Druid with a VOP [3.5]

[unre9istered]

I'm starting a new game and have decided I want to play a druid with a vow of poverty aiming for sainthood.

I know VOP is crippling to most characters, but druid is supposed to be one of the classes that can take the hit. My question is how? What feats/spells should I take to mitigate the damage I've inflicted upon my power level?

We're starting at 3rd level I rolled 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 17. I was planning on human to get the vow at 1st level taking Nymph's Kiss as my 1st bonus feat and Intuitive attack as my second (the 17 in Wis of course).
Not sure what to take for my 3rd level feat, Eschew Materials maybe?
Also, where should I put my other stats? Should I dump the low ones in my physicals and make up for it later with wild shape?

[The Glyphstone]

Natural Spell at 6th, obviously.

[aje8]

Ability Scores:
17 in Wis. 16 in Con.

Beyond that..... it doesn't matter that much. But I'd probably throw one of the 14s in Str (for the low levels) and the other in Charisma or Int.

Then, be sure you get Natrual spell at 6th.

[Brendan]

Put the 14 in int. Skill points are always fun. Also, what exactly is the vow of poverty? what book is it from?

[crazedloon]

unless you are allowed to retrain do not take Intuitive attack as your wildshaped form will have higher Str than your Wis in most cases and therefor you would rather use your Str to hit

also check this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1354.0) and this (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868802/Druid_Handbook_revived) out there may be some overlap but more info the merrier I always say...

[Assassin89]

Put the 14 in int. Skill points are always fun. Also, what exactly is the vow of poverty? what book is it from?

Vow of poverty is from BoED aka Book of Exalted Cheese. Essentially a character receives bonuses in exchange for not having magical item or much wealth on person.

[awa]

your low stats arnt that bad id probably put the low stats in physical (except con).
My logic is there not so low that they will make you unlikely to survive to level 5 where they will become largely irrelevant.
I agree that intuitive attack is not all that much use for you, you will be wild shaped in 2 levels anyway, and if your combat form has less then 18 str your doing something wrong. The monster manual 1 alone has several size medium forms with 19 str

[unre9istered]

...do not take Intuitive attack...

So what should I take? The feats I qualify for are:
Animal Friend (lame)
Exalted Companion
Favored of the Companions (lame)
Gift of Faith (mostly lame)
Knight of the Stars (see Favored of the Companions)
Nimbus of Light (I intend to take this eventually given the lack of useful exalted feats but didn't think I'd need to at 2nd level)
All other Sacred Vows (not interested)
Servant of the Heavens (see Knight of the Stars)
Touch of Golden Ice (maybe, the DC is low but a small chance of 1d6 Dex damage on every attack...)

[awa]

gold ice, they can always roll a one (also i think it did something special to undead or was that evil outsider i forget) and you can use it as an impromptu detect evil.

[awa]

you want nymph as early as possible for the bonus skill points but then you want gold ice early on because its most useful early on when things can fail on a roll that's not a one.

[unre9istered]

Anyone know what the exalted feats from Champions of Valor do?

They are:
Defender of the Homeland
Knight of the Red Falcon
Knight of the Risen Sceptor
Knight of Tyr's Holy Judgment
Knight of Tyr's Merciful Sword
Paladin of the Noble Heart

Basically are they any good for a druid? Also does Lliira's Blessing from the Player's Guide to Faerun provide any benefit to a druid who can already shapeshift out of bindings? I found this describing it: "Benefit: better Escape Artist and less chances to become restrained in any way, shape or form..." but it seems like wild shape's pretty good ant preventing restraint.

[unre9istered]

you want nymph as early as possible for the bonus skill points...
That's why it will be my 1st bonus exalted feat from VOP at 1st level.

[sofawall]

Vow of poverty is from BoED aka Book of Exalted Cheese. Essentially a character receives bonuses in exchange for not having magical item or much wealth on person.

What in BoED is cheese?

Hmm, let me rephrase that. Why is it called Book of Exalted Cheese, but Comp. Arc. is not called Complete Archeese?

[sonofzeal]

What in BoED is cheese?

Hmm, let me rephrase that. Why is it called Book of Exalted Cheese, but Comp. Arc. is not called Complete Archeese?
Speaking as someone who likes the book....

It's got a fairly high percentage of ridiculously bad and ridiculously good PrCs (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0); it has Vow of Peace which is ridiculously bad or ridiculously good depending on your character and whether your DM actually follows RAW on it (hint: it's not as restrictive as you probably think it is); it has the Retributive Amulet which is just brokenly-good.... I think there's more but I forget it.

Anyway, mostly people just gripe about Ravages. Apparently good guys getting not-poisons ruins everything ever. Or something.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Anyway, mostly people just gripe about Ravages. Apparently good guys getting not-poisons ruins everything ever. Or something."Poisons are irredeemably Evil, even if you're just using them to incapacitate a neutral Guard so you can pass him without having to chop him into little pieces. And even though the spell Poison isn't Evil. And even though Always-good monsters get poisons.

These are Ravages, they're identical in every way to poisons, are described as excruciatingly painful, but they're good, and in some cases Exalted to use since they only work on Evil creatures. Have fun."

Because D&D needed more idiotic alignment.

[sonofzeal]

"Poisons are irredeemably Evil, even if you're just using them to incapacitate a neutral Guard so you can pass him without having to chop him into little pieces. And even though the spell Poison isn't Evil. And even though Always-good monsters get poisons.
Well, I think the passage gets overstated. "Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and characters." Anyway, I don't think I've seen any good aligned character use poisons so far, and I don't expect it'll ever come up on its own unless someone deliberately sets out to work against that little bit of text. I do agree it shouldn't be in there, but I don't think it's the first book to make that statement, and I don't think it's all that big an issue.


These are Ravages, they're identical in every way to poisons, are described as excruciatingly painful, but they're good, and in some cases Exalted to use since they only work on Evil creatures. Have fun."
See, I kind of like the idea of holy energy weakening evil things. If you think about it more like Smite, I think it makes a bit more sense. Even if poisons weren't evil, I think the idea works and could be fun.


Because D&D needed more idiotic alignment.
If you don't like the alignment system, I might suggest you avoid books explicitly tailored to it. Just a thought. :smallbiggrin:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Well, I think the passage gets overstated. "Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and characters." Anyway, I don't think I've seen any good aligned character use poisons so far, and I don't expect it'll ever come up on its own unless someone deliberately sets out to work against that little bit of text. I do agree it shouldn't be in there, but I don't think it's the first book to make that statement, and I don't think it's all that big an issue."Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act as it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." It then goes on to describe Oil of Taggit as the only non-evil DMG poison(and Drow Knockout Poison).

As for good characters using poisons, have you never wanted to play a good character that focused on disabling rather than killing his opponents? Normally poisons would be a perfect way to do that, but you can't and remain good doing that according to the BoED. Which is stupid.

See, I kind of like the idea of holy energy weakening evil things. If you think about it more like Smite, I think it makes a bit more sense. Even if poisons weren't evil, I think the idea works and could be fun.I don't object to Ravages because of that, I object to them because they are exactly the same as poisons, right down to causing the target to be wracked with pain, but yet, they are somehow Exalted rather than Evil because they only work on evil characters.

If you don't like the alignment system, I might suggest you avoid books explicitly tailored to it. Just a thought. :smallbiggrin:Or I go directly to those books, hoping for rules and perspectives that make sense, well-thought out examples, and intelligent discussion, instead getting Stupid Good from one and Psychotic Evil from the other.

[sofawall]

Retributive Amulet

Luckily that, at least, has been reprinted in a weaker format.

[Prime32]

Anyway, I don't think I've seen any good aligned character use poisons so far
Note that couatls have a poison bite.

[hamishspence]

I don't object to Ravages because of that, I object to them because they are exactly the same as poisons, right down to causing the target to be wracked with pain, but yet, they are somehow Exalted rather than Evil because they only work on evil characters.

Which of the ravages states that the target is "wracked with pain"?

Not all ability damaging effects are described as doing that- several spells inflict ability damage.

I can understand the dislike of Afflictions- still, if you are using Deities and Demigods, there are a few good deities that use diseases against people they disapprove of (Apollo in particular) and it's one of the few ways the deity can do something like that, without resulting in "one rule for deities, another for mortals"

on ravages- I see them as bound by the basic code of conduct. You can murder with a ravage, just as you can murder with a Good subtype spell like Holy Word- the main thing about ravages is a Good character is in no danger when applying them to their weapon, or rolling a 1 to hit and then failing DC15 reflex save.

Except if you're one of those players/DMs who insists that killing Evil beings just for being Evil is never, ever murder.



Or I go directly to those books, hoping for rules and perspectives that make sense, well-thought out examples, and intelligent discussion, instead getting Stupid Good from one and Psychotic Evil from the other.

Interestingly, going by TV tropes- BoVD and BoED actually put quite a bit of effort into avoiding Stupid Evil and Lawful Stupid.

"How to be Lawful Good without being an idiot"

However, it looks like not everyone agrees with this view.

the FR expansions (Champions of Valor, Champions of Ruin) go into Good and Evil in some depth, as does Exemplars of Evil.

[Zom B]

Vow of Peace [...] (hint: it's not as restrictive as you probably think it is)

Oh, looky there, some rogue used Sleight of Hand to put a coin on your person. Following by the book, you now have monetary possessions and so lose the benefit of the feat until you atone. Yeah, I heard of a DM doing that.


Touch of Golden Ice (maybe, the DC is low but a small chance of 1d6 Dex damage on every attack...)

We made the save DC charisma-based.

[Duke of URL]

What in BoED is cheese?

Hmm, let me rephrase that. Why is it called Book of Exalted Cheese, but Comp. Arc. is not called Complete Archeese?

Because its more powerful abilities are overpowered, with a supposed "roleplay restriction" attached to them to balance it out. This does not work nearly as well as the designers thought that it should.

[Keshay]

Vow of Peace [...] (hint: it's not as restrictive as you probably think it is)Oh, looky there, some rogue used Sleight of Hand to put a coin on your person. Following by the book, you now have monetary possessions and so lose the benefit of the feat until you atone. Yeah, I heard of a DM doing that.

That's interesting, where in Vow of Peace does it say you can not have wealth?

[Sir.Swindle]

That's interesting, where in Vow of Peace does it say you can not have wealth?

It doesn't he prolly meant Vow of Poverty.

Also i think there is a gp value you can own, and i think that you can have wealth that is not yours to move it from the dungeon to charity.

That aside thinks would get physical if that happened the DM should have just said "no you can't take that feat because i don't like it"

[Starscream]

There is one major advantage to Exalted Companion that a lot of people forget: the celestial template means you have an intelligence of at least three.

That means your animal companion will technically be sentient (although not very bright). Which means that he can learn your language, and you never need to make a Handle Animal roll again. If he can understand what you are saying, that's the same as having an effectively infinite number of tricks.

It's a minor benefit, it's not like your pet wolf can do your taxes for you or anything. But the ability to understand more detailed orders in combat can be handy. You can warn him not to get in the way of the wizard's fireball, get him to help the rogue flank an enemy, tell him when he needs to try and be stealthy etc.

Well worth a feat, I think. An AC is like having an extra 1/2 a party member, and this makes him all the more effective.

[Arundel]

Oh, looky there, some rogue used Sleight of Hand to put a coin on your person. Following by the book, you now have monetary possessions and so lose the benefit of the feat until you atone. Yeah, I heard of a DM doing that.

I don't think that terrible DMs should be used as justification for why a feature is thought to be poor. This example is akin to that old example of an unknown npc walking up to a paladin and tossing him a bag of money, which he caught. the DM said he lost his paladin status for associating with evil.

As someone who values RP over XP, I love the BoED. It completely changed my outlook on good characters, in fact I think that the opening chapters may be some of the most thought provoking discussion of good in 3.5

[hamishspence]

Agreed with this. I like the opening chapters also, even if the occasional odd thing tends to crop up later.

"associating" should (IMO) be defined very generously by the DM- ideally, enough to allow for BoED's suggested:

"Good and Evil allied against Worse" campaign concept,

and redeeming evil beings.


That's interesting, where in Vow of Peace does it say you can not have wealth?

it doesn't- but the Apostle of Peace PRC requires both- which means they are often associated.

Though the player doesn't have to go down that route.

[Sliver]

it doesn't- but the Apostle of Peace PRC requires both- which means they are often associated.

Apostle of Peace also tells you in the "Weapon and Armor Proficiency" section that you can use rings of protection or braces of armor to offset the fact that you have to forswear the use of armor.

[hamishspence]

Probably bad editing. Maybe somebody put Poverty in at the last minute- but they never got round to rewriting the rest of the class.

Given that the picture also looks somewhat inappropriate for a guy with no magic items, this may fit.

[Sliver]

Given that the picture also looks somewhat inappropriate for a guy with no magic items, this may fit.

What is inappropriate in the picture? :smallconfused: The magically looking staff? The hovering sroll? Maybe the chunks of gold?

You see, everything is OK because he doesn't wear shoes!

[Aldizog]

VOP does not explicitly allow the possession of a divine focus. This means a druid with the feat would be unable to cast MANY of his spells. Not sure if that's RAI or how most DMs would rule it.

[Zom B]

It doesn't he prolly meant Vow of Poverty.

This. I read the post too quickly and from the moment I saw the thread title I had Vow of Poverty in my head, since it is usually the one called VoP (being more widely talked-about than Peace).

But yeah, the Vow feats all make you atone for them even if you unwillingly fail to keep the vow. If you imbibe alcohol someone slipped into your drink, you lose your Vow of Purity feat. It's kind of silly IMO. A DM worth his salt will identify what was a willing breach and what wasn't.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

Personally I am fond of the book of exalted deeds. Its got lots of fun ideas in it and such.

As for holding money. That alone is not enough to make someone loose VoP. in fact right in the book it says that they are still supposed to get their share of the loot from Dungeon crawls and stuff, they just cant spend it on themselves (or any stretch of for their benefit). The money must be donated to a good cause. heck you can have someone with VOP running around with millions of plat, they just cant spend ANY of it and must have the intention of giving it to a charity as soon as is resonably possible.

As for what feats a VOP druid should take.

Animal friend
Exalted Companion
Exalted Wildshape
Gift of faith
Inuitive Attack (in the description you MAY use Wiz in place of str. . . optional, pick and choose when you want to and when you dont)
Nimbus of light
Holy radiance
Nymphs kiss
Touch of Golden Ice
Sanctify natural attack


Not in that order.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Which of the ravages states that the target is "wracked with pain"?

Not all ability damaging effects are described as doing that- several spells inflict ability damage."Magical traumas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies...Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons"


I can understand the dislike of Afflictions- still, if you are using Deities and Demigods, there are a few good deities that use diseases against people they disapprove of (Apollo in particular) and it's one of the few ways the deity can do something like that, without resulting in "one rule for deities, another for mortals"Deities and Demigods listed Apollo as Good? Wow, I'm glad I don't own that book.

Still, afflictions suffer from the same issues as Ravages, they're basically an exact copy of something that's Evil to use, but since they only hit Evil characters, they're somehow [Good]. It's Smite-On-Sight with bioweapons instead of a sword.
on ravages- I see them as bound by the basic code of conduct. You can murder with a ravage, just as you can murder with a Good subtype spell like Holy Word- the main thing about ravages is a Good character is in no danger when applying them to their weapon, or rolling a 1 to hit and then failing DC15 reflex save.The BoED took them much further than that. If you use a Poison for any reason, it's an Evil act. If you take the Touch of the Golden Ice feat, you can unintentionally poison someone just by shaking their hand, but it's okay, they were Evil. :smallmad:

Except if you're one of those players/DMs who insists that killing Evil beings just for being Evil is never, ever murder.I insist killing someone is murder without a good reason, irregardless of alignment. That's what the "Poisons and Bioweapons that only work on evil creatures" takes away IMHO. Not to mention the idiocy of poisons being Evil in the first place.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much- the best that can be said about ravages, is that they pose no risk to the user if the user is non-evil.

It doesn't actually state that using a Ravage is always Good. I'd say that an Evil guy who buys a ravage to murder another Evil guy is doing evil.

So why wouldn't the same apply for a (currently) nonevil guy?

Same with casting a Good descriptor spell.

The only sources which say "casting a spell with X descriptor is an X alignment act", are BoVD (Evil spells) and Fiendish Codex 2 (Evil spells)

BoED, by contrast, on page 7, makes it clear that:

"Good spells don't have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse. An evil wizard who dabbles in a few good spells, most likely to help him achieve selfish ends, does not usually decide to abandon his evil ways because he's been purified by the touch of the holy"

So, just because the spell is (Good) does not mean, that casting the spell is a Good act.

Deities and Demigods took a pretty loose approach to alignments- maybe based more on the depiction of the deity in movies or TV series, rather than in mythology.



I insist killing someone is murder without a good reason, irregardless of alignment. That's what the "Poisons and Bioweapons that only work on evil creatures" takes away IMHO. Not to mention the idiocy of poisons being Evil in the first place.

BoED actually takes a similar approach with "just because the orcs are evil, does not mean its OK to kill them, if you don't have evidence they are causing harm"

Ironically, this is one of the things I've been arguing over elsewhere- with people saying "BoED is wrong- killing an evil being in the absence of other justifying factors should never be an evil act"

[Jayabalard]

"Magical traumas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies...Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons"That doesn't actually say anything about pain ... perhaps you just left that part of the text out of your quote?

[hamishspence]

The full quote runs:
"Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure"

Suggesting that its that they function mechanically similar to poisons.

Afflictions are much harder to excuse- my guess is that they were intended to replicate various plagues in books that cannot be discussed here (or possibly the Iliad.)

Not the best of ideas.

[Blackfang108]

VOP does not explicitly allow the possession of a divine focus. This means a druid with the feat would be unable to cast MANY of his spells. Not sure if that's RAI or how most DMs would rule it.

Not exactly.

Clerics are screwed, as they cannot have a holy symbol.

However, Druids use unpriced bits of nature (a stick, leaves, etc.) as a DF. As it doesn't have a price, he can own one.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I think we're misunderstanding each other a bit. My objection to Ravages is that Poisons are called out as Evil to use under any circumstances, while Ravages, which are identical to them in every way except that they only work on Evil creatures, aren't. My objection to Afflictions is similar, except Afflictions, being based on disease, are capable of wiping out entire towns. I don't see how either of them is different in alignment from the thing they're based on.

For reference, I view Disease as almost always evil(uncontrollable, hits non-combatants harder than those fighting, can spread to entire countries, etc), but poisons are much more likely to be a weapon of good. You can light the enemy on fire, hit them repeatedly in the face with a club, stab them in the spleen, or hit them with a dex damage poison and tie them up. Which would a good char do?

[Jayabalard]

I think we're misunderstanding each other a bit.If you're referring to me, then no... I understand that's your claim, I think it's just based on some specific assumptions of yours that aren't necessarily the case.


My objection to Ravages is that Poisons are called out as Evil to use under any circumstances, while Ravages, which are identical to them in every way except that they only work on Evil creatures, aren't. That's not really quite accurate.

Ravages are mechanically identical with the exception of only working on evil creatures; the non-mechanical (fluff) effects (which determine whether a thing is good or evil) are, as far as I'm aware, explicitly different.

Personally, I'd prefer for them to work quite differently, based specifically on the nature of evil of the creature in question. That way, the "turn[ing] the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption" bit would be a lot more accurate.

But that would require GM adjudication, and you're not going to see that kind of thing in a 3e+ rulebook. Because systems that require GM adjudication are "bad game designtm"

[hamishspence]

Dropping the Poison is Evil bit can be done without dropping ravages- then, they become useful situational tools, rather than the only possible option.

I'm not sure why non-CON poisons are considered to cause "undue suffering".

However, in warfare, poisoned weapons, and poison as a war weapon, are generally disapproved of.

Maybe D&D needs more incapacitating poisons "knockout drops" or non-lethal paralysing agents, for those parties without access to magic.

[Jayabalard]

I'm not sure why non-CON poisons are considered to cause "undue suffering".a DEX based poison may be making you clumsy by putting you into extreme pain (think, very severe arthritis); same goes for INT/WIS/etc.


Maybe D&D needs more incapacitating poisons "knockout drops" or non-lethal paralysing agents, for those parties without access to magic.It would have been kind of nice if they had a differentiation between "poisons" (wide variety of effects and evil, targets any creature) and "drugs" (very limited set of effects and non-evil, targets any creature), but really, that makes the system much more complicated.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Dropping the Poison is Evil bit can be done without dropping ravages- then, they become useful situational tools, rather than the only possible option. That's basically my main objection. Drop the "poisons are evil", and the Ravages not being evil suddenly makes sense. But BoED has the "Poisons are Evil" on the same page as Ravages, so it's hard for me to trust the book's stance on alignment.

[Toliudar]

OP:

Exalted companion can be good, but check with your DM. It turns an animal companion into a magical beast, which by 3.5 rules makes it ineligible to be an AC.

Since Intuitive Strike is not (if I recall correctly) an exalted feat (or if it is, it's a lingering bit of stupidity that I'd houserule away in a heartbeat), I'd suggest that Extend Spell or Spell Focus (Conjuration) is going to serve you better in the long term. Once you achieve wildshape, you probably won't be attacking in your humanoid form very often.

[Aldizog]

Not exactly.

Clerics are screwed, as they cannot have a holy symbol.

However, Druids use unpriced bits of nature (a stick, leaves, etc.) as a DF. As it doesn't have a price, he can own one.

Yeah, I thought about that. But the wording is "You must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..." Market price is not what makes an item a material possession.

Perhaps I am being harsh here because I know (as a player) just how powerful the druid class is.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, I thought about that. But the wording is "You must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..." Market price is not what makes an item a material possession. ]

I think they just overlooked holy symbols.

There is a 0th level cleric spell/1st level Paladin spell, in Complete Champion, that allows them to temporarily summon a holy symbol- maybe that's what this was made to cover.

[QUOTE=Sstoopidtallkid;7467992]That's basically my main objection. Drop the "poisons are evil", and the Ravages not being evil suddenly makes sense. But BoED has the "Poisons are Evil" on the same page as Ravages, so it's hard for me to trust the book's stance on alignment.

Most of the first two chapters make reasonable sense if you like "cautious good" who go out of their way to avoid wronging people (such as those who are evil, but only mildly so).

If you believe that all people who are evil in D&D, however mildly so, deserve death, you may not like this book.

Once you get past the first two chapters, some of the mechanical things, and spells, might need to be treated with caution.

Sanctify The Wicked is particularly disliked, for its perceived overtones of brainwashing:

(I'd remove the rule that says it changes target alignment to that of the caster, and instead go with it advancing on the Evil-Good axis, among other things)

Some people dislike the strong requirement to accept offers of unconditional surrender- saying this make no sense in the context of a mission behind enemy lines- so a few things might be "If at all reasonably possible", rather than "Always"

But in general, what stands out is "treat people as kindly as possible- even evil people who are in your power"