Flesh-graven holy symbols

[LibraryOgre]

Just out of curiousity, where did the conviction that clerics could turn anything with the appropriate symbol into a holy symbol begin? Tattoos, carved into their own flesh, three pieces of bone and twine...

[Sstoopidtallkid]

A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character’s faith. That's the extent of definition I could find in the rules for a Holy Symbol. Since it's not more specific, is it unreasonable to conclude that it doesn't matter whether your cross is bought from a store or made out of 2 matchsticks, as long as it has meaning to you and your god?

[JeminiZero]

Most of the time though, the DM wants the Cleric to have a unique holy symbol so that he can steal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html) it when you need it the most.

[SSGoW]

depends on your diety and how you worship (along with your DM >.>) if you tattooed your whole body for your diety then i could see that you are the holy symbol

[Zeful]

Just out of curiousity, where did the conviction that clerics could turn anything with the appropriate symbol into a holy symbol begin? Tattoos, carved into their own flesh, three pieces of bone and twine...

Thin air. Short of being in one of those "complete" books that I've only browsed through and won't allow in my games, there's no reason any DM should allow them.

[yilduz]

Most of the time though, the DM wants the Cleric to have a unique holy symbol so that he can steal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html) it when you need it the most.

I was thinking the same thing... so if you do go with a tattoo holy symbol, don't be surprised when your DM has your arm chopped off in order to get away with your holy symbol.

[lsfreak]

I was thinking the same thing... so if you do go with a tattoo holy symbol, don't be surprised when your DM has your arm chopped off in order to get away with your holy symbol.

Alternatively, if you're captured, you can do into some great detail for a truly traumatic torture session where the character has the symbol carefully and painfully removed.

Also, lulz if a certain city requires guards to confiscate holy symbols because spellcasting is banned.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Thin air. Short of being in one of those "complete" books that I've only browsed through and won't allow in my games, there's no reason any DM should allow them.It's not in the least unbalanced. Holy symbols cost 1 GP. There's no reason a Cleric wouldn't have 50+ in his posession by second level. There's also a 1st level spell, Summon Holy Symbol. You can't effectively remove the symbol anyways, so why not allow the caster to do something cool with it? I'd much rather a character channel the divine power of Heironius through the scar CARVED INTO HIS CHEST than just a 1 GP item.

[Willfor]

Alternatively, charge the cost of the holy symbol as the craftsmanship that went into putting in on their body in the first place. Charge more if you think having it embedded into them is an undue advantage for the price.

[Zaq]

...one of those "complete" books that I've only browsed through and won't allow in my games...

I find this statement a bit strange. Why the dismissive attitude? I'm genuinely curious.

As for the original question, as I understand it, since the description of what a holy symbol actually is is just so vague, it seems to me like there's nothing actually saying that you can't make a holy symbol out of whatever you please. I can't think offhand of any text saying that you even need a free hand to hold a holy symbol (the iconic cleric has a weapon and a shield, after all), though I might be wrong about that.

The closest I can come up with in a cursory scan over my books is the Sanctified upgrade in Dungeonscape (p.34), which is a nonmagical upgrade you can apply to your armor or shield and have it serve as a holy symbol. The description there does in fact include a line stating "Normally, a divine focus does not have to be in hand to cast a spell..." so there's some evidence on that front.

[Quietus]

It's not in the least unbalanced. Holy symbols cost 1 GP. There's no reason a Cleric wouldn't have 50+ in his posession by second level. There's also a 1st level spell, Summon Holy Symbol. You can't effectively remove the symbol anyways, so why not allow the caster to do something cool with it? I'd much rather a character channel the divine power of Heironius through the scar CARVED INTO HIS CHEST than just a 1 GP item.

I thought Summon Holy Symbol was 0-level? Can't remember what book it's in, so I can't check, though.. I may be wrong.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd be fine with letting players use a tattoo as a holy symbol as long as it was appropriate to their diety. I'd never consider taking a character's holy symbol off them, though (it seems mean to nerf people like that, and my dice rolls are often lucky enough in combat situations:smalltongue:).

[AmberVael]

I thought Summon Holy Symbol was 0-level? Can't remember what book it's in, so I can't check, though.. I may be wrong.

It is an orison from Complete Champion. Page 128.

[Zeful]

It's not in the least unbalanced. Holy symbols cost 1 GP. There's no reason a Cleric wouldn't have 50+ in his posession by second level. There's also a 1st level spell, Summon Holy Symbol. You can't effectively remove the symbol anyways, so why not allow the caster to do something cool with it? I'd much rather a character channel the divine power of Heironius through the scar CARVED INTO HIS CHEST than just a 1 GP item.

So, holy symbols are consecrated symbols of the faith, and, my limited knowledge of D&D gods aside, only Sune would consecrate the flesh of her priests, who wouldn't carve her symbol into their chests.

EDIT:
I find this statement a bit strange. Why the dismissive attitude? I'm genuinely curious.
I'm automatically dismissive of all material I'm not familiar with. I've been burned by players "trying" something from a book I'm not familiar with and changing the rules to benefit them. And sense I lack the time to read them at the table, or the money to buy them, I'm only really familiar with the core rules.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

So, holy symbols are consecrated symbols of the faith, and, my limited knowledge of D&D gods aside, only Sune would consecrate the flesh of her priests, who wouldn't carve her symbol into their chests.'Scar carved into his chest' was in reference to an actual character of mine. Paladin of Heironius, was a criminal before finding religion, got in a fight in prison with other crooks over following a good god, they gashed his chest, and the divine light of heironius empowered him to beat them half to death. In the end, it was scarred on there. Makes for a good backstory, dontcha think?

Either way, there are 2 wordings in my quote:
'item of spiritual significance'. Getting tattoo'd to show your faith to the world for the rest of your life seems pretty spiritually significant to me.
'Symbol appropriate to the character's faith'. The sigil of your god, whether out of gold or on bare flesh, would seem to apply, no?

[Zeful]

Yes on both counts. It does make for good backstory, and a tattooed symbol of a priest's god does count for both parts of your quote, but I only find it would for certain gods. I doubt Sune would allow it, but Kord would have no real problem with it. It becomes an issue for each individual god, rather than a blanket deal.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yes on both counts. It does make for good backstory, and a tattooed symbol of a priest's god does count for both parts of your quote, but I only find it would for certain gods. I doubt Sune would allow it, but Kord would have no real problem with it. It becomes an issue for each individual god, rather than a blanket deal.I'd say it becomes an issue with each character. Sune might not like a facial scar, but I coul see one of her Clerics with a Holy Tramp Stamp. If the player can provide a reasnable justification for something and it's not unbalanced, if the RAW is unclear then why not go with the player?

[lsfreak]

So, holy symbols are consecrated symbols of the faith, and, my limited knowledge of D&D gods aside, only Sune would consecrate the flesh of her priests, who wouldn't carve her symbol into their chests.

Ignoring the fact that tattooing is a common way of showing reverence dating back to at least the last several thousand years...

Erythnul, Gruumsh, Hextor, Nerrull, and Wee Jas I can all see branding their clerics as a sign of subjugation. Vecna probably wouldn't due to the whole "secrets" thing but at the same time a follower might, to show that while the god is of secrets, the follower is willing to risk it to show devotion. I can see followers of Boccob, Olidammara, Kord, and Fharlanghn doing it out of a combination of reverence and superstition (a "good luck charm" of sorts, so that the god shows favor to them). Moradin, Heironeous, and St. Cuthbert I can see doing it as submission to the law of the deities. Any of them could fit a tattoo in with the right reasons.

[Zeful]

I'd say it becomes an issue with each character. Sune might not like a facial scar, but I coul see one of her Clerics with a Holy Tramp Stamp. If the player can provide a reasnable justification for something and it's not unbalanced, if the RAW is unclear then why not go with the player?

It tends to create an air of favoritism toward one player. To the point where they expect you to bend the rules for them, in less balanced ways, because you bent them for him.

This has also been a problem for me. So I have no qualms saying no.

V: I own Tome of Magic, am familiar with the psionic ruleset, and have looked through a little of the Tome of Battle. My stance allows me to later add material as I become knowledgeable in it's workings to the point where I can correct the player or identify cheating.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'm automatically dismissive of all material I'm not familiar with. I've been burned by players "trying" something from a book I'm not familiar with and changing the rules to benefit them. And sense I lack the time to read them at the table, or the money to buy them, I'm only really familiar with the core rules.

What's the phrase? Once burned, twice scarred?

Don't be so dismissive of everything automatically. Some of the most unbalanced abilities are actually in Core (the rest is from FR). Take the time to read the following (unless you all ready have, in which case no problems here):


Tome of Magic
Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Dungeonscape

Those books are regarded as the most balanced things Wotc has ever published (even given what is broken in those books, it doesn't come close to the disparity in Core environs, save for magical traps but those were broken long before Dungeonscape came along), and are a valuable asset to anyone who plays DnD 3.5 regularly.




To make this post on-topic: I had the same idea with a Warforged Sapphire Hierarch. His conviction towards law made him turn his slam attacks into +1 Axiomatic weapons, and I convinced the DM to allow me to use my own arm as a holy symbol.

[Ravens_cry]

Sune might not like a facial scar, but I coul see one of her Clerics with a Holy Tramp Stamp.
Puts a whole new spin on Vampires (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) recoiling from "a strongly presented holy symbol.":smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

I looked it up, and I see no rule that a cleric has to use HIS holy symbol as a divine focus. If lost, they have to get a replacement, but I'd say the 1 gp thing you can get in a shop is only for appearance. If there's nothing else available, anything will do that shows the deities symbol in a way appropiate to the deity.
For a god of knowledge and learning, it would probably even enough to draw the symbol on a piece of paper and use that as a makeshift holy symbol. Since it's all about (well mostly about) faith, it's not important what the holy symbol is, but what it represents. A piece of bark with a very crude unicorns head carved into it should do as a holy symbol for Mielikki.

[AslanCross]

I once thought of an epic cleric of Kelemvor whose holy symbol was fixed to the back of her armor like a battle standard. The end result is a skeletal hand poking straight up from her back holding a pair of scales hanging over her head.

I see nothing wrong at all with a holy symbol tattooed or branded onto the skin.

[arguskos]

I think that, in general, the church in question will dictate what the holy symbol shall be for their clerics. Most churches are quite specific about such things as dress, symbolism, mannerisms, what have you. I'd think some churches would permit it, and many wouldn't, simply because it doesn't fit with the god.

For a Faerunian example, Akadi, goddess of elemental air, would likely not permit a tattooed holy symbol. Why? Because a tattoo can't flap in the wind, which is a big damn deal for the god of air. Grumbar, god of the earth, might want a holy symbol carved from a precious gem. Ishtasha, god of water, would demand a symbol made of magically hardened water, and Kossuth, god of fire, might ask that his symbol be a flame kept lit in a tiny lantern the cleric carries at all times. All of these could be supplied by the church at a mere pittance to any priest of the faith, with the first one being free upon induction into the order.

In short, this is something that the game leaves vague, so players and DM's can hash it out in game. And frankly, if a player comes to me and says "I want to buy 50 holy symbols" I'm going to laugh and tell him no. Not because I'm a sadistic bastard, but because that strains credibility and shows the cleric has little faith. If he had faith, he'd believe that his god provides for him, and that he won't need but one holy symbol to channel his god's power.

Of course, for a god of theft, trickery, or intrigue, multiple symbols makes sense. But the god of strength? What the hell does he need 13 holy symbols for? :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Kossuth, god of fire, might ask that his symbol be a flame kept lit in a tiny lantern the cleric carries at all times.
Remember, it's a symbol, so a cloth representation of red and orange flame tongues that flickers when the wind blows would probably be adequate.

But the god of strength? What the hell does he need 13 holy symbols for? :smalltongue: Because each one weighs 10+ pounds, and he's showing devotion in the most obvious manner. :smallwink:

[Swordguy]

'Scar carved into his chest' was in reference to an actual character of mine. Paladin of Heironius, was a criminal before finding religion, got in a fight in prison with other crooks over following a good god, they gashed his chest, and the divine light of heironius empowered him to beat them half to death. In the end, it was scarred on there. Makes for a good backstory, dontcha

If I was given a backstory like this, I'd certainly allow it. Heck, I'd probably give extra cool description or even the occasional mechanical bonus for general awesomeness.

However, seeing as how most of the time when a player is asked "why do you want a holy symbol tattoo" the answer is an automatic "so I can't have it stolen, disarmed, or sundered", my default answer is "no". Metagame thinking - and make no mistake, that IS the very definition of metegame thinking - should not be rewarded. It's simply another case of players trying to make their PCs invincible and immune to plot twists not in their favor. And no, they don't get to come up with a backstory later to justify it if they answer like that in the first place.

Do what's appropriate to the character, not what's mechanically optimal. If it happens to be mechanically optimal, great - but making bigger numbers shouldn't be your first justification for wanting something.

[Xefas]

However, seeing as how most of the time when a player is asked "why do you want a holy symbol tattoo" the answer is an automatic "so I can't have it stolen, disarmed, or sundered", my default answer is "no". Metagame thinking - and make no mistake, that IS the very definition of metegame thinking - should not be rewarded.

Short and humorless version: Adventurers aren't always stupid. They know they live dangerous lives and may take necessary precautions against common obstacles they expect to face.

Slightly longer and more humorous version:

I think I'm metagaming my own life. Instead of carrying my wealth around as jewelry everywhere I go, where it could easily be stolen, disarmed, or sundered, I put it in my bank account.

I thought it was because my wealth is important to me; kind of like how a cleric's representation of, and in many cases direct conduit to, their deity is important to them.

But now I see that both that cleric and I and just trying to make ourselves invincible to plot twists that don't go in our favor.

[JeminiZero]

Short and humorless version: Adventurers aren't always stupid. They know they live dangerous lives and may take necessary precautions against common obstacles they expect to face.


Thats actually a very good point. Unless their character is being roleplayed as mentally deficient (and I rather doubt a high-wis Cleric qualifies as such), it would be reasonable for them to take precautions against unfavorable plot twists, especially if they occur on a regular basis.

[Leon]

My 2nd Ed Cleric of Torm has Tattoo Holy Symbol, since as its needed for majority of spellcasting a cleric without one is a crummy fighter with a fear of bladed weapons and my Cleric started with Nothing.

He was found naked, unconscious and upside down in a torture chamber of the dungeon complex that the rest of the party was making progress through at the time.
Since returning to civilized lands he has acquired a normal one but having the tattoo has been handy on a number of occasions when the party has had to relinquish items such as holy symbols and spell pouches etc

Most of the time its covered by a bandage to disguise it for what it really is. Given what the cleric looks like having a bandage on his arm is a minor issue, as he is heavily scarred and burned (Cha of 7, thanks to a incident with somethings stomach acid - Despite that he's the party's Face)

Large Holy Symbols
Our 2nd Ed group has a Elemental Galleon as our transport and base, the Prow has the Holy symbols of Torm and Helm displayed on the port and starboard (i cant recall who is on what side atm)
Not having needed to do so but we could use the ship as our focus if it was necessary

[Mr.Moron]

Thats actually a very good point. Unless their character is being roleplayed as mentally deficient (and I rather doubt a high-wis Cleric qualifies as such), it would be reasonable for them to take precautions against unfavorable plot twists, especially if they occur on a regular basis.

Given that we're all the equivalent of goofy level 1 commoners in D&D terms, with somewhere between a 9-11 in all our mental scores this is especially important.

Most characters except Mr. Me-Dumb-Orc-Go-Smash, are at least as aware of the dangers out there as we are.

In the case of those with exceptional mental scores 13+ in anything, they could probably come up with something better in a split second than we could with hour of looking at the situation while pouring over the rules. No matter if it is from just being that clever (High Int) or having that deep of an understanding of the situation (High Wis).

Dismissing good decisions "Metagaming" is just plain silly. If anything in tough situations players should probably be getting Metagame hints from the DM based on their mental scores (or at least WIS/INT checks). Simply because the characters are that much smarter/intuitive than the players.

I'm getting ready to play a cleric in a game soon, he has 18 WIS and 12 INT. No matter how/well/smart/metagamey I play him I am still going to be making the poor fellow out to be far more foolish than he really would be.

[Swordguy]

Short and humorless version: Adventurers aren't always stupid. They know they live dangerous lives and may take necessary precautions against common obstacles they expect to face.


Counterpoint: why would Level 1 Adventurers with absolutely no adventuring experience (read: 0 XP) know precisely what sort of dangers await them? What prior experience are they basing it on? Why would a cleric who's NEVER adventured before decide that he'll get a tattoo'd holy symbol specifically so it can't be disarmed? When they live in a world that's 90% Level 1-2 NPC classes, who simply aren't going to perform actions like disarming and sundering with any sort of regularity, what commonly experienced activity would tell someone "I'm quite likely to get my holy item disarmed if I go adventuring"?

Are you SURE it's not the player thinking "I've had my holy item sundered before and the whole half-session that passed before I could fashion a new one really pissed me off...I'm going to tattoo my holy symbol onto myself so there's NO WAY my DM can do that again"? Because, in my anecdotal experience of running D&D for 20 years now, that's exactly the motivation behind it. To hell with what a character who's experiences are completely divorced from my previous character might think - I need to be as invulnerable as possible! That's how I WIN! For that matter, let's break out the fireballs and Acid Arrows when we see large green gangling warty humanoids in a homebrew world where nobody's ever encountered Trolls before! Oh...I swear I didn't know they were Trolls - it was just a lucky guess on the part of my character! Woohoo! All that matters is winning!

Sorry - I think I may have dribbled some sarcasm on my shoes. Let me clean that up. Just a moment...


There. Now, sure, there's some leeway for high-INT characters, because that's exactly what high INT can stand for - the ability to plan out ahead of time unforseen consequences. But I'm confident in the knowledge that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, stuff like this is done with an eye toward minimizing character vulnerabilites from a mechanical perspective. And of course, on the internet, any evidence I give from my own experiences magically means absolutely nothing, being purely anecdotal and all. But that doesn't make me wrong.

Look, the point of the game is to be another person in wonderful and fantastic situations - not compare numbers and have the guy with the best ones win. Build a person first - like Sstoopidtallkid did upthread - and apply with good grace the mechanical bonuses or penalties that naturally flow from being that person. It may not be optimal, but the fun is in making a person who's full of flaws into a hero anyway.

[Ogremindes]

What's the phrase? Once burned, twice scarred?

Twice shy.

[Kris Strife]

I've always wanted to play a paladin who has his holy symbol tattooed/carved into both his palm and the back of his hand... Though admittedly, the fact I'd really like to 'Shining Finger' an undead BBEG using lay on hands damage is the basis of my reason for wanting to do that. Don't forget, the 3.5 player's hand book example paladin has Heironious' holy symbol tattoed to her arm as a sign of faith.

[JeminiZero]

Counterpoint: why would Level 1 Adventurers with absolutely no adventuring experience (read: 0 XP) know precisely what sort of dangers await them? What prior experience are they basing it on? Why would a cleric who's NEVER adventured before decide that he'll get a tattoo'd holy symbol specifically so it can't be disarmed? When they live in a world that's 90% Level 1-2 NPC classes, who simply aren't going to perform actions like disarming and sundering with any sort of regularity, what commonly experienced activity would tell someone "I'm quite likely to get my holy item disarmed if I go adventuring"?


Perhaps they heard of such incidents from their senior cleric while in training. Perhaps one night the trainee clerics of Sharess got in trouble while partying, and were throw in the slammer with their symbols removed. Perhaps he was out fishing, and accidentally dropped his symbol into the drink, and then realized he was in trouble without his magic. There are any number of reasonable stories which might explain how they might have come to realize that they are screwed without their symbol.



Are you SURE it's not the player thinking "I've had my holy item sundered before and the whole half-session that passed before I could fashion a new one really pissed me off...I'm going to tattoo my holy symbol onto myself so there's NO WAY my DM can do that again"? Because, in my anecdotal experience of running D&D for 20 years now, that's exactly the motivation behind it.


"I'm going to tattoo my holy symbol onto myself so there's NO WAY my DM enemies can do that again"

There. A reasonable in character reason. And if I were that highly wise cleric, I would not only have a tattoo, I would NOT use the tattoo and instead rely on my good old wooden symbol, so that my enemies won't know that I can cast without it until its too late.



It may not be optimal, but the fun is in making a person who's full of flaws into a hero anyway.


And here is where I must disagree. Yes, there are some players who like to make heroes out of characters who are full of flaws. But there are some who have fun playing paragons of mankind (it is fantasy after all). Plus it is bad form for a DM starts telling his players how he should play his own character.

[Xefas]

Counterpoint: why would Level 1 Adventurers with absolutely no adventuring experience (read: 0 XP) know precisely what sort of dangers await them? What prior experience are they basing it on? Why would a cleric who's NEVER adventured before decide that he'll get a tattoo'd holy symbol specifically so it can't be disarmed? When they live in a world that's 90% Level 1-2 NPC classes, who simply aren't going to perform actions like disarming and sundering with any sort of regularity, what commonly experienced activity would tell someone "I'm quite likely to get my holy item disarmed if I go adventuring"?

To continue with my analogy, I'm fairly young. I've never had to deal with the 'real life' outside of college. I've never been mugged, burglarized, pick-pocketed or anything of that sort. I know that the vast majority of the people I meet on a daily basis are not intent on stealing from me. And yet, I know that my money is important enough to stick in a bank. Because it's important. Important like a Holy Symbol or a Spellbook or something else that someone bases their entire career around.

Obviously its not a perfect analogy. I'm not saying all Clerics should take measures to make their Holy Symbol impossible to harm. I'm not saying all of them will think to do so. I'm not saying that it's even the accepted norm for any religion a Cleric might be following. I'm merely saying that it's not out of character for a Cleric to show concern for their Holy Symbol, and want to make it a more permanent part of them while they go plunging through Hell and High Water all over creation. They may or may not. Either way, I think its not unrealistic.


Are you SURE it's not the player thinking "I've had my holy item sundered before and the whole half-session that passed before I could fashion a new one really pissed me off...I'm going to tattoo my holy symbol onto myself so there's NO WAY my DM can do that again"?

That line of thought is also perfectly natural for the character himself. "I just had my Holy Symbol sundered, and had to face Demons, Dragons, Demon Dragons, Draconic Demons, and a particularly irate Kobold all without my deity's help. I was completely cut off from my divine purpose in life. That miffs me slightly. Perhaps something more permanent so that doesn't happen again?"


Because, in my anecdotal experience of running D&D for 20 years now, that's exactly the motivation behind it. To hell with what a character who's experiences are completely divorced from my previous character might think - I need to be as invulnerable as possible! That's how I WIN! For that matter, let's break out the fireballs and Acid Arrows when we see large green gangling warty humanoids in a homebrew world where nobody's ever encountered Trolls before! Oh...I swear I didn't know they were Trolls - it was just a lucky guess on the part of my character! Woohoo! All that matters is winning!

You seem very bitter about past experiences, and I think that's heavily biasing you.


And of course, on the internet, any evidence I give from my own experiences magically means absolutely nothing, being purely anecdotal and all. But that doesn't make me wrong.

This also seems really unnecessarily bitter, though in a different way.


Look, the point of the game is to be another person in wonderful and fantastic situations - not compare numbers and have the guy with the best ones win.

I never said anything about comparing numbers. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

[LibraryOgre]

Thanks. This really came out of the "prison items" thread where it was stated that a captured cleric would simply carve a holy symbol into himself.

[quick_comment]

Keep in mind that a prepared enemy can destroy tattooed holy symbols with a variety of spells.

On complete champion: I find it to be the most poorly balanced of the complete books.

[Random832]

However, seeing as how most of the time when a player is asked "why do you want a holy symbol tattoo" the answer is an automatic "so I can't have it stolen, disarmed, or sundered", my default answer is "no". Metagame thinking - and make no mistake, that IS the very definition of metegame thinking - should not be rewarded. It's simply another case of players trying to make their PCs invincible and immune to plot twists not in their favor. And no, they don't get to come up with a backstory later to justify it if they answer like that in the first place.

Anything that a reasonable person in the game world could come up isn't "metagame thinking" - and real metagame thinking would be to NOT do it, because obviously when the time comes for the plot twist (if you were really planning to do a plot twist instead of just having some low-level minion opportunistically take a swipe at it and getting lucky with a dice roll), since the big bad can't disarm you, he'll disarm you, which will have much worse in-game effects than not being able to cast some spells.

In other words, from a non-metagame point of view, it's a sensible precaution. From a metagame point of view, it's an invitation to disaster. So isn't it really metagaming to not do it?

Redcloak didn't have to do a whole long quest to retrieve his lost holy symbol (despite it being an extremely important item otherwise to team evil that they'll have to do a quest to retrieve anyway), he just got his backup from the basement. I'm guessing next time he'll have the backup actually with him, given how badly things went this time as a result of having to go off to the basement.

[Mr.Moron]

Thanks. This really came out of the "prison items" thread where it was stated that a captured cleric would simply carve a holy symbol into himself.

Yikes. That's taking things a bit far. If you've got a tool strong enough to do that, you could probably just scratch it onto the wall. Heck, it's prison there is probably a ready supply of dirt. Gather some up and draw the holy symbol of the floor. I don't think self mutilation would be the best solution in any case.

[AstralFire]

Metagame thinking is not the enemy. When I do something totally IC that helps the DM re-establish the mood, I just used metagame to make a choice between two or more valid IC actions, for the best OoC result.

Antirole thinking is the enemy.

[Ehra]

And frankly, if a player comes to me and says "I want to buy 50 holy symbols" I'm going to laugh and tell him no. Not because I'm a sadistic bastard, but because that strains credibility and shows the cleric has little faith. If he had faith, he'd believe that his god provides for him, and that he won't need but one holy symbol to channel his god's power.



Well in that case you should ban your clerics from ever buying equipment because they should have faith that their God will keep them safe through their adventures.

[LibraryOgre]

Who says clerics need faith? They've got evidence that surpasses a lot of scientific proofs that their deities are real (or at least remarkably consistent consensual delusions).

[DragoonWraith]

I think it's less "I believe you exist" (you'd have to be particularly daft to not believe that), and more "I believe you actually care about me and will help me, and furthermore I believe in your goals and your perspective, and I want to work to help make the world more like your image."

[Mr.Moron]

I think it's less "I believe you exist" (you'd have to be particularly daft to not believe that), and more "I believe you actually care about me and will help me, and furthermore I believe in your goals and your perspective, and I want to work to help make the world more like your image."

That is one very specific flavor of the cleric-deity relationship. It is hardly the only one that is viable.

You could easily have a Cleric who sees themselves the one who has to live up to expectations. They see it as their place to act on their deity's behalf, not the other way around.

When their holy symbol gets stolen and they are unable to channel divine it is a personal failing not a "Oh Great [x] why did you allow this to happen to me?" because they are no longer able to fulfill their end of the bargain. It was their own responsibility to make sure they never lost their connection to that power.


EDIT: Again, that is just one other way you could do it. You've got a pretty big field to play in when you're dealing with powers based on a higher power.

[Glyde]

I always pictured a devout cleric of Illmater would carve a symbol into his hand every time he cast a spell, and it would last the whole encounter.

Dunno if this is allowed by the rules, or if Illmater's symbol is easy to carve into your hand.

[DragoonWraith]

That is one very specific flavor of the cleric-deity relationship. It is hardly the only one that is viable.

You could easily have a Cleric who sees themselves the one who has to live up to expectations. They see it as their place to act on their deity's behalf, not the other way around.

When their holy symbol gets stolen and they are unable to channel divine it is a personal failing not a "Oh Great [x] why did you allow this to happen to me?" because they are no longer able to fulfill their end of the bargain. It was their own responsibility to make sure they never lost their connection to that power.


EDIT: Again, that is just one other way you could do it. You've got a pretty big field to play in when you're dealing with powers based on a higher power.
OK, true. I agree.

[Flickerdart]

I always pictured a devout cleric of Illmater would carve a symbol into his hand every time he cast a spell, and it would last the whole encounter.

Dunno if this is allowed by the rules, or if Illmater's symbol is easy to carve into your hand.
More awesome yet would be a cleric of one of the more crazy gods that would carve the symbol into the flesh of his enemies. Maybe he takes a liking to the head of a fallen foe marked thusly and carries it around afterwards.

[Mr.Moron]

More awesome yet would be a cleric of one of the more crazy gods that would carve the symbol into the flesh of his enemies. Maybe he takes a liking to the head of a fallen foe marked thusly and carries it around afterwards.

Maybe more than just head. If it was a Larger Sized individual, they could just take the whole corpse of something like a halfing or a gnome and mutilate the whole thing into the shape of his deities symbol. Gogo Craft[Taxidermy]?

You've got four limbs and a torso to work with. You could probably carve & twist a lot of shapes out of that.

[mistformsquirrl]

That is so perfect... >.<

I'm imagining a trophy rack similar to this guy. (http://www.wargamestore.com/images/T/gw8339.jpg)

<. .> If that's not an unholy symbol of Nerul, I'm a gopher.

(Okay I admit, it's actually just a Chaos Warrior from WHFB <,< but it has the right look)

*edit* I'm talking about the big trophy over his right shoulder FYI

[hamishspence]

Or possibly the combination of "basic holy symbols cost money" and

"Vow of poverty forbids owning anything not on a certain list- and symbol isn't on it"

The result being clerics with the vow suffer heavily unless you either houserule it, or introduce free holy symbols- tattoos, carvings, etc.

[quick_comment]

Or possibly the combination of "basic holy symbols cost money" and

"Vow of poverty forbids owning anything not on a certain list- and symbol isn't on it"

The result being clerics with the vow suffer heavily unless you either houserule it, or introduce free holy symbols- tattoos, carvings, etc.

No, vow of poverty forbids you from owning expensive things. A self crafted wooden holy symbol is explictly allowed.

[hamishspence]

The topic was raised in Sage Advice, which took the position that if its not explicitly allowed, it isn't.

The wording is "you may not own any material possessions, with the following exceptions":

ordinary simple weapons
clothes
one day's food in a sack
spell component pouch

Thats all.

[The Rose Dragon]

No, vow of poverty forbids you from owning expensive things. A self crafted wooden holy symbol is explictly allowed.

Even though WotC explicitly said that Vow of Poverty is a bad idea for Clerics because it does not allow holy symbols? Self crafted or otherwise?

Although I would still err on the side of caution here, because WotC is known to be completely ignorant about their own system quite often.

[Random832]

how about: the cleric doesn't own the holy symbol... the church owns it. Or the god, depending on how you look at these things. The cleric is just being allowed to use it.

I wouldn't allow this for all sorts of possessions, but a holy symbol is kind of a special case logically

[hamishspence]

thats the advantage of carving flesh- if a carving on your hand (or somewhere else) counts as a symbol, but not a "possession" Vow isn't broken.


There is also the Summon Holy Symbol spell (0th level, Complete Champion, requires no symbol to cast) If temporarily summoned items do not count as true "possessions"- problem solved.

[Kyouhen]

I'd allow tattooed holy symbols. Put a nice big one on your back. Just remember that Turn Undead requires you to present your holy symbol, so be prepared to strip when the legions of the dead are swarming you.

[hamishspence]

I'd allow both tattoo/carvings (must not cost you anything) and Summon, on the grounds that you aren't really "owning" it.

[jamroar]

Anything that a reasonable person in the game world could come up isn't "metagame thinking" - and real metagame thinking would be to NOT do it, because obviously when the time comes for the plot twist (if you were really planning to do a plot twist instead of just having some low-level minion opportunistically take a swipe at it and getting lucky with a dice roll), since the big bad can't disarm you, he'll disarm you, which will have much worse in-game effects than not being able to cast some spells.


Although they could be counting on the fact no reasonable DM would do that to a player character. I mean, there aren't even rules for dismemberment in D&D without house rules.

If not, then consider how many injuries a typical adventuring cleric gets inflicted on them on a regular basis, placing the focus for his spellcasting on a necessarily readily accessible part of the body would be a terrible idea. Now instead of a easily replacable spell focus that can stolen/sundered/lost, you have one that risks being marred into unusability in the middle of battle by an otherwise minor injury (without even requiring a sunder attempt).

[Heliomance]

What's the phrase? Once burned, twice scarred?

Don't be so dismissive of everything automatically. Some of the most unbalanced abilities are actually in Core (the rest is from FR). Take the time to read the following (unless you all ready have, in which case no problems here):


Tome of Magic
Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Dungeonscape

Those books are regarded as the most balanced things Wotc has ever published (even given what is broken in those books, it doesn't come close to the disparity in Core environs, save for magical traps but those were broken long before Dungeonscape came along), and are a valuable asset to anyone who plays DnD 3.5 regularly.




To make this post on-topic: I had the same idea with a Warforged Sapphire Hierarch. His conviction towards law made him turn his slam attacks into +1 Axiomatic weapons, and I convinced the DM to allow me to use my own arm as a holy symbol.

Wait, what? Tome of Magic is NOT regarded as one of the most balanced things WotC has ever published. Tome of Magic is severely underpowered.

[The Rose Dragon]

Wait, what? Tome of Magic is NOT regarded as one of the most balanced things WotC has ever published. Tome of Magic is severely underpowered.

Pact Magic is very well balanced.

Shadow Magic is... umm... not.

Truename Magic is... well... it's... it's not really... it's just... what's up with that system for setting up the DCs of utterances? Or anything truename related?

[LibraryOgre]

For those who argue that a tattoo has no value, and should be allowed to those with Vow of Poverty, you have obviously never purchased a tattoo. They are not cheap. Just because they're part of your flesh, doesn't mean they're free.

[hamishspence]

That's why the carving (intentional scarring).

Or, possibly, make your own with a bone splinter and lots of home-made vegetable ink (may still count as possessions though- isn't clear)

(might be a little risky though- and painful.)

[Fixer]

Counterpoint: why would Level 1 Adventurers with absolutely no adventuring experience (read: 0 XP) know precisely what sort of dangers await them? What prior experience are they basing it on?Bards' stories of what other heroes/adventurers encountered and overcame. It had to come up at some point. Who do you think put the idea to become an adventurer into the heads of the PCs in the first place?

BARDS REALLY DO SERVE A PURPOSE! W00t! :)

[Fixer]

The topic was raised in Sage Advice, which took the position that if its not explicitly allowed, it isn't.

The wording is "you may not own any material possessions, with the following exceptions":

ordinary simple weapons
clothes
one day's food in a sack
spell component pouch

Thats all.For a cleric, the holy symbol is part of the 'spell component pouch' part.

The whole 'Vow of Poverty' thing is about self-sacrifice. Not having a (humble) holy symbol, if you are a cleric, is more about suicide than self-sacrifice. Under these conditions, if a character with VoP would be disallowed a holy symbol it would make sense that they ARE their own holy symbol so long as they remain true to their Vows.

[Kami2awa]

Out of interest, do any real-world religions do this?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

On complete champion: I find it to be the most poorly balanced of the complete books.It's not, really. I started a topic earlier this week on the stuff that's too broken to use. CChamp is far less broken than CDivine.

[LibraryOgre]

Out of interest, do any real-world religions do this?

I have a Thor's Hammer tattooed on my upper right arm. My ex-wife has a Valknut (also known as Odin's Knot, or the "insert spear here" symbol) on her chest, and a Thor's Hammer on her upper right arm.

[Yora]

There are some budhist and taoitst groups who follow the idea of vow of poverty very closely and even have to beg for food every day, as they are not allowed to keep any for later. But even their regulations allow for them to have such simple things like a walking stick, a hat against the sun, and a bowl for their food. Not to mention their clothes. I'm not sure, but I think only a single piece of every type. A piece of wood on a string with a symbol carved into it would fall well into these limits of "no possessions" and I think the examples given with the description of vow of poverty are quite more lenient.

[Asheram]

Not to mention their clothes. I'm not sure, but I think only a single piece of every type.

I think the clothes are loaned by the monastery

[Thane of Fife]

I have a Thor's Hammer tattooed on my upper right arm. My ex-wife has a Valknut (also known as Odin's Knot, or the "insert spear here" symbol) on her chest, and a Thor's Hammer on her upper right arm.

I think that there's a distinct difference between a tattoo of a holy symbol and a holy tattoo.

I think that this (http://www.leisurecambodia.com/Leisure_Cambodia/No.17/tattoo.html) is closer to what is being discussed, and is still pretty different.

[Curmudgeon]

For a cleric, the holy symbol is part of the 'spell component pouch' part. No, it's most definitely not. Didn't you read the rules?
Spell Component Pouch

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

[LibraryOgre]

I think that there's a distinct difference between a tattoo of a holy symbol and a holy tattoo.


Depends on the situation of getting it, too.

[Fitz10019]

For those who argue that a tattoo has no value, and should be allowed to those with Vow of Poverty, you have obviously never purchased a tattoo. They are not cheap. Just because they're part of your flesh, doesn't mean they're free.

Well... no value from the re-sale prespective. It was expensive, so your money is gone. You have it, and no one will give you any money for it, so you own something that is now worthless.

[LibraryOgre]

Well... no value from the re-sale prespective. It was expensive, so your money is gone. You have it, and no one will give you any money for it, so you own something that is now worthless.

But it had a purchase value, and has a practical value. Furthermore, I believe there are a number of wizards who can do things with it.

[Ravens_cry]

But it's part of you now. If your going for old school ritual scarring (http://ian.macky.net/secretmuseum/congo_swastika_scarring.jpg), it is even taking something away.

[Riffington]

The obviously correct answer is that if you are going to allow Vow of Poverty at all, you should allow a plain wooden holy symbol. RAW may state otherwise, but you really don't want to get around RAW here by making weird claims that a tattoo is not a possession with a value. If you do, you're going to get into issues of warforged with highly-enchanted bodies or monks with enchanted fists (permanent magic fang?) If you want to allow Vow of Poverty and you want to allow divine foci, just make the obvious ruling that a simple wooden holy symbol is allowed whereas a fancy silver one is not.

[LibraryOgre]

So, your PC has a tattooed holy symbol. This is known.

Can Erase (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm) make their day suck? What about an Arcane Mark (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneMark.htm) covering the holy symbol?

[Ravens_cry]

So, your PC has a tattooed holy symbol. This is known.

Can Erase (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm) make their day suck? What about an Arcane Mark (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneMark.htm) covering the holy symbol?
The latter, I would say, no. It's still a holy symbol, even with magical graffiti on it. As for the former, the holy symbols are not writings, but drawings or designs of some sort, like this (http://nowaxrealms.wikispaces.com/file/view/Sunesymbol.jpg) or this (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/thumb/8/84/Pharasma_holy_symbol.jpg/250px-Pharasma_holy_symbol.jpg) Sune and Pharasma respectively, and it says explicitly it doesn't erase symbol spells.

[Kyouhen]

I'd say Arcane Mark could screw up some abilities. You don't need to actually do anything with your holy symbol to cast spells, so I don't think it would affect that. Turn/Rebuke undead require that you present your symbol though, so slapping a smiley face over it could mess it up enough to keep those from working.