# Vow of Poverty: Power Analysis



## gfunk (Dec 4, 2003)

I found this excellent posts over on the WotC boards.

This was posted by *Trachmyr:*



> [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]_First I'll try to break down the VoP into a gp amount, and yes I know it's been done before... just consider this a "second opinion."_
> 
> *"Exalted" AC Bonus*
> Equivalent to Bracers of Armor +5 and a Mithral Light Shield +4 (Thus no spell failure, Armor check penalty or max dex limit).
> ...



[/font]


----------



## jasamcarl (Dec 5, 2003)

The VoP might very well be overpowered, but a straight item gp comparison is not the way to prove it. This is because there are a LOT of less than optimum item configurations possible at high levels that come out to the same gp amount. The balance assumption the game makes is that you will make the optimum choice for equipment give your level and class abilities. This is one case where flexibility most certainly equates with power. Thus, you have to compare the optimum equipment list for any given single classed character with the utility the limited feat selection Vow of Poverty provides provides.


----------



## daTim (Dec 5, 2003)

I would go so far as to say many of the bonus are worth more than listed there. They can never be stolen, lost, broken or sundered, etc.


----------



## Pax (Dec 5, 2003)

The first thing I decided in the Exodus arena (see SIG) was to remove the bonus feats form the Vow of Poverty.

  As for the analysis posted above: if you take the Vow *later* in your "life", you could have used manuals (etc) to increase your attributes, and THOSE benefits you would *keep*.

  So price that +8 enhancement to one attribute as an Epic item ... 640,000gp.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 5, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> The balance assumption the game makes is that you will make the optimum choice for equipment give your level and class abilities.




I disagree. I belieev that the balance assumption that the game makes is that a character will normally have developed his portfolio of magic items over time, so the 20th level character doesn't normally have a flat 760,000gp worth of stuff (or whatever), but he has whatever he had at 19th level + an x00,000gp worth of additional equipment.

There are terrible balance problems which appear when a DM allows a player to create a PC at 14th level with carte blanche to spend the appropriate gp value for that character level - because he could use all the cash to obtain things optimised for his own level, including more high-value items. An adventurer who has worked his way up from 1st level will, of necessity, have had many lower-value items forming a portion of his wealth.

Of course a DM -could- allow a PC to cash in everything and purchase a whole new bunch of stuff at the next level if he wants to, nothing to stop that. But I don't think that is the baseline assumed in the game.

Cheers


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 5, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> IThere are terrible balance problems which appear when a DM allows a player to create a PC at 14th level with carte blanche to spend the appropriate gp value for that character level - because he could use all the cash to obtain things optimised for his own level, including more high-value items. An adventurer who has worked his way up from 1st level will, of necessity, have had many lower-value items forming a portion of his wealth.




We've never seen this be a problem.  In fact, when we build higher-level PCs, those people (like me) who don't like their characters to be wearing magic items like Christmas tree ornaments -- and so concentrate the wealth in fewer items -- tend to be substantially less powerful, gear-wise, than others.  (We almost have to _force_ the power-gamer in our group to buy at least a little high-ticket stuff, rather than loading up on myriad utility items.)  It's a function of the geometric cost increases in the magic items.

Although the DM is of course free to impose any restrictions he wants, he'd be much better advised to limit the upper number of magic items than the upper price, if he's concerned about PC balance.


----------



## jayaint (Dec 5, 2003)

I agree for the most part with the analysis above. The only thing to consider is that while all of those items were kind of engineered to *match* the abilities of the VoP-ascetic, the next time the group stumbles across a +(epic)x sword/ring/headband/etc... who is the ONE person in the party who is going to be unable to be even considered for it?? It doesn't matter what the DM lays down in front of the party as spoils of war, gifts from quests, etc... The VoP-ascetic has no choice but to turn his back and let the rest of the party decide who gets to use all that cool stuff. Its a very static class. You have to realize that you are going to KNOW the magical-limits of a VoP character at every step along the way. 

I understand that the VoP'er has a right to his/her share of the party booty (hehe... booty) but that it CANNOT factor into the character's abilities, bonuses, etc at any point.

just a thought from a newly formed VoP-addict.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 5, 2003)

This seems pretty damning to me.  No VOP in my games.


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 5, 2003)

The monk in my epic campaign has Vow of Poverty. He got it after first having built a non-VoP version. The main differences between the two versions were that the VoP charater's AC was lower, but his save were higher.

We haven't had any troubles with it from a balance perspective yet.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 6, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> There are terrible balance problems which appear when a DM allows a player to create a PC at 14th level with carte blanche to spend the appropriate gp value for that character level - because he could use all the cash to obtain things optimised for his own level, including more high-value items. An adventurer who has worked his way up from 1st level will, of necessity, have had many lower-value items forming a portion of his wealth.




Yes, there are advantages to making, say, a 14th level character, but I would say the problems are greater for feat selection than wealth.  Using vanilla DMG wealth levels roughly half the wealth of a fresh 14th level character was gained in levels 13 & 12.  The amount of wealth gained in levels 1-9 is negligible, especially if you consider how likely the bushel of low value items were to have been sold.  What will a 14th level character do with a +1 sword once he captures a +3 sword?


----------



## Endur (Dec 6, 2003)

Yes, I agree regarding the Vow of Poverty.  

And, if anything, the Vow of Poverty is worth more.  I think the feats are underpriced if you are playing a Monk.  The Monk can get a lot of very good feats out of the Exalted Deeds book.

On the other hand, non-monk classes tend to suffer on the exalted feat list.  

Best Vow of Poverty characters seem to be Monks, Sorcerors, and Druids.


----------



## jasamcarl (Dec 6, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I disagree. I belieev that the balance assumption that the game makes is that a character will normally have developed his portfolio of magic items over time, so the 20th level character doesn't normally have a flat 760,000gp worth of stuff (or whatever), but he has whatever he had at 19th level + an x00,000gp worth of additional equipment.
> 
> There are terrible balance problems which appear when a DM allows a player to create a PC at 14th level with carte blanche to spend the appropriate gp value for that character level - because he could use all the cash to obtain things optimised for his own level, including more high-value items. An adventurer who has worked his way up from 1st level will, of necessity, have had many lower-value items forming a portion of his wealth.
> 
> ...




I was referring to level by level purchases, not lump sums. Even with purchases spread out over time, the pc without VoP has more flexibility to optmize. 

I don't buy the straight gp analysis for the reasons already stated.  There are just too many ways to 'waste' the by level gp wealth of a pc or npc. I want to see specific character builds with VoP and a side by side comparison of the utility of one pc to the party versus the other. That is really the only way to prove which is more powerful.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 6, 2003)

> TOTAL VALUE: 1,071,124
> This compared to 760,000, the standard starting wealth for level 20. The VoP character winds up with 311,124 more in value by my calculations.




I do buy this analysis at all.

A grabbag of interesting abilities is never as potent as a incrementally built up theme.  If you just tally abilities, the Paladin and Monk would be the most potent classes in the game at any level; real play demonstrates that they are both very weak at low levels.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 6, 2003)

Looking at the analysis, I'm convinced.  No VoP in my game.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 6, 2003)

I talked about it with another DM last night and we had similar thoughts about it. Both of us agreed that the feats put it over the top. I believe the feats were added to make up for the lack of flexibility offered by the Vow, but there are simply too many. As my friend put it, a Fighter would gain a feat every single level. Now, sans the feats (or with less), the VoP looks balanced to us.

Personally, I wouldn't play one. Having a character so totally inflexible as to not be able to adapt to any situation brought before him and completely relying on other party memebers for utilitary abilities (flying, healing, etc) is not the character I would play. I still refuse to pay specialist wizards for this reason, and this is very much in the saime vein.

My fellow DM said he would find it an interesting character, and if I find myself DMing a new game in the future, he might take in. In that case, we'd probably lower the bonus feats and playtest like that. I don't think it would be too powerful. We're talking a character who can't even carry around potions here. And costly spell components are right out (as is a spell book).

All in all, I think it needs some minor tweaking with the bonus feats and it would be a fine feat/template. The lack of flexibility would make up for the apparent imbalance of wealth/level.

Lastly, this analysys takes a 20th level character build as it's only comparison point, and while it may be valid, that doesn't constitute enough of my game for it to offer any relevant information on the feat to me personally. So the comparison is useless in this case.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 7, 2003)

One of the large problems with the VOP is that the taker of the feat is still expected to take a normal share of the treasure to donate to the needy IIR, and this will likely rub the party the wrong way.


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 8, 2003)

Who here has actualy used the feat in their game? Of those who have, did you see any problems with it?

The character in my Epic game has only been with the party for two sessions, so we don't have enough evidence currently to say either way if its overpowered. But here's what I've seen so far:

The party is currently going through the Bloodstone Trilogy (their just about to go into the mines). In the first session he joind the party and they fought a large battle with some hired Mag mercenaries on their side againt a bandit army and their epic leaders.

The monk in question spent most of his time fighting an advanced orpse Gatherer. He managed to do quite a bit of damage, but didn't outshine the other characters in either offense or defense.

The next session had the party attacking the bandits at their army camp. Again they used Maug mercenaries to keep the army busy and only faced the epic leaders. The monk dropped in the first real round of combat due to an assassin's death attack. Being the only member of the party without heavy fortification really ruined his day.

So far there haven't been any real problems.

Anyoe have any first hand experiences with the feat? The only other account of the feat that I've read about involves an entire party using it, and they apparently just narrowly escaped starvation in the desert because they couldn't own anything to carry all their food on.


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 8, 2003)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> One of the large problems with the VOP is that the taker of the feat is still expected to take a normal share of the treasure to donate to the needy IIR, and this will likely rub the party the wrong way.




This hasn't been a problem in our game. They wouldn't begrudge him his share if he wanted to keep the money and gear, so why should they begrudge his donating it to charity? Besides, since he doesn't really care what he gets, he can take his share from items that the party wouldn't use anyway.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 8, 2003)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> This hasn't been a problem in our game. They wouldn't begrudge him his share if he wanted to keep the money and gear, so why should they begrudge his donating it to charity? Besides, since he doesn't really care what he gets, he can take his share from items that the party wouldn't use anyway.



The thing is, if the monk had taken his fair share of the items to use, then the rest of the party might still see benefit from them.  i.e. A _Carpet of Flying_ or a _Mirror of Mental Prowess_, or whatever.  But the VoP character gives away all items, including those that a standard character would keep that would benefit the party as a whole.  His entire gp value is focused on his combat ability.  By extension, the rest of the party is going to have to expend _more_ of their gp value towards utility items for the party.  Items the VoP character will still get to benefit from.


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 8, 2003)

Like I said, he takes stuff the party doesn't want to use. If they find a carpet of flying and want to be able to use it, they just don't give it to him. They instead give him the wand someone can't use, and the weapon nobody cares about. Things the party would have just had to sell for half value anyway. Instead they give it to the VoP guy and save themselves some hassle. 

If they didn't have a VoP guy in the party, they'd sell the gear for half, get less total value, and therefore smaller shares.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 8, 2003)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Like I said, he takes stuff the party doesn't want to use. If they find a carpet of flying and want to be able to use it, they just don't give it to him.



This is my point, actually.  By doing so, that _Carpet of Flying_ counts towards someone else's wealth by level.  But at the end of the day, it benefits the VoP character as much as any of the party members.  Especially at higher levels, the rest of the party is going to have a significant portion of their wealth made up of utility items for the whole party.  Meanwhile, the VoP character's entire wealth is focused towards his own combat effectiveness.  It's a matter of him getting to use a portion of the other characters' magic, but then don't gain any benefit from his.  (Other than his combat prowess, obviously.)

*shrug*  It would annoy me.


----------



## Scion (Dec 8, 2003)

Generally I've seen 'party items' count either against everyones wealth levels or effectively no ones. It makes for an odd way to calculate sometimes, but rounding errors are higher levels tend to be pretty high anyway so no big loss


----------



## Cbas10 (Dec 8, 2003)

Well, in my game, Vow of Poverty is not an issue at all.  I love it; great role-playing potential.  I should add, however, that I do not like the Monk class and do not have it in my games.  Once you remove monks from the picture, the real wieght of VoP's restrictions is easily seen.  VoP is even one more reason that I dislike Monks in D&D.  I had every powergamer at the FLGS jibber-jabbering at the monk-VoP combo.  However, once the Monk is taken out of the picture, one is forced to look at it as a major aspect of character concept and a place where sacrifices are certainly made.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Dec 8, 2003)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> The party is currently going through the Bloodstone Trilogy (their just about to go into the mines). In the first session he joind the party and they fought a large battle with some hired Mag mercenaries on their side againt a bandit army and their epic leaders.



_Severely_ OT, James, but have you prepared a conversion (or just notes) for H1-4? I'd love a copy, if you've got one.


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 8, 2003)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> _Severely_ OT, James, but have you prepared a conversion (or just notes) for H1-4? I'd love a copy, if you've got one.




Sorry, no. I'm converting it as I go. Its a pretty big hack job too, as I've changed all sorts of stuff. For one thing, the Grandfather of Assassins is playing a more active role early on, and I replaced him with a Gloom (ELH) Assassin 10.

My goal this week is to convert the Mines portion of H2, since that's where y players have said they're heading next. The link in my sig is a story hour about it, but its now three sessions behind because I just don't have the time to update anymore.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Dec 9, 2003)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Sorry, no. I'm converting it as I go. Its a pretty big hack job too, as I've changed all sorts of stuff. For one thing, the Grandfather of Assassins is playing a more active role early on, and I replaced him with a Gloom (ELH) Assassin 10.



No problem; figured I'd ask! The GoA is now CR *35*? I'm assuming you've got some pretty epic-level PCs in there...


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 9, 2003)

Assassin is a related class, so its only worth 1/2 CR per level. 

The party is currently levels 23 through 25 (there's 5 characters and a cohort). If they can get to him alone and in a situation where they can actually find him, they'll do ok. But so far they've just managed to drive him off a couple of times. One was with the help of a mysteriou suit of silent black full plate that has been following them around, and the second was because the sorcerer managed to grab him with a Bigby's Crushing Hand, so he fled via Shadow Walk rather than hang around and grapple.

They've destroyed his power base in the valley and so will have a bit of a reprieve from him for a little while. They are researching to try to find out his hideout, but that will take at least a ew months of ingame time, and the Mines will hopefully give them a bit more experience and treasure before they find him. They're currently  bit under their standard wealth due to a bad run-in with the mated dragons along the way to the Valley.


----------



## RisnDevil (Dec 9, 2003)

Ummmmm, so you have analyzed the power from a numbers perspective....ie you have looked at what is offered and looked at what you feel it should total and blah blah blah.  Have any of you guys *actually* played a character with VoP?  Here's the thing, VoP automatically gives you a character who is min/max.  At lower levels, it takes time to build the abilities up with the stuff the rest of the party should/will have.  But then, yes, it becomes powerfull at higher levels, but think of a party that each character is min/max, especially in equipment and feats, as essentially that is what you get with VoP.  Those other characters, unless you create them at higher levels, are beyond the shadow of a doubt going to have better equipment than he has options....and it doesn't get taken away with one fell choice.  Think about that, if the tides turn just right and in a desperate moment the player makes a wrong choice, (which the dm should be putting the player into positions where he has to choose) then every last thing he has earned is gone.  Not just in reference to numbers but in actual gameplay the VoP is not overpowering, especially if the party actually works up those levels.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Dec 9, 2003)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Assassin is a related class, so its only worth 1/2 CR per level.



You mean an _associated_ class? Those are the ones that add +1 CR per level, FYI.

OTOH, you do have 6 characters, so it's a different ballgame. Looks like a fun campaign, judging from the story hour!


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 10, 2003)

Oops. Oh well.  They can handle it. At their level a TPK only costs them 25,000gp plus their current gear (at least until the assassins learn about their cleric friend).


----------



## Moleculo (Dec 10, 2003)

Its important to look at the fact that the balancing gp amounts are for starting characters. I thought that the balancing factor was that since aescetics never get items, so they can't get any items throughout their progression through their levels. So its like they get the items they would accumulate while level 20 upfront, rather than shoving them back a level and thus screwing the aescetic in abilites. 

Also if they disobey the feat's requirements, they lose all of the benefits irrevocably. And you cant just get equivalent amounts of equipment, i mean where would it come from? Certainly arent going to find it all at once. That or dilute the total party wealth. Even worse, the loss is forever and you've wasted a feat.  

So my old epic level hand book says 975,000gp is good for a starting 21st level. Taking into account that i think whoever posted this totally went overboard on the damage reduction equivalence (compared to lets say invulnerability on armor) and that there is a chance to lose all this forever, its not so farfetched. 

I think my favorite defense of the poorboy though is that magical items that require an alignement (ie must be good) are entitled to 70% reduction in price. Which brings it the total to 749,786 gold, well under starting gold.


----------



## Curugul (Dec 10, 2003)

*VoP + Wildshape*

How does it interact?

Wildshape is based on Polymorph which is based on Alter Self.

Alter self states: "You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels."


Vow of Poverty is based on *character* level.   Does this mean while in wild shape, the druid looses all EX abilities?   Or, since character level is just the total of all your class levels, do you retain vow of poverties EX abilities?


Anyone clear on this?   Matters to a PC i'm playing atm =/


Thanks,

Curugul


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 10, 2003)

You would lose the VoP's (Ex) benefits.


----------



## Elric (Dec 31, 2003)

wilder_jw has it exactly right.

Here’s an example to show why the analysis so far about Vow of Poverty is wrong on the gp amounts.  Suppose that a character has a +8 Armor AC (and no other AC or stat bonuses) from vow of poverty- is this worth 64,000 gold?  Not a chance!  By minimizing the marginal cost for an extra point of AC you can take Ring of Deflection +1, Amulet of Nat Armor +1, Gloves of Dex +2, Bracers of Armor +3, Ioun Stone of Insight +1= 22k, and you have a Dex bonus to go with it.  

Has anyone actually played a Vow of Poverty character?  I have a 12th level ascetic monk, and he’s very good, but not overpowered.  If anything, it is his feat combos (Defensive Throw + Hold the Line + Great Throw), not vow of poverty, that make him powerful.  I mean, it’s darn fun to walk around with a 5-foot aura of holiness!  Mind-Shielding, DR, Greater Sustenance and Endure Elements have never been used in about 4 sessions playing the character.

Admittedly, having access to some of the very powerful exalted feats (Holy Ki Strike) is very strong, but many of the exalted feats give only minor benefits.  Of course, many of these feats have ability prereqs (Cha, for example) that most purely min/maxed characters will not meet.  Here’s an easy comparison, since this is almost born out w/ the other monk in the group.  

Monk level 12, 88k, magic items
Gauntlets of Str +4, Boots of Dex +2, Headband of Wis +4, Vest of Nat Armor +2, Ioun Stone (+1 Insight AC), Ring of Deflection +2, Monk’s Belt (+1 AC, +2 dmg/hit at this level, +1 stunning fist/day), Bracers of Mighty Fists +1, Cloak of Resistance +2, Amulet of Health +2 (86k spent, I think), +2 strength from ability score placement (see below)

Have the wizard cast Mage Armor (Extended w/ metamagic rod on you) each day: cost: 1000 gp (1/3 of rod’s cost) + 1 first level spell slot (negligible cost, or 1000 if you think that Pearl of Power is a good magic item)- this is the last 1-2k
Total: +4 to hit, +6 damage, +2 to wis related powers (think Stun Fist DC), +12 HP, +3 Fort save, +3 Ref Save, +4 Will Save, +13 AC

Vow of Poverty:
+4 enhancement to Str, +2 enhancement to Dex, +11 in straight AC bonuses- upped to +12 from Dex bonus.  +2 exalted strike, so +4 to attack and damage counting strength +2d6 holy damage per hit vs. evil and +2 DC on stunning fist.  +1 to Fort save, +2 to Ref Save, +1 to Will Save, DR 5/magic, Mind Shielding, Endure Elements, Greater Sustenance

Holy Ki Strike, Fists of the Heavens, other exalted feats that don’t do that much at this level but shouldn’t be ignored entirely.  You need 15 Cha for the above, so let’s say that this difference gives the other monk +2 Str between starting ability scores and level-increases (it is probably more, since monks usually don’t use Cha at all)

Comparing the two, we get that Vow of Poverty is:
Even to hit, +5 to damage against evil creatures (-2 dmg otherwise): this is a big advantage for the Vow of Poverty monk, since Holy Ki Strike can’t be duplicated easily with magic and Mighty Fists is a costly ability.  Of course, this is only against evil.
Down 1 point of AC, more against touch attacks, but not subject to dispel on mage armor
Equal on Stun DC vs. evil opponents, down on other Wisdom-related abilities, -1 stunning fist/day
-2 Fort save, -1 Reflex Save, -3 Will Save
-12 HP
Mind Shielding, Endure Elements, DR 5/magic, Greater Sustenance

So in return for slightly worse armor class, worse HP, and worse saves, you get a character who does more 5 more damage a hit against evil opponents and has a couple of other abilities.  Note that if I did this comparison at “12 and a half” level characters, the other character would gain thousands of GP, while the vow of poverty character would gain nothing.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 4, 2004)

Don't forget to price each item as if the equipment was indestructable.


----------



## Elric (Jan 4, 2004)

I don't think that having indestructable equipment is particularly relevant.  How often do DMs destroy your stuff?  Even if they do, since there are treasure guidelines per level, they just have to give you more items to make up for the ones that they destroyed.  

Always on is a nice plus- no need to remove your armor to sleep at night, but the other monk wouldn't have that problem either.

Overall, it seems more likely that your character will have too much gold worth of magic items at a given time (because the DM gives the bad guy a really cool item that the PCs take from his dead body).  Having too few GP because your items get destroyed is just rare.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 5, 2004)

Elric said:
			
		

> I don't think that having indestructable equipment is particularly relevant.  How often do DMs destroy your stuff?  Even if they do, since there are treasure guidelines per level, they just have to give you more items to make up for the ones that they destroyed.




What video game are you playing?


----------



## Scion (Jan 5, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> What video game are you playing?




That is more than a bit overly harsh dont you think?

How many different ways are there to destory a ring? armor? boots? cape? Not a whole lot, especially while being worn. Disjunction is one of the few ways, and most dm's wouldnt use that from the sheer brokeness of it (for low, mid, high, and epic level of play).

Even failing that, the game assumes characters of a certain wealth level. If you lose most/all of your equipment then you are way way down in power. Plus it should be replenished in some way.

The video game reference is still off though, careful with the mudslinging please  Just back it up with a few things if you will.


----------



## Olive (Jan 5, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> That is more than a bit overly harsh dont you think?




I think that the idea of a DM destroying a PCs items and then simply replacing the destroyed items is pretty video game sounding myself...


----------



## Scion (Jan 5, 2004)

All right then, so if your 18th level pc's lose all of their gear then for the rest of the game they have no gear? good job, remind me not to play in your game. personally I like my high level characters to actually have gear.

No one said to simply replace them, but it is assumed that they will be replaced. That isnt the same thing, nor even close. A character who has only 1% of their wealth for their level will NOT be on the same power curve agreed? Fine then, enough said, eventually they will have the right level of gear again. If eventually they have the same amount of gear again then it has been replenished. Simple.


----------



## Scion (Jan 5, 2004)

Oh, another thing, check out all of the different disjunction threads to see the differeing of opinion. Plus dms saying whether or not and to what degree they would replace the gear. Also at what speed. Since that is the only spell I can think of that actually destroy mass amounts of gear it should be relevant.


----------



## Pax (Jan 5, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> I think that the idea of a DM destroying a PCs items and then simply replacing the destroyed items is pretty video game sounding myself...




And I think the idea of a DM destroying your stuff and NOT _eventually_ giving you sufficient treasure to bring you back up to where the game ASSUMES you will be, isn't anywhere near to fun.

The rules *assume* that characters of a given level will have _reasonably_ close to the treasure levels indicated for a character of their level.  To give them less, is to put them out of balance with the rest of the encounter.

A CR 15 monster is a reasonable encounter for a party of 15th level _with it's gear intact_.  Take away even HALF of their equipment, and suddenly, it's probably a *very* challenging encounter ... more like what they'd expect if they were facing a CR17 or CR18 encounter.  And, IMO, they should be REWARDED accordingly (in both XP and treasure).


----------



## Elric (Jan 5, 2004)

In the long run, of course vow of poverty will be overpowered if your DM destroys PC items and doesn't give anything to replace them.  A DM who destroys items has to give comparatively more treasure in the long run to make up for it, or else character wealth will be far too low for their level.  It is ok to punish players somewhat, but playing the rest of your campaign impoverished probably won't be any fun.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 5, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> I think that the idea of a DM destroying a PCs items and then simply replacing the destroyed items is pretty video game sounding myself...





I think that the idea of a DM ignoring the wealth level of PCs when deciding how to challenge and reward them is *even more* video game sounding myself...


----------



## two (Jan 5, 2004)

*i thinkee*

I think that a DM destroying items and replacing them during the process of adjudicating new CR's based on post- and pre-equipment loss, whilst attempting to deal with a rogue monk (not a multi-class) who is vow of povertized, is like a card game put out by Hasbro, while a video still of the game session in which equipment is lost is more like a physical indication that the game, that which has been videotaped and now exists only in digital- and/or magnetic residue on appropriate media (and of course in the player's minds involved in the session); this said, the residual residua is more like the game itself than either a card game or, previuosly mentioned, a video tape of the session itself or a video game developed therefrom.


----------



## ascendance (Jan 6, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I think that the idea of a DM ignoring the wealth level of PCs when deciding how to challenge and reward them is *even more* video game sounding myself...




In fact, when I was playing Temple of Elemental Evil the video game, I felt I was playing with exactly that sort of GM


----------



## DM_Matt (Jan 6, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> I think that a DM destroying items and replacing them during the process of adjudicating new CR's based on post- and pre-equipment loss, whilst attempting to deal with a rogue monk (not a multi-class) who is vow of povertized, is like a card game put out by Hasbro, while a video still of the game session in which equipment is lost is more like a physical indication that the game, that which has been videotaped and now exists only in digital- and/or magnetic residue on appropriate media (and of course in the player's minds involved in the session); this said, the residual residua is more like the game itself than either a card game or, previuosly mentioned, a video tape of the session itself or a video game developed therefrom.




Now THAT, is some high-quality prose.


----------



## Elric (Jan 6, 2004)

So, back on topic a little bit, does anyone see a problem with my analysis of vow of poverty?  When you have a fixed bonus, what really matters is how much this bonus would cost to get at lowest marginal cost, not the exact bonus.  

This shows why giving a character a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score is not worth 25000 gp unless the character has no way to find a cheaper marginal cost to increase that ability score (so, if the character has a +4 item, this is an absolutely terrible deal).

In the same way, +8 enhancement to Wis, for example, shouldn’t be considered 50000 more than +6 Wis if all it really gives you (skills and other things aside) is +1 stun fist DC, +1 Will save and +1 AC.   A marginal +1 bonus to a cloak of resistance, ki straps, and an ioun stone of insight (+1 AC), for example, give a greater bonus for much less than 50000 gold.


----------



## Pax (Jan 6, 2004)

Elric, that Wisdom increase also gives you more spells per day and +1 spell DC, if you go with cleric (or other divine spellcaster class), instead of monk.

Bonus types should be priced based ont eh type, *always*.  The biggest reason is *stacking*.  a +1 Inherent Bonus *is* worth as much as a +5 Enhancement Bonus ... _because it'd stack with any spell or effect that gave an Enhancement Bonus._  Which, as luck would have it, are (literally) a dime a dozen.


----------



## Scion (Jan 6, 2004)

Not that I disagree completely.. or at least I think that I dont.. but no, a +1 inherant is not worth as much as a +5 enhancement. Doesnt matter if they do stack with one another, +5 is worth way more.

But really the main reason I even wrote on here is a complaint about inherant bonuses  After all, since they dont stack with themselves, but cost as much either way (whether you get them all at once or later on) they are just nonsensical.

On the topic of the thread, the items equivalencies you are given here are always going to be worth less than being able to choose items yourself. Plus you have to be exalted. Double whammy  so really, the items should be under a 50% or so reduction from needing to use a feat, plus have an alignment restriction, plus not being able to pick and choose for yourself for the most part.

I'll definately have to see this feat in action sometime and see how it holds up.. too bad they didnt put different ones on there for higher/lower pc wealth campaigns.. then it would be easier to adjust to taste. Probably way too complicated though.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 7, 2004)

I agree with Elric, it doesn't matter what type of bonuses they are getting if they can never gain any more bonuses than what is given. There's no reason to specify any difference between enhancement, luck, and competence bonuses to attack and damage for instance, so a +4 weapon and a green ioun stone (I believe) should do the trick.

EDIT: checked and the ioun stone doesn't give +1 damage, but you get the picture right?


----------



## Scion (Jan 7, 2004)

Good point  If you are unable to mix and match bonuses anyway from a lot of sources then the sources you do get dont matter much what they are called.

mmm.. +8 inherant, 200k


----------



## Elric (Jan 7, 2004)

Actually, for vow of poverty characters the type of bonus does matter to some extent because they can have spells cast on them.  In most cases, their bonus type will not overlap with spells (iirc, exalted strike is enhancement, ability score bonuses are enhancement and exalted AC bonus does not stack with armor).

Pax- right.  I was just using a monk because it was my first example and wisdom because I could think of a couple of different effects that an increase in wisdom has for a monk, all of which can be duplicated by other magic items.

It is clear that a sorceror gets much more out of a charisma increase than a straight fighter.  A fighter will only use charisma for skills.  If you made an item that gave you +1 to all charisma based-skills, provided that you have no enhancement bonuses to charisma, how much would it cost?  Certainly less than 4000 gp.  Probably more like 250-1250 gp.  

For a fighter then, an item of +2 charisma is not worth 4000 gp.  In fact, how much would an item that gave you "+2 charisma for the purposes of spellcasting, provided that you have no enhancement bonuses to charisma" cost?  Pretty darn close to 4000 gp.  

A Paladin gets +1 to all saves for buying an item of charisma +2.  Assume that the only other bonuses that you could get to saves were resistance (+x to all saves, for x^2 *1000 gp).  Then the charisma bonus would have the same value as (2n+1)*1000 gold spent on resistance, where n is your current resistance bonus (the marginal cost of getting n+1 to resistance).  

Note that this is a big advantage for a paladin trying to improve his saves.  One of the features of a good class is the ability to make stats useful even if they are not useful normally.  Then, the quadratic nature of item costs makes it easy to get a lot of bonuses to different stats instead bonuses to only 1-2 stats.


----------



## Scion (Jan 7, 2004)

I know what you mean about the stacking issues and spells being cast on someone. However, in 3.5 most buffing spells have an almost negligible duration (or at least nearly all of the ones I used to use), so this issue is a little bit lighter. If you dont even bother to memorize a buff spell then it doesnt matter 

But your point does stand, the types do still matter at least to some degree.


----------



## Tatsukun (Jan 7, 2004)

Did you take in to account the fact that a PC with VoP is effectively using all his slots? Remember that a VoP PC can’t use / own any magic items (IIRC). This means no healing potions, no utility items, no nothin’. It sounds like he could get into trouble quickly! 

Has anyone played a non-monk with VoP? It seems like any other class you take a big hit from the AC and inability to heal yourself. Maybe a Pally would be OK, but he would still be lacking AC. 

I’ll write up a few NPC’s today to see if they come out the same with and without VoP. 

 -Tatsu


----------



## Scion (Jan 7, 2004)

It seems like it would be really interesting for a sorcerer or wizard.. if the wizard could keep his spellbook or get free feats to keep the spells in mind instead.

Wish it was better for a psion ;/ It would be incredibly flavorful, but most of what it gives isnt quite up to par with what they should be getting in psionic equipment.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 7, 2004)

What do you mean? Apart from its coming from the psionics handbook instead of the DMG, psionic gear isn't much different from normal gear. Some of it s more powerful (feeder weapons) but some of it is less powerful (skill stones). And some of it has near-exact duplicates with different forms (power stones and tattoos).


----------



## Scion (Jan 7, 2004)

Really feeder weapons arent that strong, I actually had a character who was based soley on having a mind feeder/body feeder. He had his place, and in his place he was very good, but it was so incredibly narrow as to almost be unplayable past level 12. Hopefully saying that wont start a riot, but it is true in my experience.

I was actually thinking mainly of only a few items. The psionic torque to reduce power costs by 1 PP and the skins. Plus a psion can already wear armor without a huge problem. So the amount of things that they actually gain from the feat arent as large as what they could have had otherwise.

mmm.. master dorje  cant use that without dorje's.

cant use any of the craft feats.

if you use a creation feat do you lose your vow? After all, for a period of time you 'have' a few hundred pounds of something. I know it seems like an odd question, but really, if you cant carry anything worth anything generally then that would break it right there if you tried to make it and use it.

All in all, I guess it comes down to psions like to have a few different specialized equipment things, and they can already wear armor.


----------



## DM_Matt (Jan 7, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Elric, that Wisdom increase also gives you more spells per day and +1 spell DC, if you go with cleric (or other divine spellcaster class), instead of monk.
> 
> Bonus types should be priced based ont eh type, *always*.  The biggest reason is *stacking*.  a +1 Inherent Bonus *is* worth as much as a +5 Enhancement Bonus ... _because it'd stack with any spell or effect that gave an Enhancement Bonus._  Which, as luck would have it, are (literally) a dime a dozen.




Yes, but if you could help it, oyu would try to get all the other bonus types BEFORE you get inherant.  Inherant is very pricey and only worth getting if you have everytihng else.  Even if they are a dime a dozen A) the animal buffs now suck, and B) even if you could assume that someone would always have an animal buff on you (which are +4), its still cheaper to get a +6 item (36k) which is the same marginal increase over having the spell always one (and ends the need for it) than a +2 inherant bonus (55k and if you had a +1 inherant its wasted)

Of course, Elric's whole system implies some level of choice in the magic that you wind up with.  If your campaign doesn't have much of a market in which magical items are bought, sold, and traded, if it is stingy on item creation rules, and if players are rarely created, with a choice in items, at higher levels, the system doesn't work as well.  In the campaign that Elric plays in, standard magical items can be sold for half market value and other standard items bought at standard rates in the PC's home major city (Freeport)


----------



## reiella (Jan 7, 2004)

Interesting tidbit of the moment that seemed to have been overlooked in the initial overview/write up.

The expected Wealth of Character value is assuming that some measure of the character's wealth will be depleted through advancement gameplay (important when doing the Level 20 Comparisons).

The traditional, Same EL encounter should exhaust 1/4 of party resources (party resources refer more broadly to hitpoints and spells in addition to expendable resources) would place the relative level of balance at a much closer viewpoint.

Also lacking liquidity isn't a good situation for a 'Standard' Adventuring party (especially one that may be faced with having to shell out 20,000+ gp for True Resurrection).  Just as the inability to use potions yourself which only becomes significant in a combat situation, as any other time, the other party members may 'chip' in their healing stock.

At a glance, I noticed on numerical falacy, there should be 11 feats mentioned (assuming human), however, you do need to account for the fact that you're spending 2 feats specifically to obtain those 11 feats.  Also, interestingly enough, the human (VoP) gains 3 more feats than the non-human (VoP) in this situation, as the bonus feat at 2nd is unobtainable as well.  Vow of Povetry isn't selectable as a fighter bonus feat, so it's kinda hard/impossible to take the Vow at 2nd.

There's also the whole 'Exalted' requirement, which is greatly minor, I just didn't see it mentioned .

And honestly, it's only really 'power viable' for monks, sorcerers, or wizards (if your DM is nice about spellbooks).

I dislike Vow of Povetry for its idea myself.  I dislike the mechanic of a feat being less powerful (on a 'point level') if you take it later in your career.  However it is necessary given the nature of the feat.  I may be willing to play with it myself or allow another player to for testing if the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 7, 2004)

Well, I think I'd like to try it.  I've always liked the idea of a monk who could be more-or-less on par with other characters without having any equipment.  That's my idea of a monk (as in "Kung Fu").

Anyway, it seems failry well-balanced to me.  The analyses presented here have convinced me that this class is well-balanced, but could potentially be boring in the long-run.  This is especially true in a campaign where many adventures center around the quest for more items (or money to buy items) in order to increase PC power.  PCs have more variety in how they develop when they rely on items than when they do not, as they must adjust to the items they find and/or purchase.

I think I'll try this as my next character.  I've always liked monks, and this makes them playable without equipment or relying on bizarre things like magical tattoos, etc.

Edit:  Upon further reflection, I think there are basically three instances in which this class is not balanced:

1.  A low magic campaign, where this class would be over-powered.
2.  A campaign where PCs are frequently captured and stripped of equipment (or face similar circumstance), where this class might be over-powered.
3.  A high magic campaign, where this class could be under-powered.

One thing I am uncertain about is how balanced it is at each level, but I'll try and run one and find out for myself.


----------



## Madriver (Jun 14, 2004)

Bumped up from the depths.   

I am playing a VoP monk in our current campaign and can honestly say that VoP is not over-powered...I'll probably never play it again. Why won't I play it again? No versatility on gear. Imagine creating a 15th level monk on paper from scratch, including all the gear that he is supposed to have at that level. But instead of starting the monk at 15th level you are told to start him at 1st level and as you advance the only gear he will get is according to what you originally decided...and you can't even create anything! While the lower level power increased enough to make a low level monk exciting, it isn't enough to offset the lack in versatility.

The best thing about VoP for low level monks...the armor bonus lets them assign their abilities to make them better fighters without making them gimped. So giving the monk a STR of 16 will not leave them with a 14 AC. And while the exalted feats are great, the requirements for them are pretty steep, especially the CHA 15 requirement for the better ones. With a class that has A LOT of important abilities, needing to put a 15 in what is normally a dump stat reduces the other stats a lot. My VoP monk does not have a 15 CHA, so right now I'm at a loss where to assign the exalted feats...there really are not that many good ones.

To sum it up in a nut shell, the VoP monk is great at low levels (not over-powered) but gets boring quick.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 14, 2004)

Judging only from the original post, I think that totally underlines, that VoP is just fine normally.

 It gives more in terms of gp value, sure, and you have the HUGE advantage, that you always keep the stuff, but then again, you have the HUGE disadvantage, that you always get the exact same stuff, no tinkering, no tweaking, you cannot pick up an item, that at some point during the course of the campaign looks highly beneficial.

 It grants a very decent base of abilities, but it doesn't even cover all the necessities, especially at higher levels. Save bonuses are more weak than anything else, for example, a big disadvantage!

 Also a VoP spellcaster cannot use spells with costly material components, since he cannot own those components. He might be able to cast them for others, if they provide the material, tho.

 A VoP wizard may not own a spellbook. 

 Sure, you can create some broken characters (grappling VoP druid mostly, I don't think the VoP monk is in any way broken, and those are argueably the most common VoP characters, sorcerer might work very well, too), but isn't that true with almost every ability?

 I think most characters with the VoP, that are _not_ min/maxing monstrosities (like spending all your money on manuals and then picking up VoP, or using the leadership feat to gain a cohort to make use of your share of equipment - yeah, right! Here are your 16 tons! *squish* ), will end up fairly average, all things considered. If you judge VoP as a min/maxing mechanic, then you have to compare with other extreme min/maxing concepts, I'm sure those can easily compare, too.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## adriayna (Jun 14, 2004)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Edit:  Upon further reflection, I think there are basically three instances in which this class is not balanced:
> 
> 1.  A low magic campaign, where this class would be over-powered.
> 2.  A campaign where PCs are frequently captured and stripped of equipment (or face similar circumstance), where this class might be over-powered.
> 3.  A high magic campaign, where this class could be under-powered.




I've seen the VOP in play in two different games, and I agree with this analysis.  In certain games, the VOP is fine.  In other low powered games, it is way over-the-top.  

Another consideration to make is what type of campaign it is.  The VOP is good, but its general.  If the party needs special items to survive or special items to kill a foe, a VOP character is out of luck.  

I've also found that if a DM enforces the RP aspect of the character, this is another balancing factor.  

So would I allow it in my games?  In some games, yes it would be allowed on a  case-by-case basis.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 14, 2004)

Of course, VoP only really works in a campaign, which follows the standard guidelines about magical treasure (at least roughly).

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Whitemage Bishieboy (Jun 14, 2004)

everyone has made so many good points and i doubt vow of poverty is "broken" in a standard wealth game.on the other hand i believe it has many mechanical problems in "non-standard" games.

any caimpaign where the gm uses rust monsters,mords disjunction and the like without future compensation it becomes overpowered.
any caimpaign/adventure where everyone else is striped of there gear its instantly overpowered.

and it causes headaches for party cohesion.everyone else has to pick up his res tab.although it is a fair arguement he would give up 25k of his future treasure if he isnt lawfull good.(he is exalted after all)
of course theres the why does this feat benefit low level charecters more?

thus my view is simple.it is not overpowered it is whacked out.


----------



## Scion (Jun 14, 2004)

Whitemage Bishieboy said:
			
		

> any caimpaign where the gm uses ...  mords disjunction




is already beyond hope anyway


----------



## Elric (Jun 15, 2004)

Yes, your vow of poverty character will be good when everyone else has no gear.  But when the party has a magic artifact sword that is the only thing that can harm the uber-demon, it really sucks to be you.  

The truth is that vow of poverty is nowhere near lowest marginal cost for the benefits that it provides and does not allow much flexibility.  That said, my 15th level exalted monk is a blast to play.  I like having no magic items- it makes your character really easy to work with.


----------



## robberbaron (Jun 15, 2004)

In a low-magic game the VoP is rather good but, in a game with plentiful magic items, a VoP character will really lag behind his companions.

I think it would be a brave choice in any game and wouldn't necessarily ban it in my game (if I wasn't already limiting it to PHB/DMG/MM/SRD), but I reckon the player would more than likely get bent about all his companions' cool items.


----------



## BAW (Jun 15, 2004)

I'm the GM of a medium-high magic campaign and in that campaign there is a VoP monk. Originally, the monk used magic items but when we found the VoP we instantly converted as it fit the character very well and seemed well balanced.

I now have to tell the other members of the party that I'm going to have to tone the feat up-start too early and the later feats are pathetic, too late then too few feats. Simply put, versatility and power are equatable. All the other characters can prepare for an opponent-the monk sits there and thinks, "Yeah, that would be useful". In exchange for this ability, as the DM I can't take his stuff away, but his stuff never changes. 
I'm tempted to give the player in question a monetary value each level for equivalent utility magic items. Or he can purchase more item equivalent abilities with his feats.

Some of the other players complain because the feat does not rely on me to work-in treasure and think it's over-powered. First hand experience says otherwise; thankfully the VoP gives the monk a decent AC atm Lvl 13 (it will drop in comparison to the others quickly), making him a potent frontline fighter against low AC opponents but still slightly behind them against the tougher opponents.

To sum up, the VoP is a nice idea but one which causes the DM and player headaches due to its lack of versatility and overall power level.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2004)

Yeah, had a thread here once, when I thought a bit about the possibilities, I also noticed the immense lack of Exalted Feats (and I was quite disappointed to hear that there are non in Complete Divine).

 Some characters will not have ANYTHING to do with those bonus feats by level 10 or so. And EVERY single exalted character will end up with exactly the same feats (plus some class specific ones). Quite pathetic.

 As a DM I would simply allow to invent new feats, as long as they are within the boundaries and the spirit of the exalted rules.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## rushlight (Jun 15, 2004)

Bah, the person who did that fudged numerous times and artifically inflated the costs.

For example, they priced all the feats at 10,000 gp.  Anyone who actually _plays_ a VoP will quickly (and by that I mean after the third feat or so) run out of useful Exalted feats.  In the game I DM, I allowed a player the VoP - and he was 20th level.  He had two or three feats that were useful, the rest were like "+1 to a roll once a day" (worse than a luckstone - and that's a cheap item!) or "20ft nimbus of light" (woo - you glow) or feats that he took, but never really used.  10k per is outright ludicrus.  

Next, the person kept increasing the costs of magic items by +100% with the theory that the effects don't take up item slots.  That's fine if the character can keep the abilities gained from VoP and then add on more items - but it's the *Vow of *_freakin' _*Poverty.*  Those item slots are lost - so why should you double the gold costs for those abilities?

In short, the person who wrote this rubbish 1) has no ability to accurately judge the balance of the feat, and 2) obviously has never used it or allowed it's use, and last 3) had a clear opinion before staging his slanted view.

I've played using the VoP.  I've DMed a game with a 20th level VoP.  It's not unbalanced - it's not even that good.  The player who took it only lasted about 15 sessions before he got tired of having only a set list of abilities, and no chance for switching abilities based on the current threat.  He also really missed the fun of finding treasure and playing with new magical toys.  In fact, the VoP made him usually less useful in combat, since the other players could optimize themselves for the enemy at hand, while he was stuck with the same "items".  

As for my experience playing the VoP, it was entertaining for a while, but I probably wouldn't do it again.  But I can assure you that as long as you are using the standard treasure rules, a VoP character will not (under usual circumstances) be unbalanced.

At least I tested this feature before pronouncing my opinion on it.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2004)

Good catch with the body slot pricing. 

 The feats I think are ok with that price tag. Some are better, some are worse, and you never know how many more exalted feats will appear in various sources, so a general price tag is a fine abstraction here. That part is surely not totally unreasonable.

 Anyways, your experiences mirror my line of thinking, the extreme unflexibility is a huge drawback, that easily counters the huge advantage of never having your stuff stolen.

 It looks very powerful in theory for sure (just like the Mystic Theurge ), but it surely wouldn't be that bad in practice, because of the various reasons mentioned above (by me and others), unless some crazy mind would allow it unaltered in a seriously low-magic campaign, where you gain only a fraction of the standard wealth per level normally. Not hard to spot the discrepancy here. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## ForceUser (Jun 15, 2004)

I've just started playing a VoP monk, about six sessions now. I wouldn't have seriously considered playing a monk without taking this feat - which could either mean VoP is too good or monks aren't good enough. In any event, aside from my character's overpoweringly good stats - I rolled sickeningly well - I tend to agree that VoP might be too good, _if_ your DM does not challenge your character with moral and ethical debates. After all, the exalted path is a hard one to walk. Sometimes it should be very difficult to stay on that path as you sort through choices that may or may not be the best or right thing. And as it says in the book, if you fail to live up to exalted standards, you lose your abilities and never regain them. Think about that folks - _never regain them_. So once an exalted character screws up, that's it, he can never go back. Given that, I think that while the abilities of the VoP are indeed potent and perhaps even overpowered, if your DM is doing his job you will never feel completely secure in your powers as your character doubts himself and struggles to do the right thing. Perhaps some feel that you can't balance mechanics verses role-playing, but I think that if a DM fails to challenge the role-playing requirements of an exalted character he's missing the point. Hanging onto one's exalted powers should not be a given. It should be a constant trial. If a player is up to the role-playing challenge, then by all means, walk the exalted path.


----------



## Gort (Jun 15, 2004)

Anyone else think that a cloistered cleric (from unearthed arcana) with the Vow of Poverty would be really cool?

He's not a fighter, just an unarmed holy man (who's actually educated and stuff, and has more than 2 skill points per level). But if he meets a demon, he can bring down the wrath of God on their heads. And, he adventures to better the lot of the kids back at his orphanage or something.

I think that'd be a nice character to play - and balanced with the regular cleric in terms of combat power, I believe.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I've just started playing a VoP monk, about six sessions now.



 Starting level?

 In case the level is still fairly low, I'd wait until your character has advanced for 8 or 10 levels, only then you'll really feel the consequences, which come from the preselection of abilities and the considerable lack of decent exalted feats.

 Other than that, you mention a good point with the constant trial. Being exalted shouldn't be taken lightly. Players that are not willing to roleplay such a character should stay away from it.

 As I said somewhere else, the character did not swear the vow to gain nice abilities in the first place, but rather because it was the path to enlightenment he chose to follow. The nice abilities should be seen as a reward for his faithfulness and as reassurance for the chosen path, but not a necessity.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 15, 2004)

So, would a Psion with VoP be ok?  And would a Psion with VoP be able to have a psi-crystal?  (Is that an item, or a creature?)


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2004)

the psicrystal has no real value, it is a class feature, and it is close enough to being a creature.

If a psion could not have the psicrystal then a wizard could not have a familiar, a druid could not have an animal companion, and most/any spell/power that made an item temporarily would be unuseable.


----------



## ForceUser (Jun 15, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Starting level?
> 
> In case the level is still fairly low, I'd wait until your character has advanced for 8 or 10 levels, only then you'll really feel the consequences, which come from the preselection of abilities and the considerable lack of decent exalted feats.



We started at 3rd and are currently 5th. I don't know if I agree with the "considerable lack of exalted feats" with regard to the monk class specifically, though. Perhaps there isn't room for much variation, but the exalted feats that are germane to the class - sacred ki strike, holy ki strike, fist of the heavens, exalted spell resistance - are all superb and will greatly enhance a monk's effectiveness verses evil creatures. I do agree that at certain levels exalted feat choices are quite limited, and that on the balance exalted feats are often not as compelling as many PHB feats, but I would argue that since a creature with VoP is gaining bonus feats where he had none previously, even feats such as the "Vow" series are appealing in that you're gaining something you wouldn't have normally had. 

I believe this even in the current homebrew campaign I play the exalted monk in, where the DM has removed alignments and the inherent evil nature of mortal creatures. In his homebrew paradigm, only outsiders and creatures closely connected to Tainted sources of power - evil gods, demons and the like - are considered "evil" for the purposes of _detect evil, protection from evil_, the paladin's smite evil power, etc. But even given this general reduction in the applicability of "vs. evil" powers in my DM's homebrew, many bonus exalted feats are still enormously useful. Touch of Golden Ice, for instance, which I took as the 1st-level bonus exalted feat, applies verses each and every Evil or _undead_ creature touched. Although the save DC is a relatively weak 14, over the course of a long campaign the feat becomes reasonable - often saved against by outsiders, but often failed against by undead, who aren't renowned for fort saves. When it lands the monk is essentially gaining a +0 to +3 bonus to hit verses his foe. Subtle, but not insignificant.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> ...then a wizard could not have a familiar...




Well a wizard, or let's say a sorcerer to be more realistic, who picks up VoP at first level, cannot have a familiar, as he cannot own the 100 gp worth of material to be used up in the summoning process.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## CRGreathouse (Jun 15, 2004)

rushlight said:
			
		

> Next, the person kept increasing the costs of magic items by +100% with the theory that the effects don't take up item slots.  That's fine if the character can keep the abilities gained from VoP and then add on more items - but it's the *Vow of *_freakin' _*Poverty.*  Those item slots are lost - so why should you double the gold costs for those abilities?




The analysis compares the abilities to a well-equipped character, but doesn't let the theoretic character use a slot more than once.  For example, it uses 2 rings, an amulet, a cloak, and more -- really, most of the slots are used.  (I'd have to look back at it to see exactly how many.)

Be careful before leveling major criticisms like this.  I don't like the analysis too much myself, but this is one of its better points -- certainly not a flaw.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2004)

ForceUser, you are right with the monk, there are a lot more useful feats, as there are plenty monk-related exalted feats. With other classes it's more like picking up a feat for the sole reason, that you get it for free, once you got the first few of them, which are actually decent. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pax (Jun 15, 2004)

rushlight said:
			
		

> Bah, the person who did that fudged numerous times and artifically inflated the costs.



  Not true, and your words below are a gross misrepresentation of the analysis ... which, by the by, was posted by ME.



> For example, they priced all the feats at 10,000 gp.  Anyone who actually _plays_ a VoP will quickly (and by that I mean after the third feat or so) run out of useful Exalted feats.



  Irrelevant.  I referenced the _Arms and Equipment Guide_, which advised 10,000gp as an appropriate cost for an item which granted a feat that had NO other prerequisite feats.  Many exalted feats DO have other exalted feats as prerequisites; those would be worth +5,000 for every such prerequisite.  But predicting which feats someone might take would be impossible, so a flat rate of 10K per sounded appropriate.

  I'm not the one who made up those costs, btw, WOTC is.



> In the game I DM, I allowed a player the VoP - and he was 20th level.  He had two or three feats that were useful, the rest were like "+1 to a roll once a day" (worse than a luckstone - and that's a cheap item!) or "20ft nimbus of light" (woo - you glow) or feats that he took, but never really used.  10k per is outright ludicrus.



  Many of those feats are prerequisites for *nice* prestige classes, mind.

  And Nimbus of Light leads to other feats, later on - some in products OTHER than the BoED, by the way ... there *are* new exalted feats in _Player's Guide to Faerun_, one of which relies on _nimbus of light_; I forget the name of it atm, but it's a pretty good one, damages all undead that get too close IIRC.



> Next, the person kept increasing the costs of magic items by +100% with the theory that the effects don't take up item slots.



  Bzzzt.  I added them all up as if they were slotted items, and that was ALREADY about 150% of what a non-Ascetic would be able to have.  I then pointed out that _technically_ they could be doubled - but not because of body-slot issues, but because *the benefits couldn't be taken away by destroying the items[/i].  Mordenkainen's disjunction?  Momentary flicker.  Sunder?  Nothing to sunder.

  That drove the effective value up to more than triple the expected wealth value for a 20th level character.




			In short, the person who wrote this rubbish 1) has no ability to accurately judge the balance of the feat, and 2) obviously has never used it or allowed it's use, and last 3) had a clear opinion before staging his slanted view.
		
Click to expand...


  Not to mention: (4) you obviously didn't read the whole thing, (5) had your OWN opinion, and (6) your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.




			I've played using the VoP.  I've DMed a game with a 20th level VoP.  It's not unbalanced - it's not even that good.  The player who took it only lasted about 15 sessions before he got tired of having only a set list of abilities, and no chance for switching abilities based on the current threat.
		
Click to expand...


  High magic campaign, low magic campaign, or what?  The VoP will of course fail to measure up in such a game.




			He also really missed the fun of finding treasure and playing with new magical toys.  In fact, the VoP made him usually less useful in combat, since the other players could optimize themselves for the enemy at hand, while he was stuck with the same "items".
		
Click to expand...


  What'd you do, give them so much wealth they could have entire duplicate equipment sets?  Even at 20th level, you can't have outlays of gear sufficient to cover EVERY situation, and be able to tailor your abilities specific to ANY enemy you might run into ...




			At least I tested this feature before pronouncing my opinion on it.
		
Click to expand...


  As did I.  Assumptions are not wise things to make.*


----------



## danielinthewolvesden (Jul 27, 2004)

10 feats!?!    I tried to do up a VoP Monk.  Now remember- monks usually have CHA as a dump stat.  OK- now go ahead and find more than 5 useful feats. Yeah- some of the feats lead to something else- but they are worthless on their own- heck "nimbus of light" is a everburning torch!

I agree- those figures were seriously fudged- why have the costs double for slotless items?  The VoP PC cares nought for slots.

I call BS.

Look- Vop was there so that PC's who wanted to try the "poor" thing could do it (or maybe for those "low magic" campaigns with cheap, control freak DM's). I wrote a couple up, and was suprised how low-powered they were. 

Now, true- if you do weird rules-breaking things like VoP-kensai or VoP- Forsaker- then you get weird results.


----------



## danielinthewolvesden (Jul 27, 2004)

OK, then Pax/Trachmyr:  Where & when is the original WotC post?


----------



## Pax (Jul 27, 2004)

danielinthewolvesden said:
			
		

> 10 feats!?!    I tried to do up a VoP Monk.  Now remember- monks usually have CHA as a dump stat.  OK- now go ahead and find more than 5 useful feats. Yeah- some of the feats lead to something else- but they are worthless on their own- heck "nimbus of light" is a everburning torch!



  Charisma-as-dump is irrelevant; if you, the player, choose to construct a grosslyinadequate, needlessly-handicapped character ... that's your choice.  But it doesn't mean *everyone* will make the *same* choice.



> I agree- those figures were seriously fudged- why have the costs double for slotless items?  The VoP PC cares nought for slots.



  It doesn't matterif the _ascetic_ cares for slotless/unslotted/whatever.  what matters is, *how much would it cost a non-ascetic to get the exact same bonusses/abilities/etc, if they did so through the purchase ofmagic items.*

  Thus, the DMG-standard doubling of price for an unslotted item isappropriate - if for no other reason, than to represent the _absolute indestructibility_ of said benefits/items, and the inability of them to be taken away, *at all*, short of an antimagic field.



> I call BS.



  Call it all BS you want; but unless you can provide an _alternate_ analysys, your declaration carries no real weight, sorry to say.

  And as it turns out, the Vow of Poverty, _on the right character_, can remain viable even into early _epic_ play.  Granted, I extrapolated a few bonusses - but it was a very few.  Another point or two of the Exalted bonus to AC, a point of natural armor, and IIRC, that was about _it_.  Character's name, BTW, is Demetian - see my SIG for a link to the game in question.

  And this character was facing equal-ECL people with 2,100,000gp of equipment, _and never felt he was disadvantaged for the lack of magicitems_.  Not once!

  Heck, it's the best character I've ever had ... I'mnot missing the magic items one whit.  And unlike a classic RPG campaign, in an arena, *power is everything*.



> Look- Vop was there so that PC's who wanted to try the "poor" thing could do it (or maybe for those "low magic" campaigns with cheap, control freak DM's). I wrote a couple up, and was suprised how low-powered they were.



  Then you built them extremely poorly.  A properly-built VoP character is fully comparable to a non-VoP character.

 I have found that, in general, the VoP is quite nicely balanced, despite my own first impression to the contrary ... and will never again have a problem with someone taking this feat in any game I ran, provided the resulting character would still "mesh" with the party and the campaign setting/theme/etc.



> Now, true- if you do weird rules-breaking things like VoP-kensai or VoP- Forsaker- then you get weird results.



  Neither of those combinations breaks any rules, simply for being made.


----------



## Zimri (Jul 27, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Neither of those combinations breaks any rules, simply for being made.




Actually they do.

How is a forsaker destroying magic items he doesn't own unless the DM is being nice and sending in enemies wearing the appropriate armor/sword/shield to get sundered once per day (in which case said DM has issues) Anything else certainly isn't "donating" his share to charity, and stealing the share that isn't yours from the party to destroy it certainly isn't exalted. Of course the DM could have a lot of "irredeemable" magic objects that are outright evil but again a world with that many (one per day of the appropriate gp value) is ludicrous.

Kensai VoP monk ? I have had a long running debate with an author of the BOED regarding his thinking that my characters fists are possessions and therefore making them magical breaks the vow. So while I agree with you regarding the Kensai WOTC custserv, and co author of BOED Darrin Drader think we are both wrong.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 27, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> It doesn't matterif the _ascetic_ cares for slotless/unslotted/whatever.  what matters is, *how much would it cost a non-ascetic to get the exact same bonusses/abilities/etc, if they did so through the purchase ofmagic items.*




Still think you are (a bit) on the wrong track there. Trying to exactly duplicate the benefits isn't immensely useful. Trying to duplicate the effect in the most cost efficient way (that is using slots (why leave them free, anyways?) and stacking of different bonus types).

And, of course, the duplicating is totally neglecting the biggest benefit of the non-ascetic, that he does not _have to_ duplicate them! 



> I have found that, in general, the VoP is quite nicely balanced, despite my own first impression to the contrary ...




Tho, you seem to have seen that by now. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pax (Jul 27, 2004)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Actually they do.
> 
> How is a forsaker destroying magic items he doesn't own unless the DM is being nice and sending in enemies wearing the appropriate armor/sword/shield to get sundered once per day (in which case said DM has issues)



  Simply having levels of Forsaker does not break any rules.

  Granted, due to the Vow, the Ascetic Forsaker probably won't get to use the benefits for BEING a forsaker very often - generally, I'd expect them to lose many of those benefits until they manage to sunder the BBEG's weapon, or something similar.

  Note, too - nothing says the Forsaker has to OWN the item(s) he destroys.  Eliminating enemy supplies and materiel which theparty couldnot easily extract from it's current location, would neither be an evil act, nor would it void their vow.

  And what's more ... that presumes the DM doesn't allow the Ascetic Forsaker to ask their comrades-in-arms for magic items to destroy - much the same way an ascetic spellcastr can ask for expensive material components, potentially valued in the _tens of thousands_ of gold each day.  Personally, I see no problem with the forsaker begging for "extra potions, scrolls, and minor trinkets" forhis morning ritual of destruction - no moreso, indeed, than the ascetic wizard begging his friends for _e.g._ 1,500gp of powdered ruby to prepare a single forcecage for each day.  The BoED explicitly allows for the wizard to do _just_ that, in fact.



> Kensai VoP monk ? I have had a long running debate with an author of the BOED regarding his thinking that my characters fists are possessions and therefore making them magical breaks the vow.



  Still, simply having levels of Kensai doesn't *break a rule*.  And, even using Darrin's own logic (as stated elsewhere on ENWorld, in fact), if you _are not a monk_, you can imbue your fists or natural weapons without voiding the Vow.  Plus, you never said a *monk*/kensai before.  Just "kensai".

  So your Half-Dragon Barbarian ascetic can imbue his claws or his bite _just fine_, and never void the Vow.  As long as, of course, he avoids the Monk class lik the plague.

  And even then.  Simply don't imbue your monk unarmed attacks - yes, that makes gaining levels of Kensai not a very *smart* choice, but simply doing so doesn't *break any rule(s).* ^_^

@Thanee:
  The fact that I feelthe Vow is balanced, does not override the fact that a non-ascetic couldn't hope to copy the benefits using magic items, due to the effective cost of buying those benefits *in* magic item form.


----------



## Zimri (Jul 27, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Note, too - nothing says the Forsaker has to OWN the item(s) he destroys.  Eliminating enemy supplies and materiel which theparty couldnot easily extract from it's current location, would neither be an evil act, nor would it void their vow.
> 
> And what's more ... that presumes the DM doesn't allow the Ascetic Forsaker to ask their comrades-in-arms for magic items to destroy - much the same way an ascetic spellcastr can ask for expensive material components, potentially valued in the _tens of thousands_ of gold each day.  Personally, I see no problem with the forsaker begging for "extra potions, scrolls, and minor trinkets" forhis morning ritual of destruction - no moreso, indeed, than the ascetic wizard begging his friends for _e.g._ 1,500gp of powdered ruby to prepare a single forcecage for each day.  The BoED explicitly allows for the wizard to do _just_ that, in fact.




Dagnabbit PAX you are making me do something I never wanted to. Find fault with VoP.

I see a difference between begging components for spells (also hitching a ride on a mount, sleeping in the inn etcetera, heck even with a 5k diamond for resurrection) and "please keep those magic items around so that I might destroy some small measure of them daily" or "Say mister fighter man might I destroy your extra magical sword please" ( I also have an issue with a fighter carrying around more than 2 weapons I like my characters and my party rather "lean" as it were hewards handy haversack and most bags of holdings have dimensional limitations on what you can shove in.)

Regarding your first quoted point I find it rather hard to buy "ummm yeah I destroy the enemies magical items in their encampment at range as part of my morning ritual"

Somethings even I won't do.


----------



## Pax (Jul 27, 2004)

Zimri said:
			
		

> I see a difference between begging components for spells (also hitching a ride on a mount, sleeping in the inn etcetera, heck even with a 5k diamond for resurrection) and "please keep those magic items around so that I might destroy some small measure of them daily"



  What's the difference between a 5K material component to cast a spell, and a 5K magic item to activate oneof your powers? 



> or "Say mister fighter man might I destroy your extra magical sword please" ( I also have an issue with a fighter carrying around more than 2 weapons I like my characters and my party rather "lean" as it were hewards handy haversack and most bags of holdings have dimensional limitations on what you can shove in.)



  3.5e DR rather requires a warrior to have a couple secondary weapons.  Even if it's "Thorg wields his _+5 True-silver, Sure-Striking, Ghost Touch_ Adamantine Greatsword almost all the time, but he keeps a simple _+1 Ghost Touch, Sure Striking_ Cold Iron Greatsword in his packs, just in case he runs into something with a lot of [DR ??/cold iron]".

  The first sword, FWIW, is a +8-priced weapon, and presupposes access to *both* Ghostwalk _and_ the Players Guide to Faerun.  It'll go through DR ?/silver, ?/magic, ?/adamantine, and ?/(alignment).
  But not DR ?/cold iron ... hence the backup weapon, which prices out to +3 (and handles DR ?/(alignment), ?/magic, and ?/cold iron).



> Regarding your first quoted point I find it rather hard to buy "ummm yeah I destroy the enemies magical items in their encampment at range as part of my morning ritual"



  I never said _at range_.  If, however, while sneaking INTO the encampment, the Forsaker notes that ne can put a torch to a case of scrolls, or smack a rack of potions with a hammer ... why *not* givehim the benefit of having destroyed the appropriate value of magic items?

  Granted, his comrades MIGHT be annoyed with him ... if he does it all the time.  But if he does it only when expecting to face a BBEG-type encounter, they'd probably be a bit more forgiving.

  At the least, if and when he sunders the BBEG's weapon, well, if it's magic ... there you go.  Failing an *armed* BBEG, he can grapple him, rip off somethign magic-itme-looking, and wreck THAT (and hope it's magical, ofc).


----------



## Thanee (Jul 27, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> @Thanee:
> The fact that I feelthe Vow is balanced, does not override the fact that a non-ascetic couldn't hope to copy the benefits using magic items, due to the effective cost of buying those benefits *in* magic item form.



 I'm pretty sure, that you can get all those benefits with the resources you have available (roughly). You just have to do it in a more efficient way than grabbing an epic +8 to one ability score item or buying all items without slots. It already has been shown somewhere on this thread IIRC, that the cost comes fairly close, actually.

 What you do not get is the "cannot be taken away" property of these abilities, and you also do not get the "cannot be changed in any way" property. These two balance each other pretty well, I think, also considering the additional cost of two feats.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## rushlight (Jul 27, 2004)

Many seem to be forgetting that one of the major factors with a Vow of Poverty (or nearly anything in the BoED) is the *roleplaying* aspect. It's integral. Essential. 

I'd be interested in the background story of a man who has devoted his life to giving everything he has and obtains to others without question - and at the same time has the urge to destroy many of the things he _should_ be giving away to gain personal power. That's a guy who will soon lose his Exalted status.

You can't seperate the roleplaying from those abilities. If you do, you've destroyed the balance of the entire book.


----------



## Zimri (Jul 27, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> What's the difference between a 5K material component to cast a spell, and a 5K magic item to activate oneof your powers?
> 
> I never said _at range_.  If, however, while sneaking INTO the encampment, the Forsaker notes that ne can put a torch to a case of scrolls, or smack a rack of potions with a hammer ... why *not* givehim the benefit of having destroyed the appropriate value of magic items?
> 
> Granted, his comrades MIGHT be annoyed with him ... if he does it all the time.  But if he does it only when expecting to face a BBEG-type encounter, they'd probably be a bit more forgiving.




5k and other expensive components are likely kept around because the party benefits from the spells cast directly. If I am carrying around a magic item worth 5k odds are I AM USING IT so no you can't take it to destroy. and I am not becoming anyones packmule. My characters travel light even when they are not ascetic I am still almost always a monk or rogue.

Barring the fact that you aren't really sneaking if you are traversing through an enemy camp with a torch lit breaking boxes of potions as you go and lighting up the cooks recipe scrolls.

If the party can't carry things or have extra things around for the ascetic to use they can't carry around things for him to destroy. The ascetic's share is supposed to be donated to charity. The only way I would let the party sacrifice their share of magic items is if they did it every night and every item they were not using. EVERYONE (except the forsakers/ascetics) gets to have an item in each slot (1 set of armor 1 weapon 2 if you dualwield/two weapon fight no saving "special on occassion" weapons) I would allow the sacrifice to "carry over" days as long as the gp value lasted because odds are they aren't going to build up a huge stash everyday.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 27, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> What you do not get is the "cannot be taken away" property of these abilities, and you also do not get the "cannot be changed in any way" property. These two balance each other pretty well, I think, also considering the additional cost of two feats.




I used to think that VoP was very similar to Eschew Materials, whose benefit is to let you "forget" about the spell components, and therefore helps mostly in specific circumstances (such as when you are grappled, if someone steals your pouch or if it is damaged somehow).

I suppose the authors calculated those benefits from VoP with a method, which would be nice to see once and for all, to come up with the same value of expected gear level by level. I don't think they intended the feat to give a benefit equivalent to a money discount, and I am rather sure that if they showed their calculation, the result could be even less.

The thing gets blurry instead when you add the bonus exalted feats...
First of all because IIRC how many feats you get depends on the level at which you get VoP (you get all the other benefit retroactively) and this is quite unusual. Perhaps the reason is that until you don't get VoP you can benefit from equipment (including tomes)?
Second because it doesn't sound right that a feat grants bonus feats...  :\ it may be balanced but it just doesn't convince me   
Third because those exalted feats are very few to choose from, many are very weak with a couple of exceptions which are instead too good.
The result is that the whole thing is complicated...

IMHO if VoP didn't give bonus feats, the benefit of being free from the risk of losing your gear or have it stolen/sundered/whatever was already worth the feat, like it is with Eschew Material. Bonus feats were not necessary, however IIRC WotC said that those feats were intended to make up for the lack of versatility... mah  :\


----------



## Zimri (Jul 27, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> IIRC WotC said that those feats were intended to make up for the lack of versatility... mah  :\




And they don't do that well. As a monk Ascetic who is supposed to be battling demons, devils, fiends, et al no feat grants me a way around dr/cold iron or DR/silver. I may write a feat or two to try and get around that limitation but it is a fairly big one. I can get around slashing DR if I take a couple levels of a PRC from the draconomicon. but as far as I know nothing gets me through piercing until perhaps epic level.


----------



## Scion (Jul 27, 2004)

I played a vop character up through quite a few levels and I can safely tell you that the inability to switch out items is a big hit.

For the most part I was always behind in some/most things. The rest of the part was at or below standard wealth but they were constantly able to rise to challenges in a more immediate fashion than I was. They tended to have higher AC's (especially starting out), were able to garner intersting abilities to use, and could scrounge around for what they needed to make challenges easier.

I was a human so picked up vop at first level, gaining the extra feat right away. It was nice, but straight from the get go people had equal my ac or better, especially since I had planned ahead (looked through the feats available0 and determined that I needed to have a high cha along with several other stats to be able to even 'get' exalted feats.

In any sort of comparison I think that treating the items as the most favorable slot is best. Sure they are harder to take away (which mainly only happens in extreme circumstance or useing a certain spell that should not exist anyway) but they also cannot be switched up to become more favorable. Along with certain things coming pretty late (if you really try for it you can have that all important stat booster or high ac early on, but not so the vop character).

Also, it does take 2 feats to get into it in the first place. Those two feats are mostly pretty worthless (+2 diplomacy helps for some builds though, but for mine I was still at least 5 points behind in any diplomacy checks compared with another party member even with my diplomacy maxed out) so that should come off of the total price.

Along with their being problems with pricing them all at 10k. Not all feats are created equal. How much is a toughness feat worth? clearly not 10k and I would go so far as to say it is actually on par or better than several of the exalted feats. The 10k is a recomendation, not a hard and fast rule.

We can go back and forth with how to create this or that item to duplicate the effects but generally I think the price comes just under or just over depending on how you count.

It doesnt matter though, the incredibly high price of not being able to switch up your gear is a major limiting factor and it is a hit that would make me think having even +50% of normal gear equivalency as being just fine.


----------



## brehobit (Jul 27, 2004)

Some quick comments:

I do agree that pricing the items as unslotted is off.  The character doesn't have any slots.
I think the biggest problem with VoP is that it works well for some characters (monk, druid, prob. sorc.) and very poorly for others (wizard, fighter).  
The lack of feat choices also starts to be annoying.
Personally would consider allowing a modified VoP for a fighter which allowed the character to use a single non-magical weapon.  (I might even allow a masterwork weapon or the ancestral weapon) and a bit of simple armor (probably anything shy of plate but not masterwork) and a horse (even a war horse).  Sort of the poor wandering knight.  Of course I'd remove a lot of the VoP benifits.

For the wizard, making PHB feat which lets you learn spells without a spell book (forgot the name) an exalted feat might make wizard more viable.


----------



## Scion (Jul 27, 2004)

how about an exalted feat that allows you to prepare any [good] spell you know (in spell book, whatever the wording is) without needing your spell book? (along with all of the weird pay as you go spells) That would fit right in, be decent and low and high levels, and might even be worth a feat to get


----------



## Zimri (Jul 27, 2004)

Scion did you use point-buy for your VoP. I rolled well and had a monk so wisdom and dex were highest, add in intuitive strike and I was fairly set. I would have focused on the same 2 stats in a point-buy scenario as both apply to AC but yes needing a third stat at or above 15 can be cumbersome with point-buy or unfavourable die rolls.


----------



## Scion (Jul 27, 2004)

Point buy, but wanting/needing to have about 4 decent/high stats (15 or higher) is very rough, effectively impossible


----------



## Zimri (Jul 27, 2004)

Yes thats why I prefer rolling. wis/dex/cha are more important to a VoP monk (IMHO) than strength (yes you lose some to damage but the exalted strike makes up for some of that and intuitive strike focuses your attack roll on a key stat) Int was a monk dump stat mostly anyway and nymphs kiss adds +1 skill each level. More con is always good though definately don't want a negative there.


----------



## mecra (Aug 3, 2004)

Not to bring back the dead, but I have a few things to say about this topic. 

First off, the monetary analysis of the feat is neat, but not all entirely accurate.

While it does give a base monetary value for some of the items a character will have, it doesn't really deal with epic or artifact level items (like Scion weapons) that add a lot more to the character than just a basic ability or fighting enhancement. While it does account for some things, it doesn't take into account these higher level items that could be handed out like candy depending on the GM.

Plus, a character like this can't own scrolls, potions, or the like. My group has been SAVED by their potions and scrolls to the point where EVERYONE carries what they can. No go for the VoP character. Yes he has more "value" at certain times, but don't forget the disposable/utility items that a party will hoard, find, or create along the way. There is a character that has three weapons that all do different things depending on teh foe he's fighting. (Undead, construct, etc)

Also, what about casting items that have spells in them? Weapons that have spells in them? Items that have spells in them? The point is that breakdown does cover the abilities of the VoP, but it does NOT account for all disposable items, all odd items, or all epic/artifact items that a character could get over time. What about items that don't have bonuses like the VoP, but do things the VoP will never do? (Rods/items for climbing, swimming, flying, teleporting, sundering, invisibility, etc.) 

Plus, as a person has said, if a player that isn't a VoP gets an item better than his own, he can sell his older item for money. (Most GMs would allow this.) While the resale value of said item may not be that high, it allows the player to re-purchase scrolls, potions, etc. 

I'm sorry, but I will have to disagree that the VoP is overpowered or worth more. It does give some nice benefits, but you lose a SIGNIFICANT amount of utility and versatility(sp). You get nice brute force abilities and resistances, but you lack the diversity that a well equipped character can have if he plays his cards right. I like the VoP because I don't like worrying about magical items and I like playing Exalted characters.  It's a good fit for me and my Psion. I will agree several classes benefit MORE, but that is up to the GM to balance that out if he/she wishes.

So, good analysis, but not general nor all encompassing enough to convince me that VoP is too powerful. There are just too many other factors that haven't been calculated that normal characters have available that throw the curve off.


----------



## Scion (Aug 3, 2004)

Scion weapons?


----------



## Pax (Aug 3, 2004)

mecra said:
			
		

> While it does give a base monetary value for some of the items a character will have, it doesn't really deal with epic or artifact level items (like Scion weapons) that add a lot more to the character than just a basic ability or fighting enhancement.



 The Vow of Poverty, as written, assumes there's _no such thing_ as Epic items.  epic items require an Epic gaming environment, which means, someone has 21+ levels - even if it's just an NPC somewhere in a remote dungeon or other.  But, the VoP is written for an environment where 20 levels is *it*, the end, _thou canst not pass_.

  and ... _artifacts_ ... ?  SURELY, you jest!



> While it does account for some things, it doesn't take into account these higher level items that could be handed out like candy depending on the GM.



 Nor does it account for those GMs who're so stingy, that it's hell and beyond to get them to part with more than a few _copper_ pieces, let alone *_gasp_* an *actual* magic item.  (Yes, I've played with both sorts of GMs; heck, I've BEEN both sorts of GM!)



> Plus, a character like this can't own scrolls, potions, or the like. My group has been SAVED by their potions and scrolls to the point where EVERYONE carries what they can. No go for the VoP character. Yes he has more "value" at certain times, but don't forget the disposable/utility items that a party will hoard, find, or create along the way.



  and those potions, scrolls, and whatever - until they're used up - *count* against their owner's "total treasure value", a.k.a. "wealth by character level".  If you're making a character that's starting at, say, 15th level ... and you get 20Kgp of potions and scrolls ... you have 180K "left" for the rest of your gear.

  The same should hold true for a character that gets to 15th level the _hard_ way, too.



> Also, what about casting items that have spells in them?



  They cost money to get, which means other gear you don't have (for thenon-ascetic).  And either you're hiring someone to cast the spell into said item, or it cost a LOT more because it's self-renewing, or it's party resources that're being spent refilling it if a PC 'caster does the work.



> Weapons that have spells in them?



  See above.



> Items that have spells in them?



  Ditto.



> The point is that breakdown does cover the abilities of the VoP, but it does NOT account for all disposable items, all odd items, or all epic/artifact items that a character could get over time.



  Actually, yes it does.  Every disposable item counts against a character's then-current "expected wealth" for a character of their level.  Epic items are all priced, and count against that same expected wealth.

 And counting on ARTIFACTS to "balance" the Vow ... that's just plain *silly!*



> What about items that don't have bonuses like the VoP, but do things the VoP will never do? (Rods/items for climbing, swimming, flying, teleporting, sundering, invisibility, etc.)



  Sucks to be the ascetic.  What about characters who never GET said items?

  What about characters who can't mimick some ofhte abilities you get with the VoP?  If you sunder the Ascetic's allowed simple weapon, and he picks up a new one ... it's immediately plus-whatever again.

  Not so with a non-ascetic; if you take THEIR magic weapon away, and they pick up a replacement ... if it wasn't magical before they grabbed it, it still isn't *after* they grab it.  _Exalted Strike_ is a very nice ability!



> Plus, as a person has said, if a player that isn't a VoP gets an item better than his own, he can sell his older item for money. (Most GMs would allow this.) While the resale value of said item may not be that high, it allows the player to re-purchase scrolls, potions, etc.



 And said resale "profit" *counts against your allowed/expected wealth by level*.


----------



## mecra (Aug 3, 2004)

Unfortunately, I call "nonsense" about this "expected wealth" notion. There is NO WAY to regulate exactly how much a character is going to make in a campaign. What if the campaign has many dragons? What if the Terrasque is plaguing a kingdom and the character party defeats it? (Thus getting a MASSIVE reward from the King himself.) Or what if it was a Dragon attacking the Kingdom and thus the party got loot from the dragon AND the reward from the King. (Through good roleplaying and a very difficult encounter.)

The point is, the "expected wealth" idea is just a lowball value that doesn't account for all elements and things a party will get or acquire free of charge. Yes you can be a stingy GM, but I won't play for you.  D&D is all about items, magic, and monsters. To deny players items and such, you are denying them access to about 1/2 of what the game is. (IMO)

Plus, once the party actually gets to 20th level or higher, they deserve to start getting an ancient item or two. (20th is MASSIVE!) Heck, your supposed to be able to take on a Terrasque.. try to tell me that you're supposed to do that without a few MAJOR items. 

The point is, I don't agree with the "expected wealth" idea ANYWAY so thus I don't subscribe to the notion that this value is a hardset one that should determine EXACTLY what a character is SUPPOSED to have throughout his career or determine how balanced a different class is. Again, the numbers are good, but there still isn't enough accounted to convince me. I've roleplayed for over 10 years and I have NEVER seen a stingy GM. Heck, everyone around here is sometimes WAY too generous with high level items. That's a different story though.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 3, 2004)

Expected wealth is an evaluation tool for the DM, nothing more, nothing less.

 It gives a figure, which the DM can use to base the treasure, the party finds, on, which the DM has FULL CONTROL over at all times.

 Thus, a DM that tries to go by the power level, which the whole D&D ruleset is based upon, would keep an eye on how much treasure the party has aquired, when placing new treasure hoards or deciding upon rewards.

 Campaigns, where this is not done, are arguably the ones, where the VoP is either highly over- or underpowered. When the wealth is about the suggested level, the VoP is pretty balanced, I'm quite sure about that.

  Bye
  Thanee


----------



## The Souljourner (Aug 3, 2004)

mecra said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I call "nonsense" about this "expected wealth" notion. There is NO WAY to regulate exactly how much a character is going to make in a campaign.




Umm... what?  The DM has ABSOLUTE control over the entire world.  You're saying he can't control what the party brings in?



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> What if the campaign has many dragons?




Then the DM put them there.  He has control over that.



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> What if the Terrasque is plaguing a kingdom and the character party defeats it? (Thus getting a MASSIVE reward from the King himself.)




Then the DM put it there, and decided if the King would reward them, and how much.




			
				mecra said:
			
		

> Or what if it was a Dragon attacking the Kingdom and thus the party got loot from the dragon AND the reward from the King. (Through good roleplaying and a very difficult encounter.)




Again, the DM put it there, and decided how much loot the dragon has and how much the King would reward them.



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> The point is, the "expected wealth" idea is just a lowball value that doesn't account for all elements and things a party will get or acquire free of charge.




No, it's a guideline for the DM to keep his players balanced with the CRs of monsters they fight.  And it does account for all wealth, regardless of where it comes from.



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> Yes you can be a stingy GM, but I won't play for you.  D&D is all about items, magic, and monsters. To deny players items and such, you are denying them access to about 1/2 of what the game is. (IMO)




No one is talking about being a stingy DM.  They're talking about giving out what the DMG recommends for treasure for a standard party.



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> Plus, once the party actually gets to 20th level or higher, they deserve to start getting an ancient item or two.




It's already been mentioned that VoP isn't expected to work at Epic levels.



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> I don't subscribe to the notion that this value is a hardset one that should determine EXACTLY what a character is SUPPOSED to have throughout his career




That's your perogative, but the game was designed with those numbers in mind.  A CR 12 fight is designated CR 12 based on 4 12th level adventurers with nearly standard wealth.  No one's saying every character must have exactly the right amount of wealth... but +- 10% isn't unreasonable.



			
				mecra said:
			
		

> I've roleplayed for over 10 years and I have NEVER seen a stingy GM. Heck, everyone around here is sometimes WAY too generous with high level items.




Obviously, you always play with a certain kind of DM who likes to give out lots of treasure.  I've played with both kinds of DMs - those that give out a lot, and those that give out hardly any.  I've been 8th level with about 3000gp worth of magic items, and I've been 8th level with over 100,000gp worth of magic items.  I can tell you that the latter party required challenges far exceeding our level.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Pax (Aug 3, 2004)

mecra said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I call "nonsense" about this "expected wealth" notion. There is NO WAY to regulate exactly how much a character is going to make in a campaign.



  ROFLMAO!  You're calling one fo the basic principles of handlign character wealth, _as set forth in the DMG_, nonsense?  you're claiming it'snot possible to TRACK that? ROFLMAO, of *course* there's a way to do that!

  IMC - and I *do* mean the regular campaign I run face-to-face, not the Exodus arena - I keep track of what each individual character has, as well as the party average.

  If the party average is low, and noone has significantly more than their own individual expected wealth, I increase out the amount of coin, art, gem, jewelry, and commodity treasures the party can acquire.  If it's a specific character who's falling behind, I put in an item or items of especial interest to *that* character.

  Conversely, if the party as a whole, or someone in particular, is too far AHEAD of the expected curve, I take the OPPOSITE stance - less value in coin and saleable goods, less items of specific interest to that character, and so on.

  As GM, I am in *absolute* control of every last bent _copper piece_ that is or is not introduced into my campaign.

  If you want to call THAT nonsense, then I'll have to ask what sort cockamamie, bass-ackwards _house rule_ campaign structure *you're* using, 'cause what I'm doing is exactly what the DMG describes.



> What if the campaign has many dragons?



 then they're poorer than the MM indicates.



> What if the Terrasque is plaguing a kingdom and the character party defeats it? (Thus getting a MASSIVE reward from the King himself.)



 Then the party has either just come OUt of a "dry spell" WRT treasure, or they'd best expect to go *into* one.



> Or what if it was a Dragon attacking the Kingdom and thus the party got loot from the dragon AND the reward from the King. (Through good roleplaying and a very difficult encounter.)



  No king, no matter how much "good roleplaying" the players pull off, will give them a monetarily valuable reward AND let them keep the dragon'sloot.  Other, MAYBE, than waiving them from the usual TAXATION on their newfound wealth.

  Heck, he may begin to see them as a THREAT to his OWN authority, and seek to _do away with them_.



> The point is, the "expected wealth" idea is just a lowball value that doesn't account for all elements and things a party will get or acquire free of charge.



  No, actually, it's not a LOWBALL anything.  It's the AVERAGE, which you should expect to achieve if the game you're in isplayed by the *rules*.  You seem to think that money can fall form the sky, wether the GM likes it or not.  *Feh.*



> Yes you can be a stingy GM, but I won't play for you.  D&D is all about items, magic, and monsters. To deny players items and such, you are denying them access to about 1/2 of what the game is. (IMO)



  Ah, I see.  A munchkin who's never played anything but a Monty Haul game. *Now* I begin to understand.

 The Expected Wealth is based on the expected average number of equal-CR/EL encounters, and the average results for treasure in return for each encounter, with a little shaved off the top for things like living expenses and similar costs.

  And the rules for treasure *explicitly* direct a GM to _reduce_ or even _eliminate_ treasure - or add some where none is warranted at all - in order to *keep* the party on that expected wealth level.

  The measure of CRs for creatures, in fact, *depends* on not being too far out of balance ... *either way*.  If a party is too poor, monsters become more challenging than they're listed.  If hte party is too wealthy, the opposite occurs.



> Plus, once the party actually gets to 20th level or higher, they deserve to start getting an ancient item or two. (20th is MASSIVE!) Heck, your supposed to be able to take on a Terrasque.. try to tell me that you're supposed to do that without a few MAJOR items.



  Seeing as I *run* an *EPIC* arena, don't preach tome about what 20th level and higher is or isn't.

  Getting a big item?  Sure; how about an adamantine _+5 vorpal Greatsword_ ... ? That's 203,350gp right there, nearly one-*third* of what any 20th level character should have at any one time.

  Butif you expect a 20th level character to have FOU of those, *and* a wagonfull of potions, scrolls,adn wands, *and* a castle manned by well-equipped soldiers, *and* two dozen miscellaneous items of significant power, *and* two entire suits of _+5 heavy fortification_ armor, *AND* an artifact or two ...

  ...

  ... you need to stop smoking whatever it is you're on, and rejoin the rest ofthe gaming world.



> The point is, I don't agree with the "expected wealth" idea ANYWAY so thus I don't subscribe to the notion that this value is a hardset one that should determine EXACTLY what a character is SUPPOSED to have throughout his career or determine how balanced a different class is.



 Sorry for you, but you can agree or not - but it's how the gameis WRITTEN.  So when discussing the game as written, you have to _accept_ the Expected Wealth rules, even ifyou dislike them.



> I've roleplayed for over 10 years and I have NEVER seen a stingy GM. Heck, everyone around here is sometimes WAY too generous with high level items. That's a different story though.



  No, it's not a different story - butit's a very TELLING story, indeed.  If you, _yourself_ admit that your experience has solely been with exceptionally generous GMs, you have no grounds on which to argue against the rules-as-written *expected average wealth*, which was calculated form what the *rules* say an average person will get from the average number of encounters needed to advance to each listed level.


----------



## mecra (Aug 3, 2004)

Wow Pax... did I step on your poor wittle footsie?

*laugh* I see how it is. I post my opinions, and you insult, slander, and belittle me.  Ummm... someone other than me REALLY needs a reality check here.  I re-read what I said, and I only said a couple things in sarcasm, yet I am blasted by you? On the defensive are we? Lacking in social etiquette are we? Maybe you should let someone ELSE GM for a bit so you can cool down. And if you actually read one of my previous posts, you would see that I am not a munchkin... yes I make sure my characters are good, but I take the VoP because it allows me to not be concerned with magical items and just focus on roleplaying and trying to be exalted. That's hardly munchkin.

Oh, and it's VERY EASY to not have control over a party's loot and "expected wealth." Apparenlty you have never had a campaign that switched GMs at key plot points? You've never just run a scenario, then have a DIFFERENT GM run one next time with the same characters? Now, say your group has three different GMs with six different players... belittlements aside I think you can see where I am going with this. If you are in a group that has ONE and ONLY ONE GM, then you could absolutely control everything. But don't expect us with multiple GMs to keep spreadsheets of all our characters just so each GM doesn't give more than allocated amount. That would be a book keeping nightmare for all three GMs and the six players. So, don't expect us to have to all follow your examples just because you are jaded against the VoP. Oh, and let me not forget to mention that we usually are missing 1-2 players per week. Again, we're not going to number crunch just for the sake of crunching and someone said somewhere that we had to. We play it, "by ear." 

If you think the DM's guide is fact, then guess what... every book they write after that is fact! If you don't like the VoP, I can find someone that doesn't like the "expected wealth" rule. Its a horse apiece. You want me to fully adhere to the expected wealth and have to surrender to your version of the VoP? Why don't you surrender to MY version of the E.W?? 

WotC wrote the book, they tested the book with their testers and their special forum, and they put in rules and such that keep people from abusing the rules to a reasonably degree. (It does say in the VoP that if you do hoard an item, you LOSE all of the effects of the VoP with it NEVER returning no matter how many feats you take.) Sounds like to me if you stray from the strict roleplaying elements of the vow, you lose it and all that precious leveling you just now wasted without gaining monetary gain. A normal player doesn't suffer from such roleplaying restrictions.


----------



## Scion (Aug 3, 2004)

Wealth guidelines are a good rule and very easy for dm's to adjucated properly. Keeping within the guidelines is almost childsplay, all it takes is a modicrum of forethought.

Going with that then it is fairly easy to compare how things are for each character class at given levels. The wealth guidelines have worked surprisingly well in my experience.

Take that as you will of course, but dm's who say that their players are out of control and they have 10x how much they should have.. well.. there are some problems there, but it likely isnt with the players.


----------



## mecra (Aug 3, 2004)

I agree under normal, group of four circumstances. Once you get into my world though, (three GMs, six players) things become INCREASINGLY difficult to gauge properly and document well.


----------



## Pax (Aug 3, 2004)

mecra said:
			
		

> Wow Pax... did I step on your poor wittle footsie?



  Did I step on your nonexistant little point?



> And if you actually read one of my previous posts, you would see that I am not a munchkin...



  I'd sayyou were.  You think thatthe party is beholden tog et allthe loot they want, and pay-no-never-mind to what the rules say they _should_ have at any given point.  And to support that, you cite the occurrancein some campaignsof rampant Monty Haulism.  To me, that's munchkin, through and through.



> Oh, and it's VERY EASY to not have control over a party's loot and "expected wealth."



 No, it's easy to *have* control, because that's the default condition.  To _lose_ control, you must _actively pursue that loss_.

  Do nothing, and you retain control of the party's wealth.



> Apparenlty you have never had a campaign that switched GMs at key plot points?



  Nope,not a single time.  For one, I despise multiple-GM setups; if the group has multiple GMs and each one wants to run a game, then the group should simply have _multiple campaigns running_.  One group I was in did just that; one GM ran Shadowrun or Battletech/Mechwarrior, another ran D&D2E, another ran a _different_ D&D 2E, and so on.  We'd decide each week what we'd be playing the NEXT week.  No single set of characters andplotlines had more than a SINGLE GM.

  For two, everyone I've ever gamed with face-to-face has felt the same about "shared GMing" setups: utter loathing.



> You've never just run a scenario, then have a DIFFERENT GM run one next time with the same characters?



  Not so it affects what happens the next time I run a scenario.  My campaign is _my_ campaign, so even if someone uses the same character elsewhere ... not one XP nor single bent copper piece makes it back to *my* table.



> Now, say your group has three different GMs with six different players... belittlements aside I think you can see where I am going with this. If you are in a group that has ONE and ONLY ONE GM, then you could absolutely control everything. But don't expect us with multiple GMs to keep spreadsheets of all our characters just so each GM doesn't give more than allocated amount.



  You con't need a spreadsheet.  Eahc Gm should simply look at what is on the sheets of hte characters who will take part in their game(s), tally up the totals, _and dole out loot accordingly_.  *If*, that is, they want to play by the rules as published.

 If not, thenit's their _house rule(s)_ that *change* things formhow the game, as sold, *works*.



> That would be a book keeping nightmare for all three GMs and the six players. So, don't expect us to have to all follow your examples just because you are jaded against the VoP.



  ROFLMAO.  It'snot hard to have a reasonable estimate of value.  "Hum, a plus two shield, plus four armor, and an adamantine, plus one sword?  ... six scrolls ... two level one, three level two, and a level four?  ... eight cure moderate wounds potions and a Wand of Detect Magic? .. a couple other minor items, I see; and I also see your coins and gems total to about 4,000gp ... hmm, including mundane gear that's ... oh, close enough to call it _about_ twenty-five thousand gold; gee, that's a couple thousand below what I'd expect; I guess I won't have to be too stingy this time around - good, I have a dange- er, I mean, LUCRATIVE scenario in mind this week ... *evil GM grin*"

  Add it up, that's not an unfair estimate of what that sort of equipment list would cost.  No, it's not exact, but - youhardly need to count every last copper.  Having a decent ballpark (to within 2% of the expected value, or 25gp for the much lower levels), is probably as accurate as any GM needs to be on-the-fly.

  But between sessions, yes, the GM should have a fair idea, to within a hundred gold or so,of how much each character has, and what the party has as a total.

  And I'mnot "jaded against the VoP"; I rather like it now, though I have my own slight revision (you could see it at the Exodus, if you follow hte link in my SIG), which adds in Inherent Bonusses to attributes, but thins the bonus feats out a LOT.

  Oh, and yes, it extends itself into the early Epic levels too.

  However, I dispute that it's UNDERpowered, simply because it WOULD cost more than a character of that level SHOULD have available, to get similar abilities *without* the restrictions of the Vow.

  Given the wealth levels _listed_ inthe DMG, it's about right.  If you play a poorer campaign, you need to lower the benefits of the Vow.  OTOH, if you play a wealthier campaign - like the Monty Haul game you implicitly describe - then it should be adjusted UPwards in power.



> Oh, and let me not forget to mention that we usually are missing 1-2 players per week. Again, we're not going to number crunch just for the sake of crunching and someone said somewhere that we had to. We play it, "by ear."



  No, it sounds to me like you play it "not at all", and just dole out the loot like it's going out of style.  I mean, come on; artifacts?  Epic items?  LOTS of dragons, then not only keeping the dragon's hoard but ALSO getting a LARGE reward from the king?



> If you think the DM's guide is fact, then guess what... every book they write after that is fact!



  The DMG and PHB *are* fact, _if you play by the rules presented therein_.  If you don't, then you've entered House Rules country and shouldn't use whatyou do as an argument _supposedly_ based on the rules as written.



> If you don't like the VoP, I can find someone that doesn't like the "expected wealth" rule. Its a horse apiece. You want me to fully adhere to the expected wealth and have to surrender to your version of the VoP? Why don't you surrender to MY version of the E.W??



  I never siad you had to "surrender" to diddly.  *As* written, played in a game run by the rules *as* written (yes, that includes Expected Wealth by Level) - it's surprisingly balanced, despite how it first looks.

  I happen to like the _feel_ of my own version better (which actually *does* increase the wealth needed, by quite a bit, to mimick it's abilities - the Exodus is actually a bit on the welathy/powerful side for it's level, since more of folks' gear is (predictably) focussed on combat).  But that's neither here nor there.



> WotC wrote the book, they tested the book with their testers and their special forum, and they put in rules and such that keep people from abusing the rules to a reasonably degree.



  And I'll say the same exact thing back to you about Expected Wealth by Level.  LOL.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 3, 2004)

mecra said:
			
		

> Apparenlty you have never had a campaign that switched GMs at key plot points? You've never just run a scenario, then have a DIFFERENT GM run one next time with the same characters? Now, say your group has three different GMs with six different players... belittlements aside I think you can see where I am going with this.




...that you have a communication problem in your group? 

We had changing DMs, often after one or two adventures - tho we do prefer longer DMing periods, of course - and never had any problem with that. *shrug*

Bye
Thanee


----------



## mecra (Aug 4, 2004)

Hmmm... me thinks you need to learn some social skills Pax. Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean you blast them like they were a child. My point isn't nonexistant just because it disagrees with you. My players view me as one of the best GMs in the area, but that's partly because I don't rule lawyer it and force them to follow strict guidelines that are too choking for my taste.

Unfortunately, I sincerely doubt you will ever be able to understand someone else's opinion aside from your own, but that's typical of people who taking gaming too seriously. *shrug* To each his own I guess.


----------



## Pax (Aug 4, 2004)

You know, I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more form you, mecra.  attack *me* insteadof the points I've raised - *shrug* typical.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 4, 2004)

Wow I have only ever seen one other thread on here filled with such venom. and that got a mod involved in telling the offender to calm down. I wonder when the warning to Mecra is coming.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Aug 4, 2004)

*NOT OGL material...?*

I don't think the VoP is OGL.. perhaps the original poster, or a MOD can remove that from the site before some legal type person notices and we have issues with access to this board?


----------



## gfunk (Aug 4, 2004)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Wow I have only ever seen one other thread on here filled with such venom. and that got a mod involved in telling the offender to calm down. I wonder when the warning to Mecra is coming.



Mecra, I only offer you this quote. It was orginally in Legions of Hell by Green Ronin, describing Farcas (a Duke of Hell), but it also describes Pax too.

"If Duke Furcas has a weakness, it's that he craves recognition for his genius. It is not enough for him to outsmart a foe, he must hake sure that the deed is publicized."

In this light, I suggest you take a deep breath, count to 10 and walk away from the computer. Trust me, it's not worth it. I know 



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> I don't think the VoP is OGL.. perhaps the original poster, or a MOD can remove that from the site before some legal type person notices and we have issues with access to this board?



I'm the original poster and I hardly think that's necessary. After all, I got the message from the Wizards' boards!


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 4, 2004)

Quite frankly, I'm on the verge of giving both Mecra and Pax a free vacation. You're both acting like squabbling children, and you're both responsible for this argument. This isn't rocket science, folks; *do not insult or belittle other posters. Do not goad them into insulting you.*

If I see any more problems from either of you, in this or any other thread, it'll be the last we hear from you for a while. It's up to you guys to self-moderate yourselves. This place is only as friendly and as fun as you make it, and if someone is nasty to you then the thing to do is to report the post (including the url) and _not_ to respond with greater vitriol.

The thread can stay open, because hopefully we've sorted out this argument. Right? Right. Please respectful to one another, folks; the only reason we're here in the first place is to have fun.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 4, 2004)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Wow I have only ever seen one other thread on here filled with such venom. and that got a mod involved in telling the offender to calm down. I wonder when the warning to Mecra is coming.




When you see problems, please report the thread using the handy-dandy link in every post and following the instructions. We can't be everywhere at once! Our thanks to the member who did report it; it's appreciated, because it means that a moderator can intervene before the thread has to get shut down.


----------



## Numion (Aug 4, 2004)

Still open? 

Nice!

It was a nice little numerical analysis. However, those rarely tell the real deal about balance. Just like people had min/maxed numerical 'proof' of Mystic Theurges ultimate brokenness .. that just wasn't there in actual use. 

I advocate actual playtesting to see if something is horribly broken. At least that cost-analysis isn't accurate. 10K a pop for feats? A bit steep. Also the doubling for non-slotted items is suspect, as normal PCs don't need to

a) take all that in the package

b) if they do, they don't have to wear all it at once

At least in our group some items can be stored in a bag or backpack when it's not needed. Situation warrants whats in those oh-so-precious slots. 

ps. and the claim that because WotC priced feats at 10K makes all worth that balance-wise makes the whole notion of balance suspect, or at least any gp - balance connection.


----------



## Pax (Aug 4, 2004)

Actually, at least when I posted a similar analysis here on ENWorld, I doubled it not because it was slotless (though I borrowed that specific multiplier, for familiarity's sake) ... but because _the benefits of VoP cannot be taken away withou the ascetic's consent_.  No pickpocket, sunder-monger, ambush-to-capture, or similar "old standby" in the GM's toolbox of underhanded tricks can eliminate even _part_ of what an ascetic has gained from their Vow.  In fact, nothing short of an _antimagic field_ can touch anyof it.

The idea of pricing feats at 10K each is based on the Arms and Equipment Guide - it's not an exact measure, because each feat would have to be assessed individually.

And even if we _ignore_ the bonus feats - price them at 0gp each - that's a drop in the bucket compared to what hte RAW state each of those bonusses shoudl cost.

At 20th level, the ability enhancemnts *alone* are not insignificant: +8, +6, +4, and +2.  _Without_ factoring anything in for their indestructibility and unremovability, that's 696,000gp of abilities (640K, 36K, 16K, and 4K respectively).

The +5(good) from Exalted Strike is _superior_ to a simple +5 weapon, but not quite as good as a _+5, sure-striking_ weapon - so even just pricing it at +5 is a marginally low-ball estimate; that's another 50Kgp right there.  We're up to 746,000gp, out of the 760,000gp that a 20th-level PC is expected to have.

No need to breathe, no need to eat or drink, constant _true sight_, constant _endure elements_, Resistance (15) to _all five_ energies ... I guarantee you, items performing those functions - even destructible, removable, slotted items - will cost more than the 14,000gp "left" after covering only the top two abilities.

So - it's truly laughable to say the vow is "underpowered".  Perhaps "Unsuited for certain players, campaigns, characters, or styles of play" ... but certainly *not* underpowered.

IMC, I cut the bonus feats back to one per 5 levels, but granted inherent bonusses (+1 to each stat per 4 levels), as the attribute fall-behind was worse than the "loss" of opportunities to take already-in-short-supply Exalted Feats.

I find _either_ version (RAW or my own) to be reasonably balanced, if you keep wealth and prevalence of magic within 10-20% of the RAW expectations.  I simply happen to prefer the flavor of my vesion slightly better (plus I smoothed some parts of it out, to make continuing the progressionof benefits into Epic levels an easier task).


----------



## Scion (Aug 4, 2004)

Not getting to change equipment is a 'huge' hit. Much, much larger than any benefit from the equipment not being able to be taken away easily (and it can be taken away mind you).

Also, pricing the +8 item useing epic rules just doesnt work, it isnt worth 640k gp, more like 64k gp. Or, at worst, 86k gp (+6 enhancement item, +2 inherant bonus).

I have seen the vow played from level one (human) and while it is nice it has incredibly glaring holes. Especially since it cannot be changed up to be made more favorable.

It is only playable on the classes that get the most benefit, for others it is practically a slap in the face.

So, with the vastly reduced price of the +8 bonus (and it should be priced in the nonepic regime, especially since the feat itself doesnt naturally flow into epic territory to begin with) and appropriate pricing of the feats (most of which are worth close to 0 gp anyway.. oohh, I spent a feat to shed light as a candle) along with taking into account the very nature of the feat (it does cost 2 feats to get in the first place, the abilities cannot be switched around to help out more, and it can be taken away by foes who plan for it) it comes out in the end to be an interesting, but potentially very weak, feat.


----------



## Sephiroth no Miko (Aug 4, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Actually, at least when I posted a similar analysis here on ENWorld, I doubled it not because it was slotless (though I borrowed that specific multiplier, for familiarity's sake) ... but because _the benefits of VoP cannot be taken away withou the ascetic's consent_.  No pickpocket, sunder-monger, ambush-to-capture, or similar "old standby" in the GM's toolbox of underhanded tricks can eliminate even _part_ of what an ascetic has gained from their Vow.  In fact, nothing short of an _antimagic field_ can touch anyof it.




Unless, of course, the ascetic breaks his vow. Then it all goes poof. Forever. And just as a DM can create a situation where he destroys a party's items with sunder, thieves, disjunction, what have you... a DM is capable of creating a situation for an ascetic where he is tempted into breaking that vow. It may require a little more thought than the average encounter, but it certainly is possible. Just pointing out that it's not entirely invulnerable/untouchable. 

Still, interesting numerical analysis.... however, I think what some people have said before and I agree, is that it doesn't really take into account the disadvantages of the feat, price-wise-- i.e., the lack of versatility. Granted, it would be very hard to price that. Yes, I realized it would cost a whoooole lot of gold to get all the abilities and benefits the feat confers (probably more than the listed wealth for character level in the DMG as you've pointed out), but that inability to customize can be a real liability so it winds up balancing everything out. And I think playtesting pretty much supports that.

The only real beef I have with VoP (the feat, not your analysis) is that it is seems heavily predisposed to monks, druids, and sorcerers. It would be nice to try out the idea with some the other classes without running into severe problems.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 4, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Actually, at least when I posted a similar analysis here on ENWorld, I doubled it not because it was slotless (though I borrowed that specific multiplier, for familiarity's sake) ... but because _the benefits of VoP cannot be taken away withou the ascetic's consent_.




And how much did you deduct for having the abilities fixed (and some of those are not too great, like the most important bonus to saves, which is rather pathetic)? Nothing? Yeah, right! 



> At 20th level, the ability enhancemnts *alone* are not insignificant: +8, +6, +4, and +2.  _Without_ factoring anything in for their indestructibility and unremovability, that's 696,000gp of abilities (640K, 36K, 16K, and 4K respectively).




The +8 is actually worth no more than 91k if you use a +2 manual/tome and a +6 enhancement item, but you know that already. That's the only reasonable way to price that.

Epic level costs have absolutely no meaning in this comparison as you said yourself somewhere up there (IIRC), the VoP is meant for characters up to 20th level, not beyond. Those characters can get a bonus to a single attribute as high as +11 (enhancement plus inherent, not counting polymorphing or other means to increase this even further), the ascetic is stuck at +8 here. So it's more of a disadvantage than a bonus, actually. Surely not something to use an epic multiplier on to measure its power.

Of course, you could - hypothetically speaking - aquire those tomes before becoming an ascetic and stack that on top of your enhancement bonus, but I doubt this totally ridiculous case of munchkinism has any bearing here. Really! 

If someone did that in my game, it would count as breaking the vow automatically, so after spending the feats the character would aquire no benefit whatsoever. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 4, 2004)

Using 640k rather reminds of those discussions where someone asks if he can pay 2k for a Ring of Protection vs. Evil.  The naive use of the formula is obviously wrong in both cases.  640k can only be justified when the character in question has already stacked on a number of boosts including a +4 or +5 Inherent bonus.  That is obvious from any reasonable power analysis.  If the PC in question is not doing a superstack, then I see no reason to believe that the price could not be set at 64k (or slightly higher).

I would also like point out that the 760k number, to extent it has any meaning at all to this discussion, represents a snapshot in time of _the items that have survived so far_.  If destruction of items is a factor, that has already been weighed in.  The wealth guideline for a 20th character  has convoluted in the expected losses to a 19th level character, the wealth guideling for a 21st level has convoluted in the expected losses to a 20th level character, etc.


----------



## Pax (Aug 4, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Not getting to change equipment is a 'huge' hit. Much, much larger than any benefit from the equipment not being able to be taken away easily (and it can be taken away mind you).



  I don't think you understand.  The point here is, to gt JUST the abilities of the Vow, would cost more than any other character would *have*, if the game were played "as published" with regards to wealth/loot/etc.

  So how does anyone else *have* anything to change *to* ... ?

  Further ... do you _really_ think fighters will have two or more full suits of armor, a half-dozen different highly-specialised weapons, sixty pairs of boots, thre cloaks, five robes, etc, etc ... ?  I mean, really - either no one "outfit" is worththe effort at that level, or you're playing a game which isn't within the as-published bounds of character wealth.



> Also, pricing the +8 item useing epic rules just doesnt work, it isnt worth 640k gp, more like 64k gp. Or, at worst, 86k gp (+6 enhancement item, +2 inherant bonus).



  Beg to differ.  It *is* an Epic item - the _only_ WOTC items which produce a continuous +8 *enhancement* bonus to a single attribute happen to be Epic items, and they cost 640,000gp.

  A +6 enhancement Bonus and a +2 Inherent Bonus is *not* equal in value, either.  Reember, if you take the Vow of Poverty as your 18th-character-level feat, you get ALL the benefits, except the bonus feats.  So it's possible to be a 20th level Ascetic, _and already have a +5 inherent bonus_.  Since the bonus is not anitem you own, nor an ability you can choose not to use, it's still in effect.

  Now, if the Vow DID give you a +6 Enhancement and +2 Inherent bonus ... the two Inherent bonusses wouldn't stack, so your total bonus owuldbe +11.

  However, _it doesn't_; it gives a +8 _enhancement_ bonus.  And all of that *does* stack with the pre-existing +5 inherent bonus, for a total of *+13* ...

  It's a single bonus of a single type, and *must* be priced *as* a single bonus of a single type.  The precedent for pricing a continuous +8 enhancement bonus to a single attribute is 640,000gp, per the ELH.  It's not a price I made up myself, it's the price *WOTC* decided, after playtesting the Epic rules, was appropriate, fair, and _balanced_.



> It is only playable on the classes that get the most benefit, for others it is practically a slap in the face.



  So?  Playing a low-to-average-strength-dex-and-con vanilla Fighter is much the same; wearing platemail is a big smack in the face for sorcerors or wizards (without PrCs, of course), and so on.  Just because it's a suboptimal choice for SOME characters, doesn't make in underpowered _in general_.

  For those classes most suited to the effects of hte Vow of Poverty, said Vow is reasonably balanced.  And I happen to believe that the benefits offered - which at pre-epic levels you couldn't afford to get ANY other way except WITH the Vow of Poverty - are sufficiently good to match any supposed lack of versatility.



			
				Sephiroth no Miko said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, the ascetic breaks his vow. Then it all goes poof. Forever. And just as a DM can create a situation where he destroys a party's items with sunder, thieves, disjunction, what have you... a DM is capable of creating a situation for an ascetic where he is tempted into breaking that vow.



  Yes, but it still requires the Ascetic's _active collusion_ to pull it off.  The player could simply smile at the GM and say "no, nice try ... but, I don't think so."  You see, while the GM can *tempt* you - he can't *force* you, without a righteously-deserved OOC complaint about being _railroaded_.

  That doesn't work so well when the BBEG sunders your weapon.  Sure, you may (in fact, _should_) be able to pick up a replacement - or get your own repaired - at a later date.

  But that's the catch, *at a later date*.  Right then, in the hot seat, you're sans magic weapon - and the ascetic just picks up ANOTHER previously-nonmagical simple weapon ... or makes a fist ... or whatever.  Their Exalted Strike kicks in immediately, to full effect and without delay.



> It may require a little more thought than the average encounter, but it certainly is possible. Just pointing out that it's not entirely invulnerable/untouchable.



 It'sa lot easier for the GM to force an equipment-removal on the party at large without destroying character concepts ('cause the equipment can be reclaimed or replaced).  However, if s/he forcibly voids the ascetic's vow, without the player's consent - that's playing dirty pool, because it *invalidates* the character itself.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> And how much did you deduct for having the abilities fixed (and some of those are not too great, like the most important bonus to saves, which is rather pathetic)? Nothing? Yeah, right!



  Fixed for effects from items/the vow, only - not from spells cast by yourself or team-mates.  Resistance bonus?  You can get up to a +8 from a single spell, _Superior Resistance_ - the heck with a "mere" +5.  And you CAN stillbe handed potions to drink, mind.

  But, are you saying "not having an entire alternate set of equipment/abilities is worth a discount on the price of the equipment/abilities you DO have" ... ?  If so - cite me the rule, 'cause I often DON'T have lots of alternate pieces of equipment.  If I own it, I'mwearing it - that tends to be my characters' pattern.

  Sure, a non-ascetic could choose to sell their old gear and get new.  Then again, the ascetic *could* have chosen not to take the feat in the first place!



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> The +8 is actually worth no more than 91k if you use a +2 manual/tome and a +6 enhancement item, but you know that already. That's the only reasonable way to price that.



  You're absolutely wrong about this; see my response to a similar error, above.



> Epic level costs have absolutely no meaning in this comparison as you said yourself somewhere up there (IIRC), the VoP is meant for characters up to 20th level, not beyond. Those characters can get a bonus to a single attribute as high as +11 (enhancement plus inherent, not counting polymorphing or other means to increase this even further), the ascetic is stuck at +8 here.



  The highest the ascetic can getis +13, not +8 - and that's 2 points better than the non-ascetics.  Heck, even starting at 1st level - an ascetic Sorceror.  Fire off some wishes of your own for the inherent bonus, and *poof* instant +13 total!



> If someone did that in my game, it would count as breaking the vow automatically, so after spending the feats the character would aquire no benefit whatsoever.



  Oh, really.  And you wouldn't tellthe playe ahead of time?  *Shame* on you, if so!

  What if they'd played the character through, oh, 16th level or so, and had already acquired and used a +5 tome ... before they even knew about the Vow of Poverty?  They could take levels of Wonderworker or Sword of Righteousness, and have the Vow of Poverty by 18th level - without ever having had the intent to commit an act of "totally ridiculous [...] munchkinism".

  And that still doesn't address the ascetic Sorceror who casts Wish himself, to get said +5 inherent bonus.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I would also like point out that the 760k number, to extent it has any meaning at all to this discussion, represents a snapshot in time of the items that have survived so far. If destruction of items is a factor, that has already been weighed in. The wealth guideline for a 20th character has convoluted in the expected losses to a 19th level character, the wealth guideling for a 21st level has convoluted in the expected losses to a 20th level character, etc.



 No, actually, that's not the case.  The wealth-by-level tables assume *no* destruction of PC equipment by the GM - as it explicitly describes in the DMG.  I refer you to page 135 of that book for further reading.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> But, are you saying "not having an entire alternate set of equipment/abilities is worth a discount on the price of the equipment/abilities you DO have" ... ?




No, I'm saying that being unable to ever have anything but what is listed on the table is worth a discount, and a pretty huge one, actually. There is no way, that you can spend your resources in any way other than what has been laid out before you. Selling and getting new gear isn't even required, that's just a bonus.



> You're absolutely wrong about this; see my response to a similar error, above.




What's wrong there, that there is no such thing as a 10x epic multiplier for item costs in the DMG? Hmm... no, I don't think that is it.

That's right, there is none, because it is reserved for epic level play (hence it is introduced in the ELH not the DMG). VoP is not meant (as written) for epic level play. These two have no intersection, whatsoever.

Now, it would be fair to mention, that it is simply impossible to get a +8 enhancement bonus otherwise, since it caps at +6, but then you just need to find something else (like an inherent bonus), which can be used to cover the missing +2 for a comparison of the approximate item value you get with the VoP. Or you could just apply the regular formula, even though it is not possible to get that high, but I think the other method is more accurate and does better mimic actual play situations.

It is completely irrelevant how much a character would have to pay for a +8 enhancement bonus (which, BTW, would be 64k per the DMG, it just doesn't exist ), but how much it would cost to obtain a compareable bonus. The closest thing in the DMG is the +6 enhancement +2 inherent bonus. Hence, that has to be used to compare (or the 64k extrapolation otherwise).



> The highest the ascetic can getis +13, ...




As I said... hypothetically, and that is only possible, if the ascetic can cast Wish (or Miracle I guess), and there is a HUGE XP cost involved to get there.

Besides, it's actually impossible to cast 5 Wishes in a row pre-epic, since it costs more XP than you'll ever have available in the necessary time frame of 5 rounds, unless you are using silly stuff like the Dweomerkeeper ability to not pay any XP for a Wish, but then you will end up at the same place where the people go, who spend all their money on manuals and tomes to rack up inherent bonuses and then become ascetics afterwards. 

Three Wishes is max, and that would give you the same +11 anyone else can get, with the prerequisite of being able to cast the spell (which only a really small percentage of all ascetics will be able to and so this cannot generally be assumed, anyways (+8 is the regular maximum)) AND an *additional* cost of *15,000 XP* (not a small sum for sure), since the other person can just buy the +5 tome with gold. The ascetic does not have this liberty.

Anyways, we are talking about items here, not class abilities. Classes are balanced already (more or less).

If you only compare equipment, which is what the VoP abilities emulate, there is no way to go beyond +8 for the ascetic, but anyone else can go to +11, using only those resources. And *everyone* can do that, not just sorcerers!



> Oh, really.  And you wouldn't tellthe playe ahead of time?  *Shame* on you, if so!




Right. I'd actually assume, that the player does know that already. There is no need to tell. See, I only play with reasonable persons, not people who would use their money on tomes and then pick up VoP. These people can play somewhere else. 



> What if they'd played the character through, oh, 16th level or so, and had already acquired and used a +5 tome ... before they even knew about the Vow of Poverty?  They could take levels of Wonderworker or Sword of Righteousness, and have the Vow of Poverty by 18th level - without ever having had the intent to commit an act of "totally ridiculous [...] munchkinism".




That's not what I am talking about.

And this situation will never happen in a game, anyways. So, frankly, who cares.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Sephiroth no Miko (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Yes, but it still requires the Ascetic's _active collusion_ to pull it off.  The player could simply smile at the GM and say "no, nice try ... but, I don't think so."  You see, while the GM can *tempt* you - he can't *force* you, without a righteously-deserved OOC complaint about being _railroaded_.




Not necessarily. While it's pretty obvious whether a weapon is sundered or not (after all, if it's lying on the ground in pieces....), the line of what constitutes vow breaking can be quite blurred. (Just see the recent threads arguing over what a player can and cannot keep under this vow.) A DM could interpret things one way, and the player could wind up disagreeing with his interpretation. In that case, a DM might legitimately feel that the character has broken the vow, while the player might be going, "no way!" Would his complaint about being 'railroaded' be righteously-deserved? That's a matter of opinion. Yes, some DMs play dirty. But players can also be selfish; they may not want to admit they've broken the vow because they don't want to lose its benefits.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> It's a lot easier for the GM to force an equipment-removal on the party at large without destroying character concepts ('cause the equipment can be reclaimed or replaced).  However, if s/he forcibly voids the ascetic's vow, without the player's consent - that's playing dirty pool, because it *invalidates* the character itself.




I agree that it's is far easier to destroy equipment. But honestly, how is getting an ascetic to void his vow any dirtier than causing a paladin character to lose his paladinhood (which also "invalidates" the character)? Both are characters who have to walk a very narrow and straight path. If they swerve from that path, then they lose its benefits. Players are not saints (not usually) and sometimes greed will get the better of them, whether they intend it or not.

A ex-VoP isn't entirely screwed anyhow. Sure he's lost the benefits of that feat, but he's still got his class abilities and what's to keep him from picking up items now? It might take him a while to accumulate decent gear (depending on his level) but the point is, he's hardly unplayable. So I would have to respectfully disagree with your point about it invalidating the character.

But that's starting to veer off from the main point of the discussion... which I believe was about the doubling of the cost because the ascetic's bonuses cannot be taken away from him (easily) as opposed to a character's normal equipment.

On that front, I can see your point. There is something to be said about being able to pick up any simple weapon and have it be +5 good-aligned. And yes, I think that should be pricey. But if you're going to convert all the bonuses an ascetic gets into a monetary value, I think you should convert all the minuses an ascetic suffers (like a lack of customization or not being able to use consumable magic items, particularly in a jam) into a monetary value as well and add that to the total. Because just adding one side but not the other and comparing just that with the listed character wealth would give you an inaccurate view of how much that feat is worth.


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that being unable to ever have anything but what is listed on the table is worth a discount, and a pretty huge one, actually. There is no way, that you can spend your resources in any way other than what has been laid out before you. Selling and getting new gear isn't even required, that's just a bonus.



 And IMO that's irrelevant - you choose to play an ascetic, or you choose not to.





> Now, it would be fair to mention, that it is simply impossible to get a +8 enhancement bonus otherwise, since it caps at +6, but then you just need to find something else (like an inherent bonus), which can be used to cover the missing +2 for a comparison of the approximate item value you get with the VoP.



  That is not a valid assertation, I'm afraid - with the advent of stacking bonusses, you CANNOT simply break up a bonus to price it more-cheaply that way.  Doing so sidesteps the built-in costs of single large bonusses.



> It is completely irrelevant how much a character would have to pay for a +8 enhancement bonus (which, BTW, would be 64k per the DMG, it just doesn't exist ),



  And by the DMG, the VoP doesn't exist - it's called "loking to all available sorces to see how WOTC would price such an item if it *did* exist".  As it turns out, they've done precisely that.

  And they priced it at 640,000gp.



> As I said... hypothetically, and that is only possible, if the ascetic can cast Wish (or Miracle I guess), and there is a HUGE XP cost involved to get there.



  No, it's also possible if the character came into "grace" late in life - grew up incredibly wealthy, adventured as a wealth-monger for years ... and then had some sort of epihpany or the like, maybe a vision that convinced him to forsake material wealth.

  In fact, the figure how is likely the *best* historical example of a vow of Poverty character who _did_ (supposedly) have supernatural powers would be Saint Fancis of Assisi.  He *did* grow up wealthy, he *did* spend much of his life as a spend-it-like-money wastrel, and he *did* claim to have been converted to asceticism due to a vision from God.



> Besides, it's actually impossible to cast 5 Wishes in a row pre-epic, since it costs more XP than you'll ever have available in the necessary time frame of 5 rounds,



  not so; the rules specifically allow you to defer levelling up, *if* you are saving your XP to cast a specific spell or make a specific magic item - like, say, that _Tome of Clear Thought (+5)_.



> Anyways, we are talking about items here, not class abilities. Classes are balanced already (more or less).



  No, wer've diverged intothe realities of pricing items _based on the type of bonus granted_, as an example of why you must pricethe +8 enhancement *as a single bonus*, not breaking it up into multiple +'s.



> If you only compare equipment, which is what the VoP abilities emulate, there is no way to go beyond +8 for the ascetic, but anyone else can go to +11, using only those resources. And *everyone* can do that, not just sorcerers!



  And any late-in-life ascetic, or any ascetic sorceror, _or an ascetic who can convince a fellow party member to cast the wish spells FOR them_, can have a +13.

  Which *only* the ascetic can get, without going to epic levels, and using only Inherent and Enhancement bonusses.



> Right. I'd actually assume, that the player does know that already. There is no need to tell. See, I only play with reasonable persons, not people who would use their money on tomes and then pick up VoP. These people can play somewhere else.



  Depending on backstory, *I* might do that sort of thing.  Would I spend *all* the pre-Vow wealth on tomes and manuals?  Of course not.  But 10% to 20% wouldn't be at all unreasonable, and more MIGHT be warranted, depending on how dependant the character was on that attribute (Sorcerors and Charisma, for example).



> That's not what I am talking about.
> 
> And this situation will never happen in a game, anyways. So, frankly, who cares.



  Never?  Really?

  I GM a bunch of 3E newbies (and one veteran player), and until last night, one of them - my g/f, with whom I *live* - didn't know about the Vow at all.  Most of the players haven't opened the BoED - or anything except the PHB - despite my attempts to help them find PrC's that fit their vision of what they wanted to become, so as to begin aiming for a target from first level.

  So ... never say "never".  It's _entirely_ possible, for example, that the groups Druid might decide, later in "life", to try out the BoED and the Vow of Poverty.



			
				Sephiroth no Miko said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. While it's pretty obvious whether a weapon is sundered or not (after all, if it's lying on the ground in pieces....), the line of what constitutes vow breaking can be quite blurred. (Just see the recent threads arguing over what a player can and cannot keep under this vow.) A DM could interpret things one way, and the player could wind up disagreeing with his interpretation.



  And a responsible, fair, and above all _mature_ GM would permit (perhaps even encourage) the player to say "OH, well then, if I'd known that OOC, i wouldn't have DONE that" - and no voiding of the Vow occurs.  Unless the GM *is*, of course, seeking to unfairly railroad the player out of their character concept.

  And there's always the PGFR Exalted feat, _Gift of Discernment_.  All theplayer has to do is add "as long as that won't break my Vow(s)" to every action, and the GM has to warn him of what WILL do so, ahead of time.



> I agree that it's is far easier to destroy equipment. But honestly, how is getting an ascetic to void his vow any dirtier than causing a paladin character to lose his paladinhood (which also "invalidates" the character)?



  Because while difficult, it's at least *possible* to atone and REGAIN one's paladinhood.

  Not so with the Vow of Poverty.

  the GM shouldn't set up situations where an undesireable and *permanent* alteration to the basic premise of a character is _unavoidable_, or avoidable only with the character's death, without the clear and _prior_ consent of the player in question.



> Both are characters who have to walk a very narrow and straight path. If they swerve from that path, then they lose its benefits. Players are not saints (not usually) and sometimes greed will get the better of them, whether they intend it or not.



  But - you can stray from the Paladin's path, and still return to it; you *can't* stray from the ascetic's path and return to THAT.



> A ex-VoP isn't entirely screwed anyhow. Sure he's lost the benefits of that feat, but he's still got his class abilities and what's to keep him from picking up items now? It might take him a while to accumulate decent gear (depending on his level) but the point is, he's hardly unplayable. So I would have to respectfully disagree with your point about it invalidating the character.



  I never said "made unplayable", I said "invalidated".

  If I sit down at your table to play, say, a burly, taciturn-but-dependable dwarven fighter ... and you then do something in the game that _forces_ me to be a pressy, flighty elven bard ... that's not the character I sat down to play, in fact it's not even close.

  If I sit down to play an ascetic, truly-holier-than-thou monk, and you subsequently arrange for me to be _forced_ (or tricked OOC) into being a money-grubbing, greedier-than-thou monk ... _that's_ not the character I sat down to play, either.



> I think you should convert all the minuses an ascetic suffers (like a lack of customization or not being able to use consumable magic items, particularly in a jam) into



  You know, people keep talking about the "lack of customisation" as if it were this huge, unbearably-tough onus to labor under.

  I just don't see it.  Plenty of GMs don't allow "magic item shops", you take what you find and lump it - same problems with "lack of versatility" there.  Noone rails that THOSE characters should get twice or three times as much treasure to "make up for the disadvantage", now, do they?

  Not that I'm seeing anyway.

  As for consumable items - they CAN use potions.  And to an extend, I *can* give you a potion-making, scroll-making, scroll-USING Ascetic spellcaster:

  Blood Magus.

  He doesn't OWN his "scrolls" or "potions" ... they're *part ofhis body*.  Granted, the GP cost to craft them would be a grey area of the rules, but along the same lines as the BoED's solutions for handling expensive material components for ascetic spellcasters, there should be equitable solutions other than "haha, you can't do it. sucks to be you".



> Because just adding one side but not the other and comparing just that with the listed character wealth would give you an inaccurate view of how much that feat is worth.



  Fine, you do that.  And if those disadvantages somehow add up to half of an entire _additional_ 20th level character's loot, congratulations - you've brought the ascetic's abilities back down *to* the value of a 20th level character's appropriate array of equipment - *without* having doubled prices for unremovability.

  Let's go through the prices again, with 20th level in mind:


 Exalted Bonus to AC, (+10); equivalent to Bracers of Armor +10 ... 100,000gp;
 Exalted Strike +5(good); indestructible, applicable to any simple weapon held at any givenmoment, so, IMO about twice as good as any single +5 weapon ... 100,000gp;
 Damage Reduction 10/evil - hard to adjudicate, VERY hard.  Let's price it at 5K per point, which is cheaper than SR ... 50,000gp;
 Attribute Enhancement +8, I*give* over the pricing, and call it 8x8x1K - just realise that IMO, that pricing is a GIFT ... 64,000gp;
 Attribute Enhancement +6 ... 36,000gp;
 Attribute Enhancement +4 ... 16,000gp;
 Attribute Enhancement +2 ... 4,000gp;
 Constant true sight - spell level 5 times caster level 9 times 2,000gp, times 2 for a base duration of 1 minute per level ... 180,000gp;
 No need to eat or drink - like a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone ... 4,000gp;
 No need to breathe - like an Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone ... 18,000gp;
 Constant Freedom of Movement - like a Ring of Freedom ... 40,000gp;
 Resistance +3 - like a cloak of Resistance +3 ... 9,000gp;
 Deflection +3 - like a Ringof Protection +3 ... 18,000gp;
 Natural Armor +2 - like an Amulet of Natural Armor +2 ... 8,000gp;
 Mind Shielding - like a ring of Mind Shielding ... 8,000gp;
 Regeneration - like a Ring of Regeneration ... 90,000gp;
 ten bonus feats - here's another gift: I'll price them at HALF the recommended amount per-feat ... 50,000gp for all 10 of 'em;
 energy resistance - equal to a _minor ring of universal energy resistance_ ... 144,000gp;

  That totals to 771,000gp _without_ the price-disputed +8 Enhancement Bonus being factored in.Then, even pricing the +8 bonus at only 64,000gp, we arrive at 835,000gp, *quite* significantly over the normal limit for a 20thlevel character.  Keep in mind that I still think that pricing the feat opportunities and the +8 enhancement bonusses that low makes them an absolute *gift*!

*And this still doesn't account for not being readily denied to the character*.  So, let's just put on a 50% markup on the whole schmear, because it *is* far more difficult to remove the benefits fothe Vow without the player's active collusion (or underhanded skulduggery on the part of a dishonest GM) ... and we arrive at an astounding 1,252,500gp.  Yes, over one and a quarter *million* gold.

  So, heck, I'll give you a 500,000gp "lack of versatility discount" - that's a half-million gold, enough to buy a suitof _+5 heavy fortification_ armor, a _+5 animated shield_, a _+5 vorpal greatsword_, and STILL have tens of thousands of gold left over.

  That brings out estimate to 752,500gp; gee, only 7,500gp below the recommended wealth for a 20th level character.

  And it's only that low because of not one,not two, but *three* "gimme" actions - grossly undervaluing the +8 enhancement, grossly undervaluing the feat opportunities, and *ridiculously* overvaluing the lack of versatility.

  And that entire assessment *also* ignores the fact that anyone who faithfully adhers to the Vow of Poverty for twenty levels is a *shoe-in* for acquiring the Saint template, which even the BoED self-describes as being VERY underpriced in terms of LA.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> No, actually, that's not the case.  The wealth-by-level tables assume *no* destruction of PC equipment by the GM - as it explicitly describes in the DMG.  I refer you to page 135 of that book for further reading.




It says nothing of the kind on page 135 of my DMG.

All it mentions is that the wealth level is "based" on average wealth of typical encounters.  What your asserting doe not make any sense, because the DM would need to track every penny of wealth a PC spent or lost in order to make use of a simple chart.

If we want to be exceedingly literal, page 135 "proves" that wealth is never destroyed.


----------



## Sephiroth no Miko (Aug 5, 2004)

> the GM shouldn't set up situations where an undesireable and *permanent* alteration to the basic premise of a character is _unavoidable_, or avoidable only with the character's death, without the clear and _prior_ consent of the player in question.




I'm not advocating they should. My original point is simply that it is _possible_ to lose Vow of Poverty, using the paladin as another example of where violating a certain code can cause loss of abilities. The corollary of that is the abilities from VoP is therefore not entirely untouchable, though it is by most standard means.



> If I sit down to play an ascetic, truly-holier-than-thou monk, and you subsequently arrange for me to be _forced_ (or tricked OOC) into being a money-grubbing, greedier-than-thou monk ... _that's_ not the character I sat down to play, either.




If you were truly playing a holier-than-thou monk, then you wouldn't lose the feat. But the fact remains that not everyone is able to stay true to a character concept. Otherwise, we wouldn't ever have to worry about paladin players losing their paladinhood.

It is entirely plausible for a fair, responsible, and mature DM to tempt a player to break a vow. If the player doesn't fall for it, fine. But that's not going to happen 100% of the time. That's all I'm saying.



> You know, people keep talking about the "lack of customisation" as if it were this huge, unbearably-tough onus to labor under.
> 
> I just don't see it.  Plenty of GMs don't allow "magic item shops", you take what you find and lump it - same problems with "lack of versatility" there.  Noone rails that THOSE characters should get twice or three times as much treasure to "make up for the disadvantage", now, do they?




Not unbearable. But rather inconvenient. Many DMs don't allow magic shops but players can always make their own magic items with item creation feats. Players don't always get what they want, but usually they get some of what they want... otherwise, it tends to rather ruin the enjoyment of the game. I've never played in a game where the party keeps every piece of treasure they find and never exchanges it for something else more to their liking. A certain amount of trade is almost inevitable.

However, with regards to versatility, I'm not referring so much that the fighter has two sets of armor or three swords to deal with different creatures, but simply the ability to be able to make your character do stuff that you would like him to do. Want to be a fighter but be able to fly? Get wings of flying or boots of flying or a flying carpet. Or a pegasus. Or even a potion of flying if you're poor. A character can buy equipment to optimize those abilities that the player is interested in. You can build two sorcerers with very different sets of resources with 750,000 gp.

You can't really do that with an ascetic. You're stuck with true seeing and regeneration and greater sustenance whether you want them or not. Yes, I know you can choose not to play an ascetic in that case. But why are you choosing not to play one? Precisely because you can't customize the ascetic to what you want. Hence, it is a disadvantage. How big of a disadvantage it feels might vary from player to player. I think a number of people find VoP limiting. YMMV.



> As for consumable items - they CAN use potions.




If someone else says, "here, use this." An ascetic doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing when and what he can use... he has to rely on the largesse of others. That's a disadvantage.



> And to an extend, I *can* give you a potion-making, scroll-making, scroll-USING Ascetic spellcaster: Blood Magus.
> 
> He doesn't OWN his "scrolls" or "potions" ... they're *part ofhis body*.  Granted, the GP cost to craft them would be a grey area of the rules, but along the same lines as the BoED's solutions for handling expensive material components for ascetic spellcasters, there should be equitable solutions other than "haha, you can't do it. sucks to be you".




They're not naturally part of his body. His body doesn't generate potions on its own. The Blood Magus put them there and in doing so he has to invest money and XP like any other item creation feat (even other characters can use them if they have the stomach). The medium is simply a little stranger than usual. If I played an ascetic and wanted to take the Brew Potion feat, is my DM obligated to come up with a an equitable solution so I may do so? No... He'd probably tell me I'd be violating my vow.

I don't really see the Blood Magus as a good example. Especially as you've said the GP cost is a grey area-- and therefore, subject to DM's fiat.

Regardless, the text explicitly states the ascetic cannot activate a scroll, wand, or staff without violating his vow. For a spellcaster, that's a pretty serious restriction. It means that they're stuck with their daily allotment of spells, unless someone is kind enough to cast a spell on their behalf. For a non-spellcaster, that's not quite so bad. But non-spellcasters have a different restriction in that they can't use martial weapons (or most ranged weapons), hampering their options in combat. Again, all these are disadvantages... some of them are so serious as to make certain classes sub-optimal in play.

So if you're going to factor in all the good things about VoP, why not the minuses? VoP abilities are all about replacing a character's standard equipment (because he can't have any). But in order to keep those abilities, the character also has to follow restrictions. 



> Fine, you do that.  And if those disadvantages somehow add up to half of an entire _additional_ 20th level character's loot, congratulations - you've brought the ascetic's abilities back down *to* the value of a 20th level character's appropriate array of equipment - *without* having doubled prices for unremovability.[/i]
> 
> Let's go through the prices again, with 20th level in mind:
> Exalted Bonus to AC, (+10); equivalent to Bracers of Armor +10 ... 100,000gp;




You could actually pull this off with bracers +5 and mithral buckler +4 (25,000 gp + 17,000 gp = 42,000.). Why go for the most expensive option? Players certainly aren't going to, if they can help it. And they are far more likely to find or make bracers +5 and a buckler +4 along the way than they are bracers +10. (Snipped the rest of the calculations for space).



> That brings out estimate to 752,500gp; gee, only 7,500gp below the recommended wealth for a 20th level character.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Numion (Aug 5, 2004)

So Pax, would you say that a person that has a +8 STR belt at 640KGP and another person with 640KGP worth of stuff are roughly equal equipment-wise, and thus balanced? 

... I didn't think so. Just because Epic book wrote the price as such doesn't mean it's actually worth that in other equipment.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 5, 2004)

*re*

I don't like VoP because some of those abilities are just outright encounter destroyers with no way to get rid of the abilities. The _Ring of freedom of Movement_ and _True Sight_ abilities that can't be dispelled make illusion/disguise magic and grappling a joke. At least with magic items you can dispel their abilities, but not with VoP. Make sure you don't send a shapechanger up against a VoP guy or he is finished. Those huge grappling creatures have no chance against a VoP monk. Those monk tactics where you run up on the sorcerer and grapple him, don't even bother against a VoP sorcerer.

How much would an item like a _Ring of Freedom of Movement_ or an item that grants constantly active _True Seeing_ that can't be dispelled be worth?

Is it really balanced and fair when all the other players can have their items and spells dispelled, while the VoP player's abilities can't be dispelled save by an _Anti-magic_ field which affects the caster of that field as well? That is a huge, huge advantage. 

VoP is very powerful. It is more of a roleplaying feat IMO than a feat that any sane DM should allow a munchkin to use. Any player of a monk had to be salivating when they saw that feat. It is the ultimate monk munchkin feat. I am definitely wary about allowing it in a game I run. It limits the means I have to defeat the players because everything granted by the feat cannot be dispelled, taken away, sundered or disrupted in nearly any way save by use of an _Anti-magic field_ or somehow coercing the player into using a magic item.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> That totals to 771,000gp without the price-disputed +8 Enhancement Bonus being factored in.Then, even pricing the +8 bonus at only 64,000gp, we arrive at 835,000gp, quite significantly over the normal limit for a 20thlevel character. Keep in mind that I still think that pricing the feat opportunities and the +8 enhancement bonusses that low makes them an absolute gift!




I would agree with you on the feats.  I would tack on 75k to bring our sum total to 910,000 gp.

That seems pretty reasonable to me as a substitute for the 760,000 gp in wealth more flexibly distributed.

IME a set grabbag of abilities/items is generally not as valuable as a reasonable assortment built up along a theme.  If we naively count abilities, a low-mid level Paladin is a mile better than a Fighter; it does not work out that way in actual play.  I have seen have a dozen "My GAWD the Monk is too powerful!" threads based on the same faulty logic.

The keystone here is Truesight and Regeneration which weigh in at about 30% of total value.  They are good abilities but I cannot see ever one of my characters purposefully choosing to shell out 270,000 gp to have them.  I suppose the VoP character desperately needs them precisely because he has nada for equipment to fall back on.  Seems to me rather like giving a starving child with two nickels in his pocket a Porsche so he can drive to the grocery store -- it is not necessary the giant favor that raw numbers chalk it out to be.

If I throw in any modest fudge factor because some of those big ticket items are not so valuable to _my_ particular character, we are right on target.  I can see how VoP might be a good deal for some characters, but that is the nature of the game.  I simply do not see that the numbers show things are way out of whack either direction.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 5, 2004)

Celtavian and Pax (I only signal you two out because it has been a while since i read the whole thread and can't recall anyone else as vehemently anti-VoP as you two).

You seem to be just glossing over the fact that (and I'll use my case since I know it) My VoP monk who is SUPPOSED to be fighting big bad evil things from other planes and what not WILL NEVER be able to penetrate a DR that has a metal as one of it's components. Oh sure I can over come all the good DR in the blinking multiverse but stick a metal type or piercing on it and I am out of luck. A situation easily rectified by less than 10k gold that will forever be beyond me.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 5, 2004)

You raise some good points, Celtavian.

Certainly a DM should think carefully before allowing VoP in their campaign because of the encounter destroying nature of a couple abilities.

I would note that the VoP PC has a few glaring weaknesses:

(1)  Mobility: No Cape of the Mountebank, Winged Boots, Potion of Flying.  Being stuck groundbound is a deathwish in quite a few non-rare middling or higher level encounters.

(2)  Too little healing: Regeneration is not a substitute for throwing a few potions down your throat when the clock is ticking. 

(3)  Classic "Bat Belt" utility stuff:  Potion of Invisibility.  Cloak of Elvenkind.  Poison antidote.  Potion of Blur, Cloak of Displacement, or Fortification armor in case you are hunted by Rogues/Assassins.  Haversack, Bag of Holding.  etc.  No odd items to give your pokemount/companion some survivibility.

None of these weaknesses are impossible or even difficult to overcome with excellent teamwork.  Just be careful about assuming teamwork will always cover your backside.  I would emphasis that any character that does not carry a Potion of Fly, Potion of Invis, and Potion of Blur once you reach middle levels is flirting with death IMO.


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

Sephiroth no Miko said:
			
		

> You could actually pull this off with bracers +5 and mithral buckler +4 (25,000 gp + 17,000 gp = 42,000.).



  No, you *can't* pull it off that way - because you're breaking the bonus into two seperate bonusses, and that's *not* how pricing magical abilities is *done*.

  An ascetic Sorceror or Wizard could cast _Shield_, and still get the +4 shield bonus (for a total bonus to AC of +14 betweenthe two).  Someone wearing the bracers-and-buckler combination you suggest wouldn't get *any* benefit from a _Shield_ spell, because he would _already_ have a shield bonus better than that granted by the spell.

  That is why issues of _bonus stacking_ is important.  And that is why pricing the Exalted bonus as Bracers of Armor is the fair and balanced approach.  As for using the most expensive bonus - not hardly; THAT would have been 250,000gp - the DMG lists "Armor bonus (other)" as costing bonus^2 times *2,500*gp, were the Bracers are only bonus^2 times *1,000*gp.

  However, the functionality of the Exalted bonus is identical to the Armor bonus provided by the Bracers, so it seemed entirely fair to assess the price by the same formula.

  And it's *really* beginning to irritate me, that people _insist_ on breaking up stuff that way.

  A single +10 bonus, *to* anything, *from* anything, is only appropriately priced if it is calculated based on being a *single* bonus of a *single* type - and that's due in no small part to the fact that the pricing formula for bonus-granting items all include the phrase *bonus squared.

  Of course* [(5x5) + (4x4) + 1] is less than [10x10].

  Let's ask this: would YOU allow someone to make a pair of,say, Bracers of Armor +8 (DMG list price is 64,000gp) ... and claim that it should only cost as much as _Bracers +4_ and a _Mithril Buckler +3_ (net price roughly 26,000gp) ... ?

  Of *course* not!

  So why do people *INSIST* on counting up the value of the *ascetic's* (various) benefits that way ... ?!?!?  Single bonus is _single bonus_, not "any two convenient (and conveniently smaller) bonusses that add up to the same final number".



> So Pax, would you say that a person that has a +8 STR belt at 640KGP and another person with 640KGP worth of stuff are roughly equal equipment-wise, and thus balanced?
> 
> ... I didn't think so. Just because Epic book wrote the price as such doesn't mean it's actually worth that in other equipment.



  Speaking in terms of House Rules only?  No; I charge "only" double for what I call _first tier epic_ (anything from _DMG highest +1_ to _DMG highest x2_), triple for the next "tier", and so on.

 But that's *still* 128,000gp, which is *still* more than the 64,000 I actually _did_ count (and which *STILL* gave a sum nearly twice as much as standard for a 20th level character).

  however, we're not talkignhouse rules here; we're talking "as published", and _as published_ ... yes, I am compelled to say that a _Belt of Epic Strength (+8)_ is indeed worth 640,000gp.  Because that's what the ELH _says_ it costs, and without entering House Rules Country, if you want to measure the cost to buy a published item ... it's "by the book or bust".  *shrug*


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That seems pretty reasonable to me as a substitute for the 760,000 gp in wealth more flexibly distributed.



  But that's without factoring in the "unless I'm cooperative and/or screw up playing my character, you can't take these away form me short of an antimagic field" benefit fo the Vow's effects.



> If we naively count abilities, a low-mid level Paladin is a mile better than a Fighter; it does not work out that way in actual play.  I have seen have a dozen "My GAWD the Monk is too powerful!" threads based on the same faulty logic.



  However, the Vow's abilities are _in addition to_ class abilities; they are instead of _magic items_ and most mundane equipment.  Thus, adding up the price you'd have to pay as a non-ascetic to get the same suite of abilities is entirely appropriate, and IMO not naive at all.



> I suppose the VoP character desperately needs them precisely because he has nada for equipment to fall back on.



  You'd never want true sight ...?!?!?

*SURELY,* you jest!  Negate ALL invisibility, magical and mundane darkness, nonphysical concealment, *and* illusions ... *ALL* illusions?  Automatically "see" through every Shadow Evocation/Conjuration ever thrown your way?

_And you'd never want it ...?!?!?_

  ... um ... wow ...


----------



## Thanee (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> And IMO that's irrelevant - you choose to play an ascetic, or you choose not to.



  Erm... and therefore it is irrelevant, that every single ascetic in the whole universe always has the same "magic items"?

  It's a disadvantage of "playing an ascetic", regardless of how you put it.



> Doing so sidesteps the built-in costs of single large bonusses.



 Yes, and no. For a magic item, it does. To find out, what is a compareable cost for a +8 bonus, for a character that cannot easily aquire an inherent bonus, it does not.



> And by the DMG, the VoP doesn't exist - it's called "loking to all available sorces to see how WOTC would price such an item if it *did* exist".  As it turns out, they've done precisely that.



 Right. The price is 64,000 gp. The 640,000 gp only apply under a very specific guideline, which has nothing to do with the +8 bonus, but with the wealth amounts of epic level characters. It does not say, that the +8 bonus is "worth" 640,000 gp, but there is a completely different reason for this price strategy, hence it has no bearing for non-epic play at all.



> In fact, the figure how is likely the *best* historical example of a vow of Poverty character who _did_ (supposedly) have supernatural powers would be Saint Fancis of Assisi.  He *did* grow up wealthy, he *did* spend much of his life as a spend-it-like-money wastrel, and he *did* claim to have been converted to asceticism due to a vision from God.



  And you surely can cite any passeges which refer to the _inherent bonuses_ to his attributes, he aquired prior to becoming an ascetic, eh!?



> not so; the rules specifically allow you to defer levelling up, *if* you are saving your XP to cast a specific spell or make a specific magic item - like, say, that _Tome of Clear Thought (+5)_.



  If they do, I'm not aware of that, where does it say that?

 Also, how high do you think are the chances, that another character would blow 20,000+ XP (the amount to get beyond the +11) for you?

 Besides, even if you find such a person, the cost is still there. Just because someone else pays for it, doesn't make it go away.



> No, wer've diverged intothe realities of pricing items _based on the type of bonus granted_, as an example of why you must pricethe +8 enhancement *as a single bonus*, not breaking it up into multiple +'s.



 It's not pricing the bonus... it's not important, what the bonus costs. What is important is, what another person would pay for a compareable bonus. And breaking it up is a) the only way to get it pre-epic and b) the most likely way.



> I GM a bunch of 3E newbies (and one veteran player), and until last night, one of them - my g/f, with whom I *live* - didn't know about the Vow at all.



  And did she suddenly want to completely change her character concept and turn her character into an ascetic? No?



> And a responsible, fair, and above all _mature_ GM would permit (perhaps even encourage) the player to say "OH, well then, if I'd known that OOC, i wouldn't have DONE that" - and no voiding of the Vow occurs. Unless the GM *is*, of course, seeking to unfairly railroad the player out of their character concept.



  You are reading a lot into other persons statements, don't you? 

  Where did I say, that I would not allow someone to pick up the VoP later in his or her career?

  And just as an example for you, since it seemed not very clear...

 I encouraged our Mystic Theurge player to switch one of his 1st level feats (character was 7th or 8th level by then) for Practiced Spellcaster when CD came out. Guess that's pretty compareable.

  And there is a big difference to what I have said above, read again, maybe you do not miss it the second time. 

 BTW, the Vow of Poverty is about playing an ascetic, not a person, whose magic items cannot be taken away. And the harsh restrictions are a balancing factor, since you have to play a character with that state of mind, not one that just abides to these "totally unfair" restrictions, because otherwise his nice toys are taken away. The character has _freely_ chosen this lifestyle, it is not forced upon him.



> Let's go through the prices again, with 20th level in mind:



  How did you come up with the price for the Energy Resistance?
  That seems fairly high to me... 60k for 5 rings or rather 42k, considering, that they are not really different abilities.

  And besides, there are 11 bonus feats, not 10. 



> *And this still doesn't account for not being readily denied to the character*.



 It doesn't have to. This "cost" is countered by the other factors, like the lack of versatility, that you have to spend two feats to get it (which are far more useful, normally, than any of the bonus Exalted Feats you get), that you have to live a very restrictive lifestyle, and so on.



> And it's only that low because of not one,not two, but *three* "gimme" actions - grossly undervaluing the +8 enhancement, grossly undervaluing the feat opportunities, and *ridiculously* overvaluing the lack of versatility.



  Yeah, the +8 should be 91k not 64k as explained above.
  The feats are way too high at 10k each IMHO, Exalted Feats are not very good on average, with very few exceptions.
  I think you still don't get how much of a disadvantage that lack is, huh?

  Anyways, the prices come out close enough, if you ask me. A few 10k here or there aren't exactly noticeable at that amount.

  Sounds fair. 

  Bye
  Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Aug 5, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I don't like VoP because some of those abilities are just outright encounter destroyers with no way to get rid of the abilities.



 If that is going to be a problem in your campaign, then just do not allow the VoP.

 For a mere 40k you get a _ring of freedom of movement_, which also cannot be taken away in most situations. This takes care of ~99% of the grapple encounters already. The VoP is only better in the other ~1% of the situations. I dare to say, that there are many, many more situations, where the inflexible layout of the VoP abilities is a problem, than the number of situations, where their nature, and that they cannot be taken away or shut down easily, is of any importance.

 Sure, there are some powerful abilities coming with the VoP, but look what kind of stuff you can pull off with the 760k worth of magic items alone at 20th level. Even a 20th level commoner will be godlike with that amount of stuff!

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> But that's without factoring in the "unless I'm cooperative and/or screw up playing my character, you can't take these away form me short of an antimagic field" benefit fo the Vow's effects.




That is already factored into the 760,000 gp.  As I said before.



> You'd never want true sight ...?!?!?
> 
> *SURELY,* you jest!  Negate ALL invisibility, magical and mundane darkness, nonphysical concealment, *and* illusions ... *ALL* illusions?  Automatically "see" through every Shadow Evocation/Conjuration ever thrown your way?
> 
> ...




Nah.  Never said anything of the kind.  Read more carefully.  

Of course True Sight is very valuable.

I would not spend 180,000 gp to acquire True Sight.  What I actually said is I cannot see spending 270,000 gp to acquire True Sight + Regeneration -- it is too pricey if reasonable alternatives exist.  For a lot of characters having, say, a +10 Intelligent weapon with many powers would be more attractive.  

If no reasonable alternative exists then talking about exact dollar amounts is questionable in the first place.  The basis of the discussion is one of relative value -- would you prefer the "VoP bushel" or this chest holding 760,000 gp of items chosen for your PC.  It is a take it or leave it proposition with the VoP.  I think I would mostly leave it.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 5, 2004)

And it isn't regeneration as per any  "ring of regeneration" that I have ever seen. It's more like fast healing. Nothing is mentioned in the descriptor text about regrowing severed body parts/heads


----------



## Sephiroth no Miko (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> So why do people *INSIST* on counting up the value of the *ascetic's* (various) benefits that way ... ?!?!?  Single bonus is _single bonus_, not "any two convenient (and conveniently smaller) bonusses that add up to the same final number".




Because at least in the case of armor (and _I'm_ not talking about any other bonus), a character can simulate the ascetic's bonus with some combination of armor and shield bonuses, which do stack with each other. An ascetic can't use either so the stacking is irrelevant to him, but a regular character can and often does. Stacking in _not_ irrelevant in the case of the +8 enhancement as you've pointed out because +8 enhancement doesn't equal +6 enhancement and +2 inherent, in cases where a character takes VoP later in life.

However, leave it at 100,000 gp if you wish. It's no big deal to me either way.


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

> Yes, and no. For a magic item, it does. To find out, what is a compareable cost for a +8 bonus, for a character that cannot easily aquire an inherent bonus, it does not.



*NOONE* can "easily" acquire an inherent bonus.

  But the ascetic could be offered a few castings of Wish - even five of them at once - as a non-proprty "reward" for completing a quest.  If hte local good-aligned Wizards' Guild needs the party's help, they're as likely to "pay" in terms of spellcasting services, or even at-cost magic item creation, as they are to hand over actual gold.  Scrolls for the Wizard to scribe, magic arms/armor for the warrior types, some wish casting (five wizards, each tosses off a single wish) for the ascetic ... it's perfectly feasible IMO.  Similarly, for a large, well-equipped temple to a good-aligned deity - except they'd be using Miracle instead of Wish.



> And you surely can cite any passeges which refer to the inherent bonuses to his attributes, he aquired prior to becoming an ascetic, eh!?



  Well, he WAS said to be _unusually_ wise and charismatic; but regardless, don't be facetious, Thanee.  Tell you what, show me something that says BILL GATES has bought and read any Tomes or Manuals to gain inherent bonusses, and I'll give you the references about Saint Francis having done similar.

  Sheesh.



> If they do, I'm not aware of that, where does it say that?



  PHB page 174, right hand column, under "XP Cost":
[bq]However, you may, on gaining enough XP to attain a new level, use those XP for casting a spell rather than keeping them and advancing a level.[/bq]



> Also, how high do you think are the chances, that another character would blow 20,000+ XP (the amount to get beyond the +11) for you?



  And where does it say all five wishes have to come _from the same exact source_ ... ? ^_^  Got five friends?



> Besides, even if you find such a person, the cost is still there. Just because someone else pays for it, doesn't make it go away.



  And I never said it cost nothing.  I simply said it'd be _possible_ to have the +8 enhancement, and up to a +5 inherent bonus as well.  Which is why you _certainly_ shouldn't be breaking the +8 enhancement bonus up into smaller bonusses!



> It's not pricing the bonus... it's not important, what the bonus costs. What is important is, what another person would pay for a compareable bonus. And breaking it up is a) the only way to get it pre-epic and b) the most likely way.



  Yes, what the other person would pay, for a comparable bonus.  And in pricing things, "comparable" means "same number, same (general) type".

  Since you cannot *buy* an Exalted bonus to AC in item form, you need to then look to the nearest equivalent source - and that would be the Armor bonus of _bracers of armor_.  Regardless, though, it's ONE bonus; you don't get to break it up.  Otherwise, why not just call it "ten pairs of _bracers of armor (+1)" ... ?




			You are reading a lot into other persons statements, don't you?
		
Click to expand...


  HUH?!?  The part you say this in direct response to, was replying to the suggestion that the DM and Player might not picture "the line" at which the Vow is broken to be the same, and that the GM should be more lenient on player error in such cases, and allow the player to rescind his stated action.

  Whichis *not* what you're talking about in response ... not even close!




			BTW, the Vow of Poverty is about playing an ascetic, not a person, whose magic items cannot be taken away. And the harsh restrictions are a balancing factor, since you have to play a character with that state of mind, not one that just abides to these "totally unfair" restrictions, because otherwise his nice toys are taken away. The character has freely chosen this lifestyle, it is not forced upon him.
		
Click to expand...


  It's not the restrictions which would be totally unfair - it would be the underhanded attempts of a GM to trick a player into voiding his Vow and thus losing the benefits thereof, which would be IMO *cheating*.  If the GM didn't want an ascetic in the party, then he should simply have disallowed the feat to begin with ... not let the character take it, and then trick the *player* by dancing around that vague boundary.

  Player and GM need to be on the same page as to where that boundary is and isn't.  Otherwise, the GM needs to be flexible and fair by allowing the player to REALISE their error and rescind the action ... or decide to proceed anyway, should the player feel that the situation warrants such a huge sacrifice on his characters' part.




			How did you come up with the price for the Energy Resistance?
That seems fairly high to me... 60k for 5 rings or rather 42k, considering, that they are not really different abilities.
		
Click to expand...


  Pre-existing published item - first appeared in the ELH (as a non-epic item), but then appeared subsequently in the Arms and Equipment Guide.

  But, if you want to insist on breaking it up into multiple items, fine - I'll just go back in and slotless-ise enough of the *already*-more-than-two "ring" items to reflect what someone WOULD have to pay to have the benefits in item form.  IOW ... don't nitpick. I've had to argue with too many rules-lawyering munchkins in my day who tried that route; I got to be QUITE good at nitpicking *back*.  The resistance will end up costing quite a bit more than the 144,000gp I listed, if we go down THAT road.




			It doesn't have to. This "cost" is countered by the other factors, like the lack of versatility, that you have to spend two feats to get it (which are far more useful, normally, than any of the bonus Exalted Feats you get), that you have to live a very restrictive lifestyle, and so on.
		
Click to expand...



  Okay, then if you want to eliminate the 50% markup for nonremovability, we'll take out the *half-million-GP* discount for non-versatility.  Now, we're back to the 850K-950K range, which is *worse* for your case.

  Like I said, don't nitpick, you'll only lose ground.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		


			That is already factored into the 760,000 gp. As I said before.
		
Click to expand...


  No, actually, it's not.  As *I* said before.  The wealth levels indicated by Table 5-1 on page 135 of the DMG are gross returns, based on roughly thirteen to fourteen average-loot encounters per level.  It does *not* account for equipment loss and/or breakage.




			And it isn't regeneration as per any "ring of regeneration" that I have ever seen. It's more like fast healing. Nothing is mentioned in the descriptor text about regrowing severed body parts/heads
		
Click to expand...


  Hmm, my DMG lists the exact same hitpoint-per-level-per-hour healing rate.  As for limbs and such - point me to the rule that determines when and how a limb is lost, and I'll figure out if that "ability" has any bearing on the price of the ability/ring/etc._


----------



## Scion (Aug 5, 2004)

The ring of regen itself is 'massively' overpriced to begin with. Effectively the loss of limb clause will never come into play except as a torture device (since, if someone is hacking off your limbs they probably stripped your magical items beforehand anyway) and the health regen is so incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. It is nice, sure, but spending all day healing instead of casting a couple of cureing spells.. all for the low, low price of 90k.. nah..

Taking away the limb regen part eats away most of its effecive cost anyway, as it gets rid of the need for the regenerate spell.

I dont know how much an item like this would cost without the limb regen, but even with it I wouldnt price it more than 30k.

How much really is being able to get a cure light/cure mod cast on you every hour? Assuming that you were wearing it the whole time, since it doesnt work on damage that was taken when you werent wearing it.

Not much really. 10k maybe. It takes up a valuable slot and does nothing unless you are willing to simply wait around forever.


As for the true seeing though, the gem of seeing is only 75k. That is already for an unslotted item and such. If we assume it is a slotted item (say googles or something) but works for much longer during the day (continuously) we can probably just leave the price the same.

So, for those two items the price is probably closer to 85k total.

Also, in the comparison before you forgot to subtract off 25k. 10k for the sacred vow and 15k for the vow of poverty itself. So those two things knock down the overall price by quite a bit 

In addition, all of the abilities are only useable by good, exalted characters. 30% reduction seems in order 

Looks like this guy might actually need 'more' to make up for the huge hit of not being able to pick his gear and being so far below the wealth chart.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 5, 2004)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Celtavian and Pax (I only signal you two out because it has been a while since i read the whole thread and can't recall anyone else as vehemently anti-VoP as you two).
> 
> You seem to be just glossing over the fact that (and I'll use my case since I know it) My VoP monk who is SUPPOSED to be fighting big bad evil things from other planes and what not WILL NEVER be able to penetrate a DR that has a metal as one of it's components. Oh sure I can over come all the good DR in the blinking multiverse but stick a metal type or piercing on it and I am out of luck. A situation easily rectified by less than 10k gold that will forever be beyond me.




I'm not glossing over that fact. That is a limitation, and does affect play at high levels. However, a high level monk with VoP will probably average a good amount of damage to punch through DR. Not as good as the fighter with a weapon of the right material, but still very nice. 

I'm not actually concerned about the offensive abilities of VoP. VoP is overpowered defensively IMO. They give alot of defensive powers that are non-dispellable and disruptive to certain elements that can be important plot elements in a campaign or tactical elements in a combat. It makes my life difficult if I don't always account for the VoP character's abilities that basically can't be countered save in a manner that would counter the enemies magical and supernatural abilities as well.

I do concede that VoP is not overpowered offensively. In fact, it can at times be weak offensively with the new DR rules.


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

Sephiroth no Miko said:
			
		

> Because at least in the case of armor (and _I'm_ not talking about any other bonus), a character can simulate the ascetic's bonus with some combination of armor and shield bonuses, which do stack with each other. An ascetic can't use either so the stacking is irrelevant to him, but a regular character can and often does.



  So, it doesn't count that my Ascetic Sorceror can cast _shield_, and (at 20th level) have an AC of 29, before dexterity or other spell-gained modifiers ... ?  Rather than the 25 that the Vow would normally give by itself?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> The ring of regen itself is 'massively' overpriced to begin with.



  Doesn't matter; playing the game _as published_, that's the closes approximation.  And since there are *no* rules for limb loss, I'd have to say that the limb-regaining benefits of the ring are a moot point entirely, and not worth ANY reduction in cost.

  You can _dislike_ the price all you want, but that's what the designers have pegged that basic ability at, price-wise.



> As for the true seeing though, the gem of seeing is only 75k. That is already for an unslotted item and such. If we assume it is a slotted item (say googles or something) but works for much longer during the day (continuously) we can probably just leave the price the same.



  That's a nonstarter.  The Gem only works while held in yourhand, and then held up to yoru eye and looked through.  It's not constantly in effect, it's use-activated.  You *can't* use the Gem of Seeing *and* wield a double-weapon - the Ascetic *can* wield a double weapon (the quarterstaff, specifically), *and still has True Seeing active!*

  Further, the Gem is a _held_ object, so while in use, it is subject to sunder and disarm attempts - making it *far* more vulnerable to removal than an ordinary, _worn_ piece of magical equipment.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 5, 2004)

*re*



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> You raise some good points, Celtavian.
> 
> Certainly a DM should think carefully before allowing VoP in their campaign because of the encounter destroying nature of a couple abilities.
> 
> ...




True, but most non-caster types are subject to this limitation save for the potion. Most of the time, he will have an allied caster provide a VoP character with needed mobility.



> (2)  Too little healing: Regeneration is not a substitute for throwing a few potions down your throat when the clock is ticking.




Very true. This is definitely a prominent limitation that can only be handled by classes that heal.



> (3)  Classic "Bat Belt" utility stuff:  Potion of Invisibility.  Cloak of Elvenkind.  Poison antidote.  Potion of Blur, Cloak of Displacement, or Fortification armor in case you are hunted by Rogues/Assassins.  Haversack, Bag of Holding.  etc.  No odd items to give your pokemount/companion some survivibility.




Definitely class dependent. A VoP caster would have few problems except having to choose spells that use only cheap material components. You definitely wouldn't want to play a VoP rogue. VoP is best for monks. Most players that would use it would make monk characters. I don't think this feat would be all that bad for any other type of character.



> None of these weaknesses are impossible or even difficult to overcome with excellent teamwork.  Just be careful about assuming teamwork will always cover your backside.  I would emphasis that any character that does not carry a Potion of Fly, Potion of Invis, and Potion of Blur once you reach middle levels is flirting with death IMO.




True, true.


----------



## Scion (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter; playing the game _as published_, that's the closes approximation.  And since there are *no* rules for limb loss, I'd have to say that the limb-regaining benefits of the ring are a moot point entirely, and not worth ANY reduction in cost.
> 
> You can _dislike_ the price all you want, but that's what the designers have pegged that basic ability at, price-wise.




The spell regeneration is the reason why the item costs so much. Since regen is a higher level spell if you take out that ability most of the cost goes with it.

So, you are trying to peg an incorrect price tag on something. I went through my reasoning for what the price should be. You can disagree with that all you like, but priceing it at 90k is completely wrong. No way around that, you are putting up an item that happens to have the same ability in part of its list of abilities and claming the whole price. Very bad work there. Completely incorrect.

90k for something that 'might' cast a minor curing spell on the wearer every hour? woo. It cannot be shared to best effect in a useful manor, you have to wait for days to get anything useful out of it. At these levels if you are relying on 'time' to get your hp back then you are probably already dead.

So you may 'dislike' my interpretation all you like, but your 'interpretation' of the price is very distasteful and, imo, drastically wrong.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> That's a nonstarter.  The Gem only works while held in yourhand, and then held up to yoru eye and looked through.  It's not constantly in effect, it's use-activated.  You *can't* use the Gem of Seeing *and* wield a double-weapon - the Ascetic *can* wield a double weapon (the quarterstaff, specifically), *and still has True Seeing active!*
> 
> Further, the Gem is a _held_ object, so while in use, it is subject to sunder and disarm attempts - making it *far* more vulnerable to removal than an ordinary, _worn_ piece of magical equipment.




you can strap something across your head which puts the gem in position. Say like a monacle. This would still not even take up an item slot on the person, but it would work just fine. For 30 minutes a day, divided up however you like. Every now and then you tick it over and look around through it for a round. As you have 300 rounds in a day that will pretty much be just as good as continual use in most cases.

But then I gave in the concession to make it use up a valueable slot for the ascetic but actually work all of the time and still pricing it the same. Technically it would probably wind up being much less. Like I said, 300 rounds a day is nearly the same thing as continual use anyway.


How often does one sunder headgear? Doesnt happen very often in my campaigns, usually it is better to simply attack the person or their weapon or something else like that entirely.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> *NOONE* can "easily" acquire an inherent bonus.



+

By level 20? Everyone can. Except the ascetic.

It's only 27,500gp, a fraction of your total wealth by then, for a +1 bonus.



> But the ascetic could be offered a few castings of Wish - even five of them at once - as a non-proprty "reward" for completing a quest.




Yeah, and if he did not decline would lose his benefits irrevocably. Great idea. 



> ...BILL GATES...




Bill Gates is a D&D character? 



> PHB page 174, right hand column, under "XP Cost":
> [bq]However, you may, on gaining enough XP to attain a new level, use those XP for casting a spell rather than keeping them and advancing a level.[/bq]




Ah, ok.

Sounds a bit like you have to use them "immediately" (or at least very close to obtaining them) somehow... but well, that doesn't really matter.



> Yes, what the other person would pay, for a comparable bonus.  And in pricing things, "comparable" means "same number, same (general) type".




Well, ok, then it's the 64k not the 91k as I had proposed. 



> HUH?!? ...




As I said, you are reading a bit much into that...

I was _only_ talking about deliberately spending much of ones resources on inherent bonuses while planning to become an ascetic. Nothing else. Everything beyond that is just in your imagination.

I totally agree, that a player who does an error without obvious intent could be handled more leniently.



> Which is *not* what you're talking about in response ... not even close!




It's also not what I was talking about to begin with. Just your imagination, as I said. 

Anyways...



> It's not the restrictions which would be totally unfair - it would be the underhanded attempts of a GM to _trick_ a player into voiding his Vow and thus losing the benefits thereof, which would be IMO *cheating*.




If it is done in an unfair fashion, yeah, I agree. But in general I do not agree with this statement. An ascetic has to be tested, and more than once, with situations which _will_ make the decision hard to not leave the path. That's what the vow is all about. Asceticism. Not cool bonuses.



> Player and GM need to be on the same page as to where that boundary is and isn't.




That certainly helps. 



> Pre-existing published item - first appeared in the ELH (as a non-epic item), but then appeared subsequently in the Arms and Equipment Guide.




Hmm... and it gives just the benefit of five 12k items? That price seems totally excessive to me. Even if you calculated them in the normal fashion, that is 12k+4x18k=84k it would be a lot less!



> The resistance will end up costing quite a bit more than the 144,000gp I listed, if we go down THAT road.




How so, unless you deliberately price it in an unreasonable fashion?

A single ring combining all these properties, even using the multiple different abilities penalty, costs less than that (see above).

That price simply can't be right.

Or is the Energy Resistance higher than 10? Maybe there's the "problem". 



> Okay, then if you want to eliminate the 50% markup for nonremovability, we'll take out the *half-million-GP* _discount_ for non-versatility.




That's what I said, yes.



> Now, we're back to the 850K-950K range, which is *worse* for your case.




That's close enough for me, it's just a very rough estimate, anyways.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> +
> By level 20? Everyone can. Except the ascetic.
> 
> It's only 27,500gp, a fraction of your total wealth by then, for a +1 bonus.



  For an ascetic, it's only 5,000xp to cast it yourself, if able.

  For an ascetic, it's only an exchange of favors to beg for the benefits of a Wish from a team-mate, or request it in exchange for help or other services from an NPC.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Pax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Where in the Nine Hells did you get *that* cockamamie idea ..?!?!?

[bq][...] You may not use any magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf - you can drink a _potion of cure serious wounds_ a friend gives you, *receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff*, or ride your companion's _ebony fly_.[/bq]

  I see no reason to suspect that a spell cast directly on you by a Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, or similar person shoudl be treated *any* differently from a spell cast on you by means of using a Staff.

  So .... *where*, exactly, did you get the idea that someone (or several someones) offering to cast wish on your behalf would void your vow?



> Bill Gates is a D&D character?



 No, bill Gates is a resident of the same Earth as Saint Francis was resident upon.  If you expect Saint Francis to have had inherent bonusses, then Bill Gates - being inarguably among the wealthiest men on Earth - must have them too.



> If it is done in an unfair fashion, yeah, I agree. But in general I do not agree with this statement. An ascetic has to be tested, and more than once, with situations which _will_ make the decision hard to not leave the path. That's what the vow is all about. Asceticism. Not cool bonuses.



  Yes, but those tests should not be failed because the _player_ didn't know where the line was.  Violating one's vow should require an _intentional_ act, which means the *player* must actively cooperate with the GM in order to lose his Vow.

  In any situation where the ascetic (and/or his player) is forced to adopt a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" approach ... IOW, where there *IS* no "right way out" ... then the GM has IMO essentially cheated, unless the player _agreed_ to that situation arising.  And no, I don't believe taking the vow does - nor should - constitute "implicit agreement" to such underhanded chicanery.




> Hmm... and it gives just the benefit of five 12k items? That price seems totally excessive to me. Even if you calculated them in the normal fashion, that is 12k+4x18k=84k it would be a lot less!



  Are you looking at the right items ...   I don't think so.  At 20th level, the ascetic has resistance *15* to all five energy types.  You're pricing them based on rings that give resistance *10*.  That's a _wee_ bit different, wouldn't you agree ...?

  Five rings of Minor X-energy Resistance (giving resistance (10) to their respective energies) is simply _not_ as good as a _Minor Ring of universal Energy Resistance_ which gives 150% as much protection.



> Or is the Energy Resistance higher than 10? Maybe there's the "problem".



  Yep.  ^_^



> That's close enough for me, it's just a very rough estimate, anyways.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



  And it supports my entire point now, that the Vow is *hardly* UNDERpowered, if taken by a character with the right class(es) and other feat(s) to properly take advantage of it's benefits.

  Just as with ANY feat, class, race, item, skill, spell, whatever.  ^_^


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

@Scion:
  Look.  Obviously you're looking to reject the entire DMG pricing guidelines, if you won't accept their results.  Based on that, I seeno way to debate such assessments with you - we're obviously *not* playing the same game, by the same rules.

  So you can go play "Scion d20", and balance the Vow for that, to your heart's content.  *I*, on the other hand, would prefer to stick with the as-published D&D 3.5e when debating the balance (or lack thereof, as the case might be) of published options, rules, feats, etc.

  When you're ready to debate the Vow of Poverty _in terms of the D&D game as published by WOTC_[, I'll be perfectly happy to join you. But not before then, sorry.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 6, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> I see no reason to suspect that a spell cast directly on you by a Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, or similar person shoudl be treated *any* differently from a spell cast on you by means of using a Staff.




In your example, you were speaking of _payment_ basically, whether it comes in monetary or spell form, doesn't matter, it breaks the vow to accept it.

If someone would freely cast a wish spell for you _not as part of an exchange of favors, as you suggested_, then it would be acceptable, but in no other form.



> No, bill Gates is a resident of the same Earth as Saint Francis was resident upon.  If you expect Saint Francis to have had inherent bonusses, then Bill Gates - being inarguably among the wealthiest men on Earth - must have them too.




Hey, you said, he has inherent bonuses, not me. 



> Yes, but those tests should not be failed because the _player_ didn't know where the line was.




Course not, but that line is pretty clearly defined, really.



> In any situation where the ascetic (and/or his player) is forced to adopt a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" approach ... IOW, where there *IS* no "right way out" ... then the GM has IMO essentially cheated, unless the player _agreed_ to that situation arising.








> Are you looking at the right items ...   I don't think so.  At 20th level, the ascetic has resistance *15* to all five energy types.  You're pricing them based on rings that give resistance *10*.  That's a _wee_ bit different, wouldn't you agree ...?




Yeah, that's what I wondered as well. I took that from your listing of the _ring of minor universal resistance_ (or something like that). Can't check what amount of resistance you get right now. 

Altho, now that I think about it, isn't the 15 from 3.0? I think the "minor" ring was like that, IIRC.



> And it supports my entire point now, that the Vow is *hardly* UNDERpowered, if taken by a character with the right class(es) and other feat(s) to properly take advantage of it's benefits.
> 
> Just as with ANY feat, class, race, item, skill, spell, whatever.  ^_^




Did I say anything else?

I think it's more or less balanced (more on the weak side at higher levels, since it does not include many essential abilities, like flying) and thus your pricing guidelines give a wrong impression (even tho you do think it is balanced yourself ), hence they are most probably wrong at some point.

And, of course, the feat is better for some classes, every feat is. But just because it is good for some, doesn't change its general power level (unless it was extremely good, which it simply is not).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (Aug 6, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> @Scion:
> Look.  Obviously you're looking to reject the entire DMG pricing guidelines, if you won't accept their results.  Based on that, I seeno way to debate such assessments with you - we're obviously *not* playing the same game, by the same rules.




Ahh.. attacking the person since you have no useful way to debate the problem.

Once again, the ring of regen is based off of the regen spell. Take away the ability to bring back lost limbs and you no longer have that spell. You do not have that item.

Therefore your entire premise of useing that item is inherantly flawed because you wish to use the full price.

That is completely wrong. As I have shown. If you refuse to accept that is your own lack of dealing with reality. Once you have gotten past this issue and can actually talk about the problem rationally feel free to come back.


----------



## Pax (Aug 6, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> In your example, you were speaking of _payment_ basically, whether it comes in monetary or spell form, doesn't matter, it breaks the vow to accept it.



  There's nothing in the Vow of Poverty - in either word or spirit - that forbids an exchange of _favors_ or _services_.

  An inherent bonus gained from someone casting one or more _wish_ spells on your behalf is *not*, at all, a material possession.  It is, if anything, an *im*material possession.



> If someone would freely cast a wish spell for you _not as part of an exchange of favors, as you suggested_, then it would be acceptable, but in no other form.



  This position is wholly unsupported by the rules.  By your logic, even saying "thank you" to an ascetic, who does not immediately (and likely quite rudely) refuse those thanks, would constitute a violation of his vow.

  An ascetic does *not* vow never to accept help from otehrs, nor give it; the ascetic does *not* vow never to exchange favors, to trade help-for-help or deed-for-deed.

  What he *does* vow is _never to own more than the most utterly basic *physical things*_ possible to survive - basic, ordinary clothes; a walking stick; a bag; a day's worth of food and water; that sort of thing.



> Hey, you said, he has inherent bonuses, not me.



  No.

  I said I'd bother to try and fulfill *your* request for "proof" that Saint Francis had obtained inherent bonusses prior to his taking a Vow of Poverty ... if and when you showed me that Bill Gates has such bonusses.

  IOW, when you show me that real-world wealth gains a real-world parallel to inherent bonusses, I'll bother to try proving wether or not Saint Francis had gotten any before (or after) taking his own Vows.



> Yeah, that's what I wondered as well. I took that from your listing of the _ring of minor universal resistance_ (or something like that). Can't check what amount of resistance you get right now.



  Well, wether or not it's available now isn't nearly as important as the relative price of what a Ring of (say) Fire Resistance 15 _would[/iu] cost, and then, what addin the same resistance to each of cold, shock, sonic, and acid would do to the item's final price.

  And besides, the BoED is a 3.0 product too.  Since their 20th level energy resistance is "the next step up from 10" ... maybe in 3.5 it shuld be resistance *20* ... ?

  That'd make it worth ... I'd say, 196,000gp (28K for the first energy, and +42K for each of the other four).

  WRT the pricing: I recognise that there are some gaps, so it's not perfect ... however, the fact that you *couldn't* actually BUY that specific range of abilities in item-form, given the appropriate amount of wealth for a character of that level, well ...

  ... I think the wealth assessment proves that the Vow of Poverty is *absolutely NOT* underpowered.  A potentially suboptimal choice, sure - but not underpowered at all.



			
				Scion said:
			
		


			Ahh.. attacking the person since you have no useful way to debate the problem.
		
Click to expand...


 No, if I *wanted* to attack you, it would most certainly be unmistakable as anything less THAN an attack.  Hmm, didn't Pirate caution people about provoking insults, as well as delivering them?  Maybe I should drop (anotehr) line to the moderators, hm?

  You see, I simply consider debating with you a cosmic waste of my time, because you're NOT debating within the rules *as published*.  If you want to debate your houserules, fine - find someone who wants to join you in that, 'cause I don't.

  Ad now, off to the moderators.  While I'll normally give what I'm given ... PC has already warned against such, so I won't fall into that trap (one I tend to suspect you've deliberately laid ... we'll just have to see if the moderators agree)._


----------



## Scion (Aug 6, 2004)

you have yet again ignored the issue and posted an insult and an attack.

Please stick to the issues.

You _cannot_ set the ability of the vop with the ring of regen. They do different things.

Therefore your numbers are wrong.


----------



## Pax (Aug 6, 2004)

@Scion: *plonk* and second report to the moderators.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 6, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> There's nothing in the Vow of Poverty - in either word or spirit - that forbids an exchange of _favors_ or _services_.



 If you say so...

 Hey, I have an idea. What about servants! The VoP doesn't rule out servants, or does it? While servants are certainly pretty material, they are no possession. So an ascetic could have servants and they could be really helpful, like weaving a new robe every day, so one wouldn't have to run around in the same old garb all the time (of course burning the old one, so you do not _own_ two at the same time), or clean one's boots, or collect blossoms for one to sleep on. The ascetic could even get a number of scantily clad girls and/or guys for massage and other such services... and best of all, the ascetic just let's someone else pay for it, and returns the favor in another way...


*Live a life full of debauchery! Asceticism - that's where it's at.* 


 Geez, seriously, you consider accepting a spell with a quite material value of 26,530 gp as a reward to not breaking the vow or poverty, because it is not a material possession!?

 Where's the difference, when you accept _payment_ in gold or _payment_ in service. Why not just let your employer pay the wizard at the corner to cast that nice spell for you instead of your own. I mean, hey, you never touched any gold piece, so it can't be wrong, eh?



> I said I'd bother to try and fulfill *your* request for "proof" that Saint Francis had obtained inherent bonusses prior to his taking a Vow of Poverty ... if and when you showed me that Bill Gates has such bonusses.



 You take stuff way too literal. 

 My "request" as you put it, was merely expressing, that Saint Francis is not a D&D character and thus a rather poor example for a fellow who obtained an inherent bonus before becoming an ascetic (because as you also realize, there is no such thing as an inherent bonus in real life), since that is precisely what I was talking about... inherent bonuses aquired before becoming an ascetic, moreso, doing that purposefully to circumvent the loss of material wealth (which, btw, is the same you are suggesting with the "services" up there, a circumvention of the vow). You fleshed that out in your mind and read into it, that I meant, which I did not, that giving up your material possessions to become an ascetic - as Saint Francis did - is not feasible.



> And besides, the BoED is a 3.0 product too.



 Is it? I thought it was actually 3.5 already.



> ... I think the wealth assessment proves that the Vow of Poverty is *absolutely NOT* underpowered.  A potentially suboptimal choice, sure - but not _underpowered_ at all.



 Well, that's mainly a matter of definition. If I think underpowered equals a potentially (well more like usually) suboptimal choice (and no optimal choice, except under very narrow circumstances), for example, that would be basically the same, I guess.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 6, 2004)

Thread closed. Scion and Pax, expect emails later this morning. Pax, you're suspended; you were warned, and you continued to insult people. We have no tolerance for that whatsoever.


----------

