standard campaign. Not to mention he's allowing us to be specific in our crafting proficiencies (he's even allowing us to take feats that would allow low level characters the ability to craft major artifacts)

Thanks for the advice Dandu ^^


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Sep 9, 2011)

Here's a list of what VoP provides, and what its equivalents would essentially be:

AC bonus: At 18th level, this maxes out at +10 AC.  This is the equivalent of +1 Heavy Plate (Races of Stone additional armor), so 3,000 gp, plus another +1 bonus (I think +1) to work against Brilliant Energy, so 6,000gp.

Extra feats: Some would call the extra feats priceless, but we all know the effects of many, many feats can be had for coin. For instance, getting the benefits of the Mobility feat only requires a +1 enhancement on light armor.  The other end of this spectrum is metamagic rods which go up to 170,000 GP in the DMG, and likely higher to account for Persist being a +6 modifier.  If the character has VoP at first level, he'll gain 11 more Exalted feats over his non-epic career.  This could mean the feats are worth as little as 33,000 (11x3,000) or go into the millions.  We'll get back to this another time, maybe in my own guide.

Permanent Endure Elements: Putting this on a ring would cost 1,000 gp per the custom item creation rules in the DMG, page 285.

Exalted Strike: The cost of a +5 weapon is 50,000 gp. Toss in the Good alignment for another +1, making it +6 for 72,000 gp.  This applies to all weapons wielded by the person, so going TWF might raise this to 144,000.

Sustenance: Sustaining Spoon costs 5,400 gp.

Deflection: +3 Ring of Protection costs 18,000 gp.

Resistance: +3 Cloak of Resistance costs 9,000 gp.

Ability Score Enhancement: The total costs for +8, +6, +4, +2 comes to 120,000 gp.

Natural Armor: +2 Amulet of Natural Armor costs 8,000 gp.

Mind Shielding: This one I'm mostly clueless on actually.  I'm not familiar with any items or spells that block detect thoughts, discern lies, or "detect alignment."

Damage Reduction: 10/evil at 19th level.  I'll come back to this.

Greater Sustenance: No longer need to breathe can probably be subbed by using Necklace of Adaptation, so 9,000 gp.

Energy Resistance: 15 to acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic energy.  Based upon the various resistance enhancements for armors, I'd say 30k is reasonable for 15.  Multiply by five for 15 res to all those energies, so 150,000 gp.

Freedom of Movement: Ring of Freedom of Movement costs 40,000 gp.

Regeneration: I'm not sure whether healing at 1 point per level per hour instead of per day is worth noting, especially for getting this wonderful ability at 17th level.

True Seeing: Using the DMG rules for custom items, gaining continuous True Seeing would cost 90,000 gp.

Lowballing the combined total comes out to 561,400 gp, and I say lowballing because I'm not sure of certain equivalencies.  As per DMG 135, a 20th level character is expected to accrue wealth of around 760,000 gp.  If going by its monetary "value," VoP so far is worse than having the actual wealth come normally.

Even if it's equivalent money-wise, the fact is the character has to stick to the rules or else lose the bonuses permanently means it's generally underpowered.  Exalted feats in general require the character to be PITA Good, so they're definitely restrictive at the very least, but can become hampering.


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

Wow that's fantastic. . . Thanks a bunch Jack, really appreciate it.

Matt


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 9, 2011)

Looks like he's not going to allow it, no matter how underpowered it is so. . . Oh well, back to the drawing board! Thanks everyone for the advice!


----------



## Jack Simth (Sep 9, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> AC bonus: At 18th level, this maxes out at +10 AC.  This is the equivalent of +1 Heavy Plate (Races of Stone additional armor), so 3,000 gp, plus another +1 bonus (I think +1) to work against Brilliant Energy, so 6,000gp.



With the lack of Armor Check Penalty and Arcane Spell Failure, it's more in line with Bracers of Armor than it is with Heavy Plate.  If you consider blocking incorporeal touch attacks to be in line with stopping Brilliant Energy, this is effectively +10 Bracers of Armor.


Jackinthegreen said:


> Mind Shielding: This one I'm mostly clueless on actually.  I'm not familiar with any items or spells that block detect thoughts, discern lies, or "detect alignment."



It's the same wording as the Ring of Mind Shielding at 8,000 gp.


Jackinthegreen said:


> Regeneration: I'm not sure whether healing at 1 point per level per hour instead of per day is worth noting, especially for getting this wonderful ability at 17th level.



The Ring of Regeneration is sorely overpriced at 90,000 gp.  Do note, though, that at this point you've got the equivalent of 3 or 4 rings on....


----------



## Dandu (Sep 9, 2011)

Marflarius said:


> Looks like he's not going to allow it, no matter how underpowered it is so. . . Oh well, back to the drawing board! Thanks everyone for the advice!



What we should do is figure out what point values he assigns to various abilities and bring a little shock and awe to the table.


----------



## kitcik (Sep 9, 2011)

Second that.

Post the point buys and you will have the build of the campaign within a few hours (no thanks to me).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 9, 2011)

Don't play a monk in such a game!

Any system that tries to put values on class features to have you buy them will invariably end up screwing over the monk.  For one thing, no matter how expensive spellcasting is made, I can guarantee you it will be a bargain.  Even if the DM tries to assign different costs based on value, he probably won't differentiate them enough, and if he's not very well versed in the game mechanics, will look at all the monk's class features and think they're more impressive than they actually are.  Finally, these sorts of systems seldom GIVE you points for handicapping yourself.  You'll get docked points for an unarmed damage progression and wisdom to AC, but won't get any points at all for having to fight unarmed and unarmored in the first place!  Hint: Even with the monk stuff, your fighting style is still super underpowered, it's just that now you're paying for the honor of being underpowered!

IIRC, someone once tried to turn the D&D class features into point values for such a system and found that the monk's class features utterly destroyed the points scale.  Because of the fallacies listed above.

Play a spellcaster.  A druid can rip crap apart with wildshape and it _almost_ is like punching, except you do better damage and having _spellcasting_ to fall back on, too.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 9, 2011)

Sorcerers, meanwhile get precisely two class features: spellcasting and familiars, one of which breaks the game.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 9, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Sorcerers, meanwhile get precisely two class features: spellcasting and familiars, one of which breaks the game.




Which one is it?  Is it familiars?  I bet its familiars.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 9, 2011)

Michael Silverbane said:


> Which one is it?  Is it familiars?  I bet its familiars.




It's totally familiars.  You have no idea how scary mine gets when I Poly Any Object it into a 12-headed Hydra.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 9, 2011)

Marflarius said:


> Looks like he's not going to allow it, no matter how underpowered it is so. . . Oh well, back to the drawing board! Thanks everyone for the advice!




To be honest I don't think you've missed out much. I ran a highish level game for several months and one PC wanted to play a vow of poverty monk. After three weeks he pleaded with me to let him change - the character was so boring to play, and he didn't have any of the 'extras' which made adventuring fun (as against just surviving in combat). 

A vow of poverty Druid could be pretty fearsome, but apart from that it seems a bit of a trap, really.

Cheers


----------



## kitcik (Sep 9, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> It's totally familiars. You have no idea how scary mine gets when I Poly Any Object it into a 12-headed Hydra.




I thought Silverbane's comment was pretty darn hilarious, but this was a topper response. Too bad I cannot XP.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 10, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> It's totally familiars.  You have no idea how scary mine gets when I Poly Any Object it into a 12-headed Hydra.



The lack of a familiar is what makes the Lightening Warrior balanced!


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 10, 2011)

Hmm, I have put some thought into what I could get away with in this type of campaign but. . . I'm not completely versed on the point system, but this IS what I know so far:

Class Abilities/Spell progression: 50 points
Skills: 1 point per 4 skill points
HD Upgrade (each character has a set D6 HD at each level and can upgrade accordingly):

2 points - D8
3 points - D10
4 points - D12
5 points - D20
5 points after d20 per +10 (so d20 to d20 + d10 = 5 more points)

Those costs stack as well, so if you were to upgrade from a d6 to a d20, it would cost you 14 build points.

Feats: 3 build points (basic req's, things like weapon focus and those sort of things)
5 points for tier 2 (2-3 req's) then 7 points for tier 3 (4+ req's)

At each level also, the starting 'shell of a character' you're given basically the Rogue's class progression, you can spend 3 points at each level to increase your bab by +1, and at every stat bump you can spend  an additional 10 points to get another +1 to a stat, also we're allowed races/templates that cost up to LA 2 and may spend 15 points per LA to remove it (so basically if you had an LA 2 you would start at level 3, instead of the base 5 we're creating the characters at, but if you spend 30 points, you can remove the LA but still retain the bonuses)

Also we may spend 3 points at each level to raise a specific save by +1 OR we can spend 5 points to raiseall the saves by +1

Edit 2: There isa difference when paying for the class abilities and spell progression for a character, for example, the 50 points spent towards spell progression will give you EACH spell under a spellcasters list of spells for every level that you are allowed up to (so you can spend 50 points, and get all spells in a Wizard spell list so long as you meet the required level)

Edit 3: Forgot most important part: We start with 150 points at level 1, and roll the character up to level 5, gaining 10 points per level, so essentially have 190 build points to spend, and we start off with 10k gold*


----------



## kitcik (Sep 10, 2011)

I want to make sure I understand the spellcasting. If you spent 50 points on arcane spellcasting and you are now 5th level, does that mean you get access to all of the wizard spell lists for 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells with the spells per day of a 5th level caster? 

I think this is what it means since you only get 340 build points over the life of the character so if you had to spend 50 per spell level you could only get 6th level spells max.

Please verify,


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 10, 2011)

Yes once you spend the 50 points you get the entire classes spell progression, spells per day, everything involving that spellcaster for 50 points (you don't need to spend anymore points on spells or anything related therein)


----------



## Marflarius (Sep 10, 2011)

Might I suggest we should probably make a separate thread for this topic, since the original discussion on VoP has reached its end?


----------



## kitcik (Sep 10, 2011)

New thread: good idea. Make a starting post that refers to this thread and also gives the point system. I will copy over this response.

Bad news: I am not the top caster-builder, by far. Dandu or others I am sure will comment when they are awake.

Good news: I know broken when I see it.

This is basically like gestalt and if you forgo some bells and whistles you could even triple gestalt.

100 points: full wizard and cleric spellcasting

Should he buy another class' abilities? I mean, for 50 he could get the full abilities of a non-caster progression class or PrC with abilities that are broken with a dual full caster. Maybe like Warblade - take defensive stuff like Iron Heart Surge and build towards White Raven Tactics? Anyway, someone will think of the most broken combo.

Enough skill points to keep Concentration and Spellcraft maxed, with some knowledges thrown in.

All the good metamagic feats, eventually taking Arcane Thesis multiple times for extreme brokenness.

Be an anthropomorphic bat (Savage Species).

Max Int & Wis, some Con, dump Dex, Str, Cha?

Bump saves as you can (this is one reason not to add another class' abilities - you would have plenty to spend on saves each level.

Anyway, that is a first pass. This will be an insane character.


----------

