Why is Vow of Poverty considered extremely 'uber'? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why is Vow of Poverty considered extremely 'uber'?

Pages : [1] 2

Simba

2009-12-21, 09:35 AM

I just read the feat, it requires you to take 'Sacred Vow' - an almost useless feat, and it keeps you from having any possessions whatsoever. Ok, it might be great for a druid or a healer, but for most classes it is simply bad.
What is so great about it that it is considered an exploit by so many?

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-21, 09:36 AM

It's not. Losing magic items is huge. Who says it's "uber"?

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 09:36 AM

Since when has Vow of Poverty been considered anything other than a weak feat that totally gimps anyone who isn't a Druid, and even then severely depowers the Druid when he's in his natural form?

Only people who don't actually understand D&D think Vow of Poverty is good. The abilities it gives you are on average worth less than standard WBL and, here's the important bit, you don't get to choose the abilities.

"Oh no! A flying monster! Well, I'm screwed."

Oh, and if you ever even once perform a selfish act, you permanently lose the feat. And don't get a replacement. Feats are precious, precious things to anyone who isn't a Fighter.

mikej

2009-12-21, 09:38 AM

sigh* I get this a lot now and in the past. It's not that fantastic, it's good RP, but not "uber" per say.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 09:39 AM

sigh* I get this a lot now and in the past. It's not that fantastic, it's good RP, but not "uber" per say.

It is not good RP. Nobody would voluntarily go out adventuring without any equipment!

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-21, 09:42 AM

It's not necessarily good RP. It's (possibly, not necessarily) original RP, but poor roleplayers will be poor roleplayers.

SparkMandriller

2009-12-21, 09:42 AM

You've got the wrong planet bro, Bizarro World is that way.

mikej

2009-12-21, 09:44 AM

It is not good RP. Nobody would voluntarily go out adventuring without any equipment!

I thought it was nice roleplay wise. The sacred dedication to your vows ( or deity ) to live without material goods. My uncle went the Buddhism route a few years ago, so I think of that when I think of this feat.

As for myself, I'll never take it, I love my cool magic items to much. Just I played with ( one in particular ) a few people that though it was "uber."

Simba

2009-12-21, 09:45 AM

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 09:46 AM

Many DMs ban the Truenamer too.

And no, it is, in fact, bad.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-21, 09:48 AM

Pity it doesn't let you choose what benefits you get from a wide variety of different ones.

mikej

2009-12-21, 09:48 AM

Well, all I know is that many DMs ban it so I thought there must be something I keep overlooking in there. It is not bad, but not too good, either. it has Rp potential, of course, but that's more or less all.

Thx for all the answers!

I can imagine a lot of DM's frown upon two feats giving out that many bonuses. Of course a little number crunching and some foresight in the game shows otherwise, IMO. That's how I explained it.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 09:49 AM

Pity it doesn't let you choose what benefits you get from a wide variety of different ones.

That would actually make it worthwhile. Anyone feeling up for some homebrew?

paddyfool

2009-12-21, 09:52 AM

It should really grant something like overland flight at a certain level - letting slip the bonds of the earth (aka gravity) as your ties to worldly things unravel...

SparkMandriller

2009-12-21, 09:54 AM

I thought it was nice roleplay wise. The sacred dedication to your vows ( or deity ) to live without material goods. My uncle went the Buddhism route a few years ago, so I think of that when I think of this feat.

You can roleplay giving away all your money without a feat. All the feat does is make you better at killing things if you do.

It's not really a good roleplaying feat any more than Shock Trooper is. They both give you some bonuses in return for some penalties. They might help you not die, but they don't really help you RP any better than you could without them.

Unless your character concept is a guy who gives away all his money and gains magical powers from it, I guess. But that concept is ridiculous anyway so whatever. Man, who came up with that feat? Such a stupid feat.

dsmiles

2009-12-21, 09:58 AM

I hate to interrupt, but any feat can be role-played well, if it fits the character's concept and intent. It's all a matter of personal opinion. As to why DM's ban it? I don't know, I never have. Only one person ever took it, though. (Wierd combo, that. He played a Vow of Poverty Barbarian.)

Emmerask

2009-12-21, 10:02 AM

A barbarian who could not pillage the village ? BLASPHEMY!

anyway vop is at best mediocre although wasn´t there one prc who could still use magic items and have vop?

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 10:05 AM

A barbarian who could not pillage the village ? BLASPHEMY!

anyway vop is at best mediocre although wasn´t there one prc who could still use magic items and have vop?

Apostle of Peace. Defensive items only - so still no flight.

And for that matter no material components or focuses. The Apostle of Peace sucks.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2009-12-21, 10:06 AM

There are only two situations that I know of in which having VoP could be mechanically better than not having VoP:

1. In an extremely low-magic/low-wealth game, in which the benefits of VoP are significantly better than what you would have gained from items.

2. Have your Animal Companion take Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, and now it gets bonuses as though it had gear appropriate to its HD, and you don't have to spend anything on items for it. This is easiest via the feat Exalted Companion, to get a Celestial creature (Int 3+, good-aligned) as your animal companion.

In both of these cases, VoP is taken for a mechanical benefit rather than its intended purpose, RP. Both of these are abusive uses of the feat, and should not be allowed in the first place.

Anyone who thinks VoP is 'uber' or otherwise better than not having VoP is just ignorant.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 10:06 AM

Pity it doesn't let you choose what benefits you get from a wide variety of different ones.

Yeah, like wearing magic items does. :smalltongue:

I hate to interrupt, but any feat can be role-played well, if it fits the character's concept and intent.

Yes, but that's not what Yuki was saying. Being able to roleplay a feat well is not the same as a given feat automatically being "good roleplay."

Even worse, feats that are labelled as "good roleplay" are usually very bad mechanically; and are labelled that way precisely because they are suboptimal.

mikej

2009-12-21, 10:07 AM

You can roleplay giving away all your money without a feat. All the feat does is make you better at killing things if you do.

It's not really a good roleplaying feat any more than Shock Trooper is. They both give you some bonuses in return for some penalties. They might help you not die, but they don't really help you RP any better than you could without them.

Unless your character concept is a guy who gives away all his money and gains magical powers from it, I guess. But that concept is ridiculous anyway so whatever. Man, who came up with that feat? Such a stupid feat.

two replies over I though "it was good RP." It's like saying you're a Samurai but without having a actuall level in "Samurai" the class. You can say you're Samurai in roleplay but some people think it's hollow if you don't go all the way into it. I don't tie myself into that but I've played with people that do believe in this.

I thought it was neat, I never said I'd take it, or defend it like my gaming buddies. It's mechanically a poor feat choice but some people like to show on paper what thier character is about. Even if it means wearing a tag saying you gave up your stuff.

SparkMandriller

2009-12-21, 10:07 AM

I hate to interrupt, but any feat can be role-played well, if it fits the character's concept and intent.

I'm sure the roleplaying would still happen even without the feat, though. I mean, are you saying you'd find it impossible to give away all your money without a feat saying you could? I'm sure I'd be capable of it, though I'll admit I haven't tried.

It'd be hard to roleplay a guy who gives away his money and then gains superpowers, but I'd argue that's not roleplaying at all. There's not much roleplaying just from having superpowers, the same way an ubercharger can't really roleplay being able to make people explode by hitting them. He can do it, sure, but there's not really much roleplaying there. You have to add roleplay on your own.

two replies over I though "it was good RP." It's like saying you're a Samurai but without having a actuall level in "Samurai" the class. You can say you're Samurai in roleplay but some people think it's hollow if you don't go all the way into it. I don't tie myself into that but I've played with people that do believe in this.

Those people do not agree with me and therefore are not entitled to opinions.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 10:13 AM

Apostle of Peace. Defensive items only - so still no flight.

To be fair, they get Air Walk and Wind Walk.

And for that matter no material components or focuses. The Apostle of Peace sucks.

Mechanically, they're actually fairly strong - sort of the anti-Ur Priest. Anything that grants 9th-level spells in 9 levels can't be immediately dismissed as weak. (They also get Gate, Miracle, Planar Ally line etc.) They are just very, VERY annoying in a group. They also progress turning (and grant turning if the entry class doesn't have it), and even get Planar Turning for free.

If the DM makes it so his powers don't depend on being a wet blanket, then the class is playable.

Indon

2009-12-21, 10:20 AM

Pity it doesn't let you choose what benefits you get from a wide variety of different ones.

That would require good Exalted feats, at the very least.

Mongoose87

2009-12-21, 10:29 AM

That would require good Exalted feats, at the very least.

If you left the stat bonuses, (which, really, are essentially, due to the removal of stat-boosters) and build a pile of Exalted feats, you could simply make it ALL bonus exalted feats, if they were good enough. Make a variety for every class.

Gorbash

2009-12-21, 10:35 AM

Only people who don't actually understand D&D think Vow of Poverty is good. The abilities it gives you are on average worth less than standard WBL and, here's the important bit, you don't get to choose the abilities.

This is true. And sadly, most people don't understand what's good and what's not in D&D. I know people who know rules better than I do, but they suck at telling appart good from bad. One of my friends think Spell Compendium is downright broken and should be banned from all games, yet he thinks Time Stop is a crappy spell.

From my experience, players who don't frequent D&D forums are those who don't understand D&D. Participating in theoretical optimization gives an understanding of the concept of 'uber' things.

And to the point, I'm DMing for a group that has a Half-Celestial Cleric with VoP. Aside from DR 5/evil, some ok exalted feats (Sanctify Weapon, Exalted Spell Resistance which makes his Half-Celestial SR actually worthwile... sometimes) and compared to a standard cleric, he's downright useless. Due to his crappy AC, he'd die a lot if he got involved in melee, because of lack of weapon enhancements and decent weapons he can't fight well, so he just serves as a healbot.

The only good things about VoP are +8 enhancment bonus to one stat (which you can't get any other way) and continuous True Seeing.

Killer Angel

2009-12-21, 10:44 AM

What is so great about it that it is considered an exploit by so many?

WoP as written is Bad.
You can see on forums many builds with WoP, simply because is funny (especially for theoretical builds) try to create something good (or passable), starting from a concept that gimps yourself.

Mongoose87

2009-12-21, 10:49 AM

I can imagine it being decent at Epic levels, since you're going to get stat boosts out the ying-yang, if you allow the progression to continue, and you could use an Apostle of Peace/Mystic Theurge build to get two type of 9th level spells.

Jayabalard

2009-12-21, 10:50 AM

SOnly people who don't actually understand D&D think Vow of Poverty is good. Correction: people who play far below WBL also tend to think that it's good.

So it isn't necessarily a lack of understanding, it may simply be the result of choosing a different play style. In those particular cases, they are correct when they say that VoP is very powerful, even overpowered.

It is not good RP.It may or may not be, just like any other element in the game.
Nobody would voluntarily go out adventuring without any equipment!Not so - YOU would not voluntarily go out adventuring without any equipment; that doesn't mean that noone would.

In both of these cases, VoP is taken for a mechanical benefit rather than its intended purpose, RP.That doesn't really follow... the first case MIGHT be someone picking it for the mechanical benefit rather than roleplay but you can't really say that's the case for certain. It's certainly possible to pick something strictly for roleplaying reasons that turns out to be overpowered.

Aldizog

2009-12-21, 10:58 AM

dsmiles

2009-12-21, 11:02 AM

AirGuitarGod32

2009-12-21, 11:03 AM

I admit, I'm not the best playgrounder here, however, I admit the feat has its flaws. No magic Items IS a hindrance, to say the least. HOWEVER................

I ran a warforged monk who took this feat. Trust me, the bonuses came in handy, especially when my DM pulled the ultimate wildcard: a Lich Beholder who commanded a small army of undead, including Death Knights who, sad to say, nearly killed the cleric.

That said, the feat isn't for every class. Its good for the warforged monk, not so much for the kobold barbarian who has just enough HP to get into trouble.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 11:05 AM

Kylarra

2009-12-21, 11:06 AM

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 11:09 AM

Monk needs magic items almost as much as the Fighter does, with his zero class abilities.

Kris Strife

2009-12-21, 11:14 AM

The only good things about VoP are +8 enhancment bonus to one stat (which you can't get any other way) and continuous True Seeing.

A Half Dragon gives +8 to strength, and a +2 to Int, Con and Cha as well, only takes 3 levels to get the good stuff and can still use magic items. And if you're large you get wings too.

Sure, you might not get 9th level Spells pre-epic without LA buy off but it is still better than VoP, right?

AirGuitarGod32

2009-12-21, 11:16 AM

The reason was:

In an Eberron-based game, we heared of a Cult of the Undeath lead by a being known as Shade. He was allegedly omnipresent. He turned out to be a Beholder Lich (We were level 35. Trust me, it was needed) And his army of undead that ended up being collectively 4 levels higher. Those AC boosts helped me survive as I soloed most of the monsters (with the cleric as my guardian angel) while the Duegar Barbarian/Drunken Master charged against the Beholder's twin Dragon Mummies....

it was just awesome!

and as for the statement about monks and needing magic items: If you have a cleric who can cast even the most basic buff spells, make nice with the cleric!!

UglyPanda

2009-12-21, 11:17 AM

Monks have MAD*. Monks need more magic items than other classes to gain the same level of enhancement.

Here is a saying that I've decided to pick up from the Fire Emblem community: "Personal experience** means nothing". Anyone could have a single game or campaign where everything goes right for their paraplegic deaf-mute Samurai. We cannot look back into your life and see why said character worked well for you or if you're just BSing and everyone else's character worked better for them.

*Before you go saying MAD doesn't exist or some bull like that, MAD is merely the fact that stat boosts affect different classes differently. A boost to a single stat is more useful for a Wizard than it is for a Monk.
**If someone has a campaign log or there is some possible way to see the campaign, then people can form objective opinions.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 11:21 AM

I imagine it's better than it would be otherwise if the DM is fond of using Disjunction, Sunder, Sleight of Hand, Ethereal Filchers, Rust Monsters, or item-destroying effects. Robbing PCs of magic items used to be a time-honored tradition.

Thankfully, some traditions were meant to become defunct.

And I don't see how a lich beholder is a wildcard. Illegal by the rules, sure, but a wildcard?

If it's one thing D&D has taught me, it's that nothing is impossible. (Beholder Mages (LoM) can easily qualify to be liches.)

I ran a warforged monk who took this feat. Trust me, the bonuses came in handy, especially when my DM pulled the ultimate wildcard: a Lich Beholder who commanded a small army of undead, including Death Knights who, sad to say, nearly killed the cleric.

I take it your lich didn't bother learning how to fly?

Kylarra

2009-12-21, 11:24 AM

It's worth pointing out that with a dedicated cleric buffing you, it doesn't really matter what the base body is.

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-21, 11:25 AM

If it's one thing D&D has taught me, it's that nothing is impossible. (Beholder Mages (LoM) can easily qualify to be liches.)

Does beholder mage somehow change the type of beholders to humanoid? Because if not, no, they cannot easily qualify to be liches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm). :smalltongue:

OMG PONIES

2009-12-21, 11:27 AM

The only good things about VoP are +8 enhancment bonus to one stat (which you can't get any other way) and continuous True Seeing.

Mother Cyst and its favorite child, Necrotic Empowerment, send their regards.

Aldizog

2009-12-21, 11:29 AM

Only people who don't actually understand D&D think Vow of Poverty is good. The abilities it gives you are on average worth less than standard WBL and, here's the important bit, you don't get to choose the abilities.

You don't necessarily get to choose the abilities with WBL, either.

It is highly DM-dependent whether you can go to a magic shop and buy the items you want, or whether you must make do with what you find. It is not a rule of 3.5 that PCs must be able to have the magic items they want. And even with magic shops, since you are selling your found items for half value, you end up with only half WBL (the DM has actually handed out the true WBL, but you took a loss in order to customize). You might regain some of this ground if you have a crafter in the party.

WBL means vastly different things depending on the nature of magic shops.

Radiun

2009-12-21, 11:32 AM

It is not good RP. Nobody would voluntarily go out adventuring without any equipment!

This just rubbed me the wrong way.

My characters routinely go without magic baubles.

The most powerful magic item my level 10 druid has is a wand of lesser vigor.

I build my characters to function well without a reliance on DM-controlled resources.

Mind you I still wouldn't take vow of poverty

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 11:36 AM

So have either of you ever heard of item creation feats.

Oslecamo

2009-12-21, 11:37 AM

Monk needs magic items almost as much as the Fighter does, with his zero class abilities.

Technicaly speaking, the wizard has also zero class abilities.

He casts spells? Big deal! So do a lot of other classes! And they all cast better than the wizard, whitout being hindred by armor or needing to prepare stuff!

He can learn spells? The cleric and druid know all their spell lists automaticaly!

The wizard has the potential to learn a bigger number of spells than anyone else? That's correct. But they're still the spells that plenty of other classes could have taken.

Similarly, the class feature of the fighter is to take more feats than you could otherwise get.

Aldizog

2009-12-21, 11:41 AM

So have either of you ever heard of item creation feats.
I certainly have, and that's why I mentioned that you can regain some of the lost ground if you have a crafter in the party. I've played a druid (1-20) who actually took two such feats (as a non-human, no less, with no retraining possible). But in general, casters are loathe to give up their XP and their precious feat slots. DMs sometimes choose to interrupt down time once they see how amazingly powerful custom items can be (e.g. combining multiple useful same-slot items into one item, as for the monk's neck slot).

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 11:43 AM

Technicaly speaking, the wizard has also zero class abilities.

Summon Familiar is a class feature, genius. :smallwink:

Radiun

2009-12-21, 11:43 AM

So have either of you ever heard of item creation feats.

Have you ever played in a campaign where downtime was not a guarantee?

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 11:47 AM

Have you ever played in a campaign where downtime was not a guarantee?

If downtime were not a guarantee you wouldn't ever be able to prepare spells, so you wouldn't be a spellcaster anyway. You'd be a warlock or a binder or something.

You don't need months off to craft magic items - just eight hours a day to craft. You can adventure for the other eight hours just fine.

Or just get a Dedicate Wright, and you spend zero time doing any crafting, ever.

Ashiel

2009-12-21, 12:01 PM

I certainly have, and that's why I mentioned that you can regain some of the lost ground if you have a crafter in the party. I've played a druid (1-20) who actually took two such feats (as a non-human, no less, with no retraining possible). But in general, casters are loathe to give up their XP and their precious feat slots. DMs sometimes choose to interrupt down time once they see how amazingly powerful custom items can be (e.g. combining multiple useful same-slot items into one item, as for the monk's neck slot).

It's worth noting that in a strait 3.x game a smart caster will not be afraid to craft magic items due to XP loss. There's a trick mentioned a while back, but seems to have fallen out of the general knowledge bit, that due to the self correcting nature of the 3.x XP system you can allow yourself to fall behind your group about 1 level. You then use the bonus XP you get for being behind in level to craft more items. More items generally equals "moar powah".

While the caster will then stay 1 level behind, which can hurt your maximum spells known for a while, it's assumed you will make this up by having more bang through magic items for you and your party.

Just food for thought. :smallamused:

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 12:06 PM

Does beholder mage somehow change the type of beholders to humanoid? Because if not, no, they cannot easily qualify to be liches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm). :smalltongue:

PaO to Elan, PAO to human. Bam.

Or they can just be a Death Tyrant Beholder Mage for practically the same mechanical benefits.

It's worth pointing out that with a dedicated cleric buffing you, it doesn't really matter what the base body is.

Yay, Leadership!

DMs sometimes choose to interrupt down time once they see how amazingly powerful custom items can be (e.g. combining multiple useful same-slot items into one item, as for the monk's neck slot).

So VoP is good because you can nerf item creation with fiat?

PC: "So I sit down on my item creation bench-"
DM: "And get attacked by a grue!"
PC: "What? But how-"
DM: "And your tools explode!"

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-21, 12:07 PM

DMs sometimes choose to interrupt down time once they see how amazingly powerful custom items can be.
Know how to make a VoP monk fall?

Toss him a basketball. He'll fall when he catches it.

Radiun

2009-12-21, 12:15 PM

If downtime were not a guarantee you wouldn't ever be able to prepare spells, so you wouldn't be a spellcaster anyway. You'd be a warlock or a binder or something.

You don't need months off to craft magic items - just eight hours a day to craft. You can adventure for the other eight hours just fine.

Or just get a Dedicate Wright, and you spend zero time doing any crafting, ever.

If your games play out that way, that's cool.

The groups I've played in haven't really ever made a habit of spending 17 hours (8 crafting, 8 resting, 1 preparing spells) sitting around every day, or played with material from eberron for that matter.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 12:17 PM

If your games play out that way, that's cool.

The groups I've played in haven't really ever made a habit of spending 17 hours (8 crafting, 8 resting, 1 preparing spells) sitting around every day, or played with material from eberron for that matter.

...Y'know, you can just say "okay, so you craft in the morning? That's cool. So, eight hours later..."

Emmerask

2009-12-21, 12:18 PM

If downtime were not a guarantee you wouldn't ever be able to prepare spells, so you wouldn't be a spellcaster anyway. You'd be a warlock or a binder or something.

You don't need months off to craft magic items - just eight hours a day to craft. You can adventure for the other eight hours just fine.

Or just get a Dedicate Wright, and you spend zero time doing any crafting, ever.

Sleeping for 8 hours is not really downtime...

"Creating an item requires one day per 1,000 gp in the item’s base price"
outside of heavy optimizationthat most dms do not allow that is of course

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 12:19 PM

Sleeping for 8 hours is not really downtime...

"Creating an item requires one day per 1,000 gp in the item’s base price"
its more like a month downtime is not allways a given :smallwink:

*sigh*

You craft for eight hours a day. The rest of the time you can do whatever.

So, hey, sleep eight hours, prepare spells for one hour, craft eight hours... oh look, seven hours spare! Let's go kill some goblins!

Seriously, people.

Emmerask

2009-12-21, 12:25 PM

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 12:28 PM

What happened to the other two?

Does it matter? This is just a game world. It doesn't waste any of your time. Even if you're travelling somewhere - you only travel for eight hours a day anyway.

The wizard could even craft on the go if he has a workshop in a cart.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 12:29 PM

so seventeen hours a day are allready planned for crafting sleeping and preparing the spells? ^^ better hope your dm has the action planned exactly for those 7 hours you can actually do something :smallbiggrin:

If he doesnt, he's effectively saying "You can't craft." Which is pretty much fiat, as discussed before.

Also, nowhere in the rules does it say that crafting hours need to be consecutive.

Tavar

2009-12-21, 12:29 PM

Technicaly speaking, the wizard has also zero class abilities.

He casts spells? Big deal! So do a lot of other classes! And they all cast better than the wizard, whitout being hindred by armor or needing to prepare stuff!

He can learn spells? The cleric and druid know all their spell lists automaticaly!

The wizard has the potential to learn a bigger number of spells than anyone else? That's correct. But they're still the spells that plenty of other classes could have taken.

And this, my friends, is what we call a strawman argument. Specifically, he only makes his point by ignoring several facts:
A) Spellcasting is a class feature, and one of the strongest ones in the game
B) Spellcasting's effectiveness is highly dependent on the list, and wizards have quite possibly the strongest and most versatile list in DnD.
C) The only other class that can learn spells from that list (the sorcerer) is severely restricted in the number of spells it can learn, thus it is much less versatile, plus it can't use metamagic as effectively.
D) Did we mention how important the spell list is? After all, warmages get 9th level spells, and they're no where near the level that wizards are.

Thurbane

2009-12-21, 12:31 PM

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 12:31 PM

And this, my friends, is what we call a strawman argument. Specifically, he only makes his point by ignoring several facts:
A) Spellcasting is a class feature, and one of the strongest ones in the game
B) Spellcasting's effectiveness is highly dependent on the list, and wizards have quite possibly the strongest and most versatile list in DnD.
C) The only other class that can learn spells from that list (the sorcerer) is severely restricted in the number of spells it can learn, thus it is much less versatile, plus it can't use metamagic as effectively.
D) Did we mention how important the spell list is? After all, warmages get 9th level spells, and they're no where near the level that wizards are.

F) Wizards also get a familiar and bonus feats.

nyjastul69

2009-12-21, 12:35 PM

While in a TO game VoP is definitely under powered I've seen it used, by a Monk, to a pretty decent effect in actual game play.

dsmiles

2009-12-21, 12:36 PM

I think, that what I refer to as "down time" is not what everybody else is referring to as "down time." Down time is time spent not adventuring. R&R as it were. Plenty of time for crafting items, or for paying the party's crafter to craft items for you. I have also houseruled that the XP required (for crafting) can come from another source (unwilling source = evil act, willing source = non-evil act) such as the person the item is being crafted for. Party crafters can use this option, but the "Mages' Guild" won't (legal CYA reasons). And there are no "magic shops," if the players want a custom item, they'll have to craft it themselves.

Kylarra

2009-12-21, 12:37 PM

Most games I've been in actually have downtime between adventures. I mean, the world always needing saving in a chain-linked fashion is rather ... cliche.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 12:39 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Oslecamo was joking?

The only time the VoP is über, as far as I can tell, is if it's taken in a low magic/low wealth campaign, or other non-standard situations (i.e. if your DM likes to have you kidnapped and stripped of your gear a lot).

Just so; and the problem with situations like that is a recurring one in D&D - it nerfs the fighter even more, while being a minor setback to the casters at best.

(Especially Clerics and Druids, who just summon a Holy Symbol and bust out of jail.)

UglyPanda

2009-12-21, 12:45 PM

Just so; and the problem with situations like that is a recurring one in D&D - it nerfs the fighter even more, while being a minor setback to the casters at best.

(Especially Clerics and Druids, who just summon a Holy Symbol and bust out of jail.)I would like to reiterate this.

If a Fighter and a Druid have all their gear stolen, the Fighter is just a guy who can punch really hard while the Druid is still a bear who can summon lightning.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 12:57 PM

If a Fighter and a Druid have all their gear stolen, the Fighter is just a guy who can punch really hard while the Druid is still a bear who can summon lightning.

...It wasn't until this sentence that I realized how terrifying Druids really are. :smalleek:

Doug Lampert

2009-12-21, 01:00 PM

But in general, casters are loathe to give up their XP and their precious feat slots.

How does this XP cost work again? Presumably the cost is that I fall behind in level. Let's look at what it takes to stay behind in level...

Let's take level 10 for example. To be a full level back I need to have spent 10,000 XP to craft 250,000 GP worth of items (let's not ask where I got the other materials). But everyone else is level 11, I'm level 10, so I gain 50% more XP than they are and catch up quickly. Unless I craft ANOTHER ~75,000 GP worth of items while at level 10 and therefore advance ONLY as fast as everyone else. And then to stay behind at level 11 I need to craft ANOTHER ~82,000 GP at level 11 so I won't catch up before they get out of level 12...

If I'm less than a full level back I'll catch up even faster. I've seen the crafter actually end up AHEAD of everyone else in XP because they were a level back in a big fight and the extra XP exceeded the difference.

Not crafting is like not using consumables in a tough fight. It's penny wise and pound foolish. Raise Dead costs far more in money and XP than anything else is likely to cost you.

dsmiles

2009-12-21, 01:08 PM

I would like to reiterate this.

If a Fighter and a Druid have all their gear stolen, the Fighter is just a guy who can punch really hard while the Druid is still a bear who can summon lightning.

And the fighter still inflicts only non-lethal damage unless he took Improved Unarmed Strike...hehheh...:smallbiggrin:

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 01:15 PM

And the fighter still inflicts only non-lethal damage unless he took Improved Unarmed Strike...hehheh...:smallbiggrin:

Or he can take a -4 penalty on his attack roll and deal lethal damage while still provoking an AoO, which... he doesn't care about, he's a Fighter.

dsmiles

2009-12-21, 01:18 PM

Or he can take a -4 penalty on his attack roll and deal lethal damage while still provoking an AoO, which... he doesn't care about, he's a Fighter.

Awwwww...why'd you have to go and ruin my fun...:smallfrown:

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-21, 01:27 PM

Or he can take a -4 penalty on his attack roll and deal lethal damage while still provoking an AoO, which... he doesn't care about, he's a Fighter.

Can fighters use Power Attack with unarmed strikes, though? I think monks can, but not so sure about fighters. Though I'll accept it either way, as fighters do need all the help they can get.

UglyPanda

2009-12-21, 01:32 PM

Everyone can use an unarmed strike, it's just not worthwhile 90% 100% of the for a lot of classes.

Talya

2009-12-21, 01:33 PM

Only people who don't actually understand D&D think Vow of Poverty is good. The abilities it gives you are on average worth less than standard WBL

This isn't actually true. Of course, the fact that you've got an epic +8 bonus to an ability score and epic +10 to armor class without wearing armor are the main causes of that. Get rid of the premium on epic items and you're right.

and, here's the important bit, you don't get to choose the abilities.

Here's the crux of the matter right there, and is entirely true. That said, VOP covers most of the "must-have" abilities -- True sight, freedom of movement, etc. Assuming one can find another manner of flight, it becomes a decent replacement.

Another thing to consider is the magical item level of the campaign. I have never played in a campaign ever where the DM treated the world as a giant magic-item shopping mall. Without the relevant crafting feats, I suspect most people will never get to take advantage of the theoretical builds where everyone has WBL perfectly customized to their character. Obviously, the more restrictive and random gear is, the greater advantage VOP becomes.

Regardless of your DM, VOP was never intended to be a mechanically superior avenue to great power. VOP is meant to make a certain roleplaying choice --the ascetic-- viable in a game where so much hinges on one's equipment.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 01:50 PM

Can fighters use Power Attack with unarmed strikes, though? I think monks can, but not so sure about fighters. Though I'll accept it either way, as fighters do need all the help they can get.

No. Neither can monks, or anyone else. Unarmed strikes are light weapons, and Power Attack doesn't work with light weapons.

Douglas

2009-12-21, 01:57 PM

Power Attack has a specific exemption for Unarmed Strikes. Anyone can use Power Attack unarmed, you just don't get the double bonus of two-handed weapons.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-21, 02:05 PM

I really hate those exceptions that prove the rule. They always catch me out.

I'll just be in my corner.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 02:30 PM

I really hate those exceptions that prove the rule. They always catch me out.

I'll just be in my corner.

I trip over them all the time, and I give advice here daily. :smallsmile:

Anyway, Doug is right - being behind in XP can actually be a good thing for the crafter, especially once you factor in the bonuses on the items he's making themselves.

HCL

2009-12-21, 02:49 PM

There is a Dwarf racial/regional feat in Races of Faerun that lets you make 2 handed unarmed strikes

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-21, 02:53 PM

There is a Dwarf racial/regional feat in Races of Faerun that lets you make 2 handed unarmed strikes

I don't think you can make multiple attacks that way, though. Or something. Either way, it is a weak feat.

Kylarra

2009-12-21, 02:57 PM

All it does is allow you to add 1.5x STR to your unarmed strike, but you explicitly can't flurry or be holding anything in either hand.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn

2009-12-21, 02:58 PM

Sinfire Titan

2009-12-21, 03:05 PM

The only time the VoP is über, as far as I can tell, is if it's taken in a low magic/low wealth campaign, or other non-standard situations (i.e. if your DM likes to have you kidnapped and stripped of your gear a lot).

Agreed. Even on the classes it is best for (Druid, Totemist, Incarnate, Cleric, Binder) the loss of two feats is noticable and the lack of WBL will hurt from time to time no matter how well you play it. I have a VoP Totemist player, and he said more than once that the lack of Improved Grapple really hurt even though VoP somewhat made up for it.

Talya

2009-12-21, 03:07 PM

Agreed. Even on the classes it is best for (Druid, Totemist, Incarnate, Cleric, Binder) the loss of two feats is noticable and the lack of WBL will hurt from time to time no matter how well you play it. I have a VoP Totemist player, and he said more than once that the lack of Improved Grapple really hurt even though VoP somewhat made up for it.

And once again, if you were planning to take any exalted feats at all, it makes up for that, too (although you'll get far more exalted feats than you can reasonably find a use for with VOP.)

Sstoopidtallkid

2009-12-21, 03:12 PM

This isn't actually true. Of course, the fact that you've got an epic +8 bonus to an ability score and epic +10 to armor class without wearing armor are the main causes of that. Get rid of the premium on epic items and you're right.+6 Enhancement+2 Inherent to the ability score. You can probably do similar things with AC, though since I don't have the benefits before me I can't be sure. That said, VoP on a Venerable Druid using Owl's Insight and a race with a Wis bonus is probably the highest you can get a mental stat.

I believe the math was worked out to be 50% of WBL is granted by VoP. So even if your DM gives you the majority of your cash in the form of an Apparatus of Kwalish, you can still get the same benefits as VoP with WBL, without spending 2 feats, and with considerably more customizability. Heck, you could dedicate the 2 feats to crafting if you wanted to. Take care of the time needed for crafting via a Ring of Sustenance or Dedicated Wight.

Sinfire Titan

2009-12-21, 03:20 PM

And once again, if you were planning to take any exalted feats at all, it makes up for that, too (although you'll get far more exalted feats than you can reasonably find a use for with VOP.)

That's the other problem; no single class in the game can make decent use of every Exalted feat printed, and any class that came after the BoED gets shafted.

Myrmex

2009-12-21, 03:30 PM

+6 Enhancement+2 Inherent to the ability score. You can probably do similar things with AC, though since I don't have the benefits before me I can't be sure. That said, VoP on a Venerable Druid using Owl's Insight and a race with a Wis bonus is probably the highest you can get a mental stat.

I believe the math was worked out to be 50% of WBL is granted by VoP. So even if your DM gives you the majority of your cash in the form of an Apparatus of Kwalish, you can still get the same benefits as VoP with WBL, without spending 2 feats, and with considerably more customizability. Heck, you could dedicate the 2 feats to crafting if you wanted to. Take care of the time needed for crafting via a Ring of Sustenance or Dedicated Wight.

What's Owl's Insight from?

The Glyphstone

2009-12-21, 03:32 PM

Spell Compendium. +1/2 your caster level insight bonus to Wis for a long time...hours/level I think.

Myrmex

2009-12-21, 03:34 PM

Spell Compendium. +1/2 your caster level insight bonus to Wis for a long time...hours/level I think.

Holy crap. As if druids weren't good enough.

UglyPanda

2009-12-21, 03:41 PM

No, it's exactly one hour with a touch range.

I can't remember whether or not that makes it eligible for Persistent Spell, but metamagic reducers aren't a Druid's strong suit.

Signmaker

2009-12-21, 03:44 PM

No, it's exactly one hour with a touch range.

I can't remember whether or not that makes it eligible for Persistent Spell, but metamagic reducers aren't a Druid's strong suit.

Touch spells aren't persistable, you'd have to use some method of fixed range (like ocular spell)

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-21, 03:44 PM

Touch range makes it ineligible for Persistent Spell, IIRC.

nyjastul69

2009-12-21, 03:51 PM

There is at least one thing VoP does very well, create lengthy threads in short order. =)

Myrmex

2009-12-21, 03:51 PM

Touch seems like a pretty fixed range, to me.

Samb

2009-12-21, 04:08 PM

Hmmm could you do a feat shuffle on a VoP and the drop VoP but keep the feats since they are no longer exalted?

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-21, 04:10 PM

Touch seems like a pretty fixed range, to me.

It's not. It changes with natural reach, therefore the size of the caster.

Aldizog

2009-12-21, 04:16 PM

Not crafting is like not using consumables in a tough fight. It's penny wise and pound foolish. Raise Dead costs far more in money and XP than anything else is likely to cost you.
Oh, I understand that. It's why my druid took two feats (the feat slots hurt a LOT more than the XP). But unless you're the one playing the caster, you can't be sure that the crafter will see things that way. Seriously, I remember long and nasty arguments on ENWorld over why wizards were "punished" for scribing scrolls.

But even as I acknowledged that crafting can mitigate the WBL hit of having to sell stuff, I still maintain that WBL does in fact mean different things under the "choose items according to WBL," "sell items and buy from fully stocked magic shops," and "there are no magic shops" scenarios, and everything in between.

Is anybody claiming that crafting feats totally eliminate that difference? That because crafting feats exist, WBL will always be in the form of the exact items optimal to your PC?

Sstoopidtallkid

2009-12-21, 04:20 PM

Is anybody claiming that crafting feats totally eliminate that difference? That because crafting feats exist, WBL will always be in the form of the exact items optimal to your PC?No, but they make the wealth much more appropriate. Snag CWI and you're pretty much going to make everything the party needs. Yeah, you may not be able to get a Rod of Quicken, and the Fighter may have to deal with a Flaming Greataxe rather than a Dragonbane Greatsword, but you can make sure that everyone in the party has a Belt of Battle, +6 to their big stat and saves, and any other important effect.

Optimystik

2009-12-21, 04:20 PM

Spell Compendium. +1/2 your caster level insight bonus to Wis for a long time...hours/level I think.

Neverwinter Nights makes it hours/level, but it only lasts an hour in PnP.

Touch seems like a pretty fixed range, to me.

Sadly, the FAQ disagrees - "fixed range" means a constant range expressed in feet with respect to the caster e.g. Desecrate.

Sir_Ophiuchus

2009-12-21, 04:30 PM

Unless your character concept is a guy who gives away all his money and gains magical powers from it, I guess. But that concept is ridiculous anyway so whatever.

Now, now, it'd work perfectly well. In Unknown Armies, a postmodern magickal RPG set in gritty modern society. Oh look, it actually is in that game!

Does it work in a D&D setting? ...not so much.

Douglas

2009-12-21, 04:32 PM

Touch range makes it ineligible for Persistent Spell, IIRC.
That is highly debatable. Whether "touch" is a "fixed" range is thoroughly ambiguous and largely a matter of semantics. If you consider it to be "range = 0' from the caster's touching appendage", that seems pretty clearly fixed to me. If you consider it to be "range = caster's reach from the caster's space", that obviously varies with the caster's reach.

Personally I favor the former interpretation, but I'd rather not derail this thread with an argument about it.

Grumman

2009-12-21, 04:38 PM

I thought it was nice roleplay wise. The sacred dedication to your vows ( or deity ) to live without material goods. My uncle went the Buddhism route a few years ago, so I think of that when I think of this feat.
Imagine your uncle was a tradesman. If he chose to practice his craft for charity, taking only a meager salary for food and clothing and donating and reinvesting the rest, you could respect that.

The Vow of Poverty is more like a tradesman who has taken a vow to sell his tools, yet still practices his craft. In other words: an idiot.

mostlyharmful

2009-12-21, 04:54 PM

Imagine your uncle was a tradesman. If he chose to practice his craft for charity, taking only a meager salary for food and clothing and donating and reinvesting the rest, you could respect that.

The Vow of Poverty is more like a tradesman who has taken a vow to sell his tools, yet still practices his craft. In other words: an idiot.

worse. the craft in question is saving other peoples lives, if you're thinking about VoP then you're auto-uber-good. taking it means you are less good at helping others, it is a gimp and one you don't actually need to take, there is a perspective from a moral philosophy standpoint that making suboptimal choices in character is a failure to protect others, you've chosen to suck... which loses you all exalted feats.... like dragon disciple but with more threads about it.

Mongoose87

2009-12-21, 09:30 PM

Gestalt Druid//(Unarmed?)Swordsage, with VoP - is this a good idea?

Tavar

2009-12-21, 09:34 PM

Not a great idea, but it also isn't horrible.

Mikeavelli

2009-12-21, 09:45 PM

There was a horrible combination that involved the Vow of Poverty, Grey Guard, and Apostle of Peace at one point. It was a munchkins wet dream and I've wanted to spring it on a DM ever since...

I just don't have the heart to tear apart a session like that.

Something about how the capstone of Grey Guard makes it so you'll never lose class abilities for violating a sacred vow, Apostle of Peace depends on having the Vow of Poverty (I.E. losing VoP loses AoP class abilities) - and VoP is definitely a Sacred Vow..

BAM!

You can use Magical Items again.

Mongoose87

2009-12-21, 09:47 PM

I've heard of that before, but I think it's a misinterpretation of the Grey Guard ability.

Mikeavelli

2009-12-21, 09:50 PM

It's an intentional munchkin\troll interpretation that nevertheless follows Rules as Written. The sort of thing we can insist is true online, but would just get dice thrown at you if you seriously tried to do it in a game.

UglyPanda

2009-12-21, 10:02 PM

It wouldn't break anything apart really. The only value of VoP is that you get something to compensate for what you missed out on. As such, most of the abilities don't stack well with real magic items. And since you picked a crappy PrC to begin with, you'd probably be only tier two or three at most.

I sure as hell wouldn't allow it in a game, but it's not like it would make the DM cry.

Nich_Critic

2009-12-21, 10:12 PM

I find vow of peace to be scarier. It give you +CL on non-harmful spells, in return for you not being allowed to cause damage to people. Except your allies still can, and you can use that +CL to get a sanctuary will save such that no one at your level can attack you ever. And a lot of spells, while they don't cause damage, can still put your enemies in a bad position so your allies can take them out.

You or your allies can't kill anyone unless the enemy promises not to cause harm or interfere, and then goes back on his word. So it's a bit annoying, but not really that restrictive.

Edit: That's vow of non-violence above. Vow of peace just sucks. Really good bonuses, but if you step on a bug you lose them.

Emmerask

2009-12-21, 10:16 PM

One other thing that was not mentioned as of yet (I think at least) that speaks for vop would be that the wealth your character can not have will be transfered to the other party members giving them slightly better gear...

Though I still dislike vop there are too many usefull and fun magic items and for me atleast a part of the fun is to get new things for my character ^^

UglyPanda

2009-12-21, 10:20 PM

It doesn't work that way.

Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof ) should be donated to the needy, either directly (equipping rescued captives with gear taken from their fallen captors) or indirectly (making a large donation to a temple noted for its work among the poor). While taking upon herself the burden of poverty voluntarily, an ascetic recognizes that many people do not have the freedom to choose poverty, but instead have it forced upon them, and seeks to better those unfortunates as much as possible.

Douglas

2009-12-21, 10:20 PM

One other thing that was not mentioned as of yet (I think at least) that speaks for vop would be that the wealth your character can not have will be transfered to the other party members giving them slightly better gear...
No, it won't. The vow specifically requires that you take your fair share of treasure and donate it to charity.

Mongoose87

2009-12-21, 10:20 PM

One other thing that was not mentioned as of yet (I think at least) that speaks for vop would be that the wealth your character can not have will be transfered to the other party members giving them slightly better gear...

Actually, you're specifically forbidden from this - the whole point is to give it to the needy, not to give it to your friends.

Tavar

2009-12-21, 10:21 PM

One other thing that was not mentioned as of yet (I think at least) that speaks for vop would be that the wealth your character can not have will be transfered to the other party members giving them slightly better gear...

Actually, you specifically must give your wealth to the poor, or loose the feat. You can't just spread it around the party.

Emmerask

2009-12-21, 10:24 PM

hmm ok then it is even worse then I thought :smallfrown:

sonofzeal

2009-12-21, 11:03 PM

You can, however, fail to claim your share of the treasure.... :smallbiggrin:

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-21, 11:10 PM

I don't think so, Tim.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-21, 11:26 PM

{Scrubbed}

Aldizog

2009-12-21, 11:29 PM

{Scrubbed}

This is why anybody ever playing a paladin or a halfway Good character should make sure they keep their Sense Motive skill maxed out... so when the player knows the other PCs are lying, the character can have a reasonable chance of knowing that.

Betraying one's party members is not cool.

Sorry, not meaning to rant, just that I see people sometimes thinking that "get the paladin to go into the other room and then torture the prisoner" a) actually works in their campaigns, and b) makes the game more fun for all involved.

Talya

2009-12-21, 11:39 PM

+6 Enhancement+2 Inherent

It is still entirely possible for a non-casting VOP character to also get +5 inherent bonuses to abilities. The same wording that allows someone to give them expendable items like a potion would allow someone to give them a manual, and/or they can use built up goodwill with churches (which they get for their donations of colleted items) to "buy" spellcasting services such as Wish or Miracle. So the VOP character can (and should) get +8 to their primary ability score AND +5 inherent bonus.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-21, 11:43 PM

This is why anybody ever playing a paladin or a halfway Good character should make sure they keep their Sense Motive skill maxed out... so when the player knows the other PCs are lying, the character can have a reasonable chance of knowing that.

Betraying one's party members is not cool.

Sorry, not meaning to rant, just that I see people sometimes thinking that "get the paladin to go into the other room and then torture the prisoner" a) actually works in their campaigns, and b) makes the game more fun for all involved.It's not hurting him, since he wasn't going to be using that stuff anyway. He's hurting the rest of the party by refusing to use his share and instead giving it away in exchange for not being as effectual as he otherwise would be.

Why would I want to be 'fair' to someone like that?

Also, good luck trying to keep your Sense Motive high enough to beat the factotum's insanely high Bluff check.

If nothing else, I'll offer to cast some high level spells for the poor in exchange for the loot. Spellcasting services are very expensive.

Aldizog

2009-12-21, 11:53 PM

It's not hurting him, since he wasn't going to be using that stuff anyway. He's hurting the rest of the party by refusing to use his share and instead giving it away in exchange for not being as effectual as he otherwise would be.

Why would I want to be 'fair' to someone like that?

Okay, let me spell it out for you.

A particular PLAYER happens to derive some enjoyment from playing a character who foregoes the usual obsession over loot. Maybe the player has played D&D for 20 years and gotten sick of that obsession; maybe the player finds certain philosophical aspects appealing (Thoreau or Buddhism, whatever). Who knows? But Vow of Poverty makes the game more fun for them. Their PC gets a modicum of bonuses to make sure he or she isn't totally useless. Part of this character's schtick is that he still receives the normal allotment of wealth, but uses it to accomplish good in other ways (rather than just by buying gear to kill things with). Because, you know, not all good in a world is accomplished by killing things.

You decide to ruin this enjoyment for them. On top of that, you make sure that they as a player realize that their character is a perpetual dupe at the hands of another party member. I cannot place myself in the mindset of a player who would enjoy being continually made to look stupid in this way; maybe you can.

In the actual game as played, optimizing for effectiveness is nearly irrelevant next to optimizing for enjoyment and fun. Lowering overall party damage output doesn't matter, because most DMs scale challenges to party ability. Lowering player fun, as you are proposing to do, is a serious problem.

Finally, although I don't know factotum, I'd guess that at most levels at which the game is actually played, a character with a maxed-out Sense Motive is going to have at least a 5-10% chance of catching on to the factotum's deception. I have no interest in running the numbers, since as a player I'd have quit as a player in the face of this ongoing insult long before my PC caught on and quit as a character. But even so, for other players, at what level does the factotum reach a 100% chance of deceiving another PC? Because all that PC needs is one instance of catching the scum.

Talya

2009-12-21, 11:57 PM

If nothing else, I'll offer to cast some high level spells for the poor in exchange for the loot. Spellcasting services are very expensive.

For the record, the VOP character will have whichever churches she is donating her pile of the loot to willing to cast anything for her with a simple request by the end of a campaign. There are rules in BOED for the goodwill you get from religious organizatins by charitable contributions and the things it can do for you. The VOP character contributes ALL of what they acquire.

Don't get me wrong, there are only a very few situations and character ideas where it's optimal (although I think the customizability of gear most people think the VOP character misses out on doesn't exist for most characters in most campaigns. DMs just don't tend to treat the world as a magic item shopping mall), but it's not as bad as people make it out to be, and there are a few situations where it is quite awesome. The sorcerer or the druid, as examples, will end up, all other things being equal, at 36 charisma or wisdom (18 start, +5 level, +5 inherent, +8 exalted enhancement) compared to a 34 from the non VOP equivalent (18 +5 + 5 +6), and some of the feats they can take are truly worthwhile. They will also get every essential bit of gear they'd have purchased, but from VOP abilities instead of being carried, and not miss out on anything because they can already fly, etc. The Sorcerer has an easier time for being able to get its inherent bonus without help. The druid has it better because it benefits from ALL of VOPs abilities, and has more exalted feats useful to it than any other class thanks to being great at both physical and magical combat. (even if they have to work a bit harder to get that inherent bonus.) And in a sane campaign where the DM laughs at you for asking for the non-core (and thus optional) wilding clasps to let its gear work in wildshape form ...or gets summarily killed for attempting to take off its gear and put it back on as a gorilla (hahahaha...that one always cracks me up), the VOP druid will be the most terrifying melee force on any battlefield.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 12:12 AM

(although I think the customizability of gear most people think the VOP character misses out on doesn't exist for most characters in most campaigns. DMs just don't tend to treat the world as a magic item shopping mall)

Death to the munchkins who expect items that allow them to fly. What crazy splat book did they dig that kind of item out of anyways? It must have been pretty obscure, because I've never heard of such an uncommon thing before.

In America.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 12:23 AM

Death to the munchkins who expect items that allow them to fly. What crazy splat book did they dig that kind of item out of anyways? It must have been pretty obscure, because I've never heard of such an uncommon thing before.

You know what I've found about flight? As soon as PCs get it, and DMs realize how overpowering it is, adventure design becomes such that it is no longer particularly useful. More dungeons, for example.

The opposite, designing adventures where flight is essential to succeed, is not often used... because 3-D maneuvering is time-consuming and a headache to adjudicate. In practice, flight hasn't proven to be all that for my PCs. Just my experience. TO might say differently.

And in the cases where flight is useful, PCs look out for one another. My druid would cast Air Walk on other PCs, especially the bard-barian, at mid-levels. No reason he wouldn't have done that for a VoP monk.

You might need flight in a 1-on-1 arena match in some TO game. That isn't D&D. In an actual game, most players I've gamed with would happily have their caster use Air Walk or Fly on a VoP monk.

I think the importance of being able to fly under one's own power is overstated in VoP discussions.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 12:25 AM

You know what I've found about flight? As soon as PCs get it, and DMs realize how overpowering it is, adventure design becomes such that it is no longer particularly useful. More dungeons, for example.
Sounds monotonous.

Also, flight overpowered? Lolololol

UglyPanda

2009-12-22, 12:27 AM

Here's the thing: Restricting the magic item types do not weaken spellcasters as much as every other class. Just like not having enough magic items, you simply reinforce how powerful spellcasters are. No Cloak of Resistance? Cast Superior Resistance. No flying items? Cast Phantom Steed or turn into a giant eagle. Plus there's the whole fact that they can craft. It's an uneven restriction.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 12:46 AM

Sounds monotonous.

Also, flight overpowered? Lolololol
Monotonous? Not really. There's a LOT a creative DM can do within 30' (or whatever) ceilings. Terrain, all manner of traps, lava pits, and a thousand different combinations of effects. In fact, once PCs can fly, DMs can no longer use terrain to any interesting effect -- or at least that ability is greatly reduced. Flight reduces the fun of the game in a lot of ways.

So if you don't restrict the space, then you're left with open fields in which flight is the overpowering advantage that lets you slaughter defenseless opponents. THAT'S monotonous. Despite that, more than a few times, I recall being in open fields and the party STILL choosing to remain relatively close to the ground... because for the party as a whole, melee did more damage than ranged combat, so being in melee range with the opponents conserved our true resource, which was gaming time. Again, how games are actually played has little or nothing to do with TO. The real game of D&D is about having fun at the table.

And if flight isn't overpowered, then why is the lack of it the defining weakness of VoP? Or the Tarrasque, for that matter?

But are your actual mid-to-high-level campaigns, either as a player or as a DM, such that flight is always used, the 3-D movement and maneuverability isn't a hassle, the DM never introduces any meaningful terrain elements, and the ones with flight massacre those without?

Talya

2009-12-22, 12:59 AM

Death to the munchkins who expect items that allow them to fly. What crazy splat book did they dig that kind of item out of anyways? It must have been pretty obscure, because I've never heard of such an uncommon thing before.

In America.

At level 17, my sorceress is the only character in our saturday night campaign who regularly has the ability to fly (and that's from Alter Self, so she's not casting it on others.) It's really not all that. (none of us are using VOP either)

The VOP characters i mentioned above do not miss out on the opportunity to fly, however. Both Sorcerers and Druids can fly without equipment...druids without even casting a spell.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 01:22 AM

Monotonous? Not really. There's a LOT a creative DM can do within 30' (or whatever) ceilings. Terrain, all manner of traps, lava pits, and a thousand different combinations of effects.
But that would render flight useful, and not "no longer particularily useful", as was previously said.

You know what I've found about flight? As soon as PCs get it, and DMs realize how overpowering it is, adventure design becomes such that it is no longer particularly useful. More dungeons, for example.
See there? It was definitely previously said.

Open fields in which flight is the overpowering advantage that lets you slaughter defenseless opponents? THAT'S monotonous.
Monotonous? Not really. There's a LOT a creative DM can do within open areas. Terrain, all manner of traps, weather, flying enemies... a thousand different combinations of effects.

Again, how games are actually played has little or nothing to do with TO. The real game of D&D is about having fun at the table.

Flying is fun.

And if flight isn't overpowered, then why is the lack of it the defining weakness of VoP?

Is this not a false dichotomy?

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 01:30 AM

At level 17, my sorceress is the only character in our saturday night campaign who regularly has the ability to fly (and that's from Alter Self, so she's not casting it on others.) It's really not all that. (none of us are using VOP either)

The VOP characters i mentioned above do not miss out on the opportunity to fly, however. Both Sorcerers and Druids can fly without equipment...druids without even casting a spell.

Whatever suits your playstyle, but it strains my suspension of disbelief when the enemy is faced with opponents who can't fly and then choose to ignore giving themselves a tactical advantage which should be incredibly easy to come by at level 17.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 01:50 AM

But that would render flight useful, and not "no longer particularily useful", as was previously said.

Okay, nuance. Some dungeons? Flight is not particularly useful. Others? It is useful, but not an automatic must-have solution to every problem. Characters with it can bypass the challenges, characters without it can ALSO bypass them, but characters with flight do not slaughter the helpless non-flying peons they way they do in open fields.

Monotonous? Not really. There's a LOT a creative DM can do within open areas. Terrain, all manner of traps, weather, flying enemies... a thousand different combinations of effects.
Really? How does terrain affect open areas? Constrained areas offer a great deal more leeway for these things to matter. Flying enemies are a particular case where the PCs absolutely MUST have flight to compete. And I noted specific reasons why DMs, in my experience, LESS commonly resort to this as the counter to the PCs newly-gained totally-awesome ability. Not that they never resort to it, but only rarely at best.

Flying is fun.
Yes, up to the point where it gets boring as the solution to every problem, where terrain and 1000' cliffs and lava pits and traps cease to matter, where you can effortlessly kill anybody who can't fly. At which point actual DMs, the ones you play with in real games, change things up so that the all-purpose "I win" button stops working that way.

Is this not a false dichotomy?
Nope.

Seriously, how powerful do you think flight is?

So powerful that no PC should be without it? If so, then how is that not "overpowered"?

Tavar

2009-12-22, 01:55 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-22, 01:57 AM

Seriously, how powerful do you think flight is?

So powerful that no PC should be without it? If so, then how is that not "overpowered"?

I don't know, when I can sit comfortable on some clouds and pling arrows down on what was once a threat (read, Big T himself), I find flight to be damned handy. Having it is great by virtue of the fact that it's amazing when your foes do not. Both sides have it? Cool, back to regular combat. They have it and you don't? Well, enjoy shooting them down out of the sky. Hope you prepped some dispels.

Talya

2009-12-22, 02:09 AM

Whatever suits your playstyle, but it strains my suspension of disbelief when the enemy is faced with opponents who can't fly and then choose to ignore giving themselves a tactical advantage which should be incredibly easy to come by at level 17.

So far very few of our opponents have had the ability to fly. Those who could, I either brought them down (my sorceress can fly, or cast spells at range), or we were in caves/dungeons (mostly dragons,) or they have to close with our melee types themselves because despite having flight they are hand-to-hand types.

Generally i use flight every battle so I can take to the air and avoid melee combatants while I pick people off with spells.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 02:09 AM

Actually, it is a false dichotomy. You're saying that if VoP's weakness is a lack of flight, then flight is overpowered, and thus, if flight isn't overpowered, then it's not a weakness of VoP. The problem with this is that flight could also be perfectly balanced, and it's lack could still be a weakness of VoP. Thus, a false dichotomy, as the two options you present as the only options are not in fact the only options.

No PC should be without HP, either. That doesn't mean that HP is overpowered, just that the system expects hp.

Flight is (generally) a binary thing. Either you have it or you don't. HP are a quantity and thus a bad analogy. Any PC who didn't have any hp would obviously be in trouble, but those with a smaller numerical value can compensate in other ways. Same for weapons. Any PC who didn't have any weapons (of any sort, mundane or spells) would be in trouble, but the difference between a dagger and greatsword is just quantity and can be compensated. The arguments "VoP is weak" and "The Tarrasque is weak" both revolve around "Flight is uber-awesome and you must have it or you lose." Whereas in most cases of quantities, having extra of attribute X can make up for lacking attribute Y. Flight, being generally binary, is different.

I don't know, when I can sit comfortable on some clouds and pling arrows down on what was once a threat (read, Big T himself), I find flight to be damned handy. Having it is great by virtue of the fact that it's amazing when your foes do not.
Well, yeah, that's why I think it's fair to consider it overpowered, and I think that's the reason that IME DMs have designed adventures to limit the utility of flight. And one reason that as a player I have refrained from abusing the 3-D combat grid to any great extent. The adjudication nightmare is the other.

Both sides have it? Cool, back to regular combat.
Except for those awful nightmares of trying to do 3-D geometry with D&D's maneuverability rules. That kills game time (your most precious resource) and is not particularly fun.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-22, 02:16 AM

Except for those awful nightmares of trying to do 3-D geometry with D&D's maneuverability rules. That kills game time (your most precious resource) and is not particularly fun.

That's for chumps who don't have at least good maneuverability and a basic understanding of trigonometry.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 02:32 AM

That's for chumps who don't have at least good maneuverability and a basic understanding of trigonometry.
It still takes a lot of time. Experienced gamers who know their trig still like using their little minis. 3-D movement -- and I've done this -- takes time to calculate the whatever-fraction moves for diagonal ascending, time spent rearranging the blocks to place under the minis, etc... in actual gameplay I have found 3-D movement to any great degree to consume a considerable amount of time. A dragon might only have Poor manueverability, in which case a lower-CR party could, if they wanted to, slay it by summoning Ghaele and taking a looooong time to resolve the battle, but more likely won't bother with the chess game of Perfect-vs-Poor and will try to end the fight as quickly (in real time) as possible.

Basic fact is that when both combatants are flying, it isn't just like both being non-flying; dogfighting takes a lot longer to resolve IME.

Flying has enormous advantages. In the games I've played, the process of adjudication by the RAW count as a drawback. Like grappling. Not that it can't be done, nor that it totally outweighs the advantage in all cases, but it is something that must be taken into consideration, making it not as all-around awesome as it might otherwise be.

Stycotl

2009-12-22, 02:40 AM

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-22, 02:55 AM

wow. let's continue this line of thinking; anyone not playing the batman wizard is being less effective as they otherwise could be, and should not be treated fairly or equally.

i don't know about the rest of you, but though optimization has its rightful place in a game, it is not the end goal of the game. if i decide to roleplay a nonstandard concept, i expect that i will be playing with other rational, intelligent people that can accommodate and adapt.

the point of d&d is to roleplay and have fun. not to find the secret win button and just keep pushing it until your group leaves you.

and how does, "why would i want to be 'fair' to someone like that?" even find its way into this conversation? i'd have thought better of your abilities of analysis and empathy. especially yours.I tend to play underhanded jerks. It's fun to play as someone you're nothing like in real life. :smallwink:

Stycotl

2009-12-22, 03:09 AM

I tend to play underhanded jerks. It's fun to play as someone you're nothing like in real life. :smallwink:

i think that you are confusing IC fairness and OOC fairness...

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-22, 03:12 AM

i think that you are confusing IC fairness and OOC fairness...If my group is saving the world/universe/multiverse (as it commonly does in D&D games at higher levels), common sense really does suggest that the funds go to, y'know, keeping the world from being ruined and/or destroyed.

Then again, the BoED is all about stupidity in over- under-achievement.

huttj509

2009-12-22, 03:48 AM

It really depends on the campaign.

If the campaign is USING the BOED, it is implied that, due to the nature of the book and its content, there will be a decent chunk of morality based RP, players being extra good, etc. What VoP does is allow a particular type of character (the selfless soul who donates all his worldly posessions to those less fortunate) to be played without being completely borked when it comes to the fighting part.

The problem comes when the BoED mechanics, classes, and feats, are separated from the underlying assumptions of the book, and viewed first as gameplay mechanics on their own, and only later as a mechanical facilitation of a particular type of character.

While I normally go for a loose idea of the "character", then a sheet of stats based around that, then a more firm view of the "character" based on the stats and abilities (and things that took shape in determining the sheet of stats), VoP is an example of a feat that is really designed around a heavy character concept first, rather than being supposed to be taken for it's mechanical effects.

Basically Character who takes a vow of poverty in character without the feat is much weaker than character who takes a vow of poverty with the feat, is (how much varying) weaker than a character without a vow of poverty. Thus, the feat doesn't help characters in general, but does help a type of character likely to come about at some point when dealing with the BoED's subject matter.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-22, 03:52 AM

{Scrubbed}

Ashiel

2009-12-22, 04:23 AM

On the subject of flying;

Flying is, IMO, only unbalanced and unfair if the DM is only throwing nothing but the same melee-oriented brutish types at you all the time, in the open environment of the wilderness or plains or cities. The problem in fact is not the open environments, but instead the unchanging encounter situations. Let's try looking at it like this instead:

Fly makes certain encounters trivial. Fireball makes certain encounters trivial. If the DM has a habit of using nothing but land bound, melee-only enemies to challenge your party then fly wins against them. If your DM has a habit of using nothing but swarms of tightly packed enemies with very low hp, or enemies specifically vulnerable to fire, then fireball wins against them. I don't think anyone's arguing that fireball is overpowered.

On the same concept, it's unfair to try and remove the ability to use a power or spell that a player rightfully has. The DMG specifically tells you that this is wrong. If your player learns fireball, that is not an indication you should start looking for more creatures with fire resistance to trivialize their abilities. In the same manner, one should not try to design encounters where flying is useless, because it's really much easier to design believable encounters that can challenge flying individuals than some people think. Let's explore this thought a bit...

Ranged weaponry: During low-level games especially, ranged weapons such as longbows are quite effective for attacking flying characters. They're flying so generally they have very little in the way of cover, so they can easily be focus-fired by a group of NPCs. This can be true even to mid-levels. Protection from Arrows is a good spell to attempt to counter this with, but magical ammunition is pretty cheap, and smart NPCs carrying bows likely have a few floating in their WBL for emergencies.

Cover: Without negating flying's benefits completely, cover is still very usable in many situations. In the case of flying, things like trees, tarps, cliff faces, and cave entrances can provide effective cover from fireball strikes or weapon fire. The forests, jungles, or even a marketplace, the nature of canopies of tree limbs, tents, and so forth can provide some protection against airborn enemies but none from ground based enemies.

This is particularly bad sometimes, as often flying characters gain no cover (since they're sitting out in the air), and if they're attempting to stay far enough away to make retaliation difficult (fireball does have a long spell range, for example), it will cause the flying character to suffer huge penalties on their spot checks (-1 per 10ft they're above the enemy), allowing people to hide or skirmish beneath them as they prep to snipe the flyer.

Intelligent NPCs: It's no secret that flight can greatly increase the ability to control a battle. It's been known for a long time that air-support is a major factor in military warfare since it's conception. In a world where griffins, manticore, and magic allow for flight, smart enemies understand the value of this.

It's not unlikely that NPCs might carry potions of fly on them for emergencies. Adepts and the like might carry wands with a few charges of lightening bolt in them for dealing with difficult enemies. This is also true for dealing with dealing with spellcasters in general. A single adept wearing light armor and carrying a longspear, who has the Quick Draw feat makes for an excellent anti-caster with readied actions.

In the same method, stone wall can be used to make quick cover and escape routes by adepts who want to cover their allies from aerial assaults. In many cases, sometimes the best option in an open encounter is for the bad-guys is to flee (or lure the party) into conditions and areas that suit them more strongly (such as ducking into alleyways, or diving into water that leads to an underground cavern, or merely looking for a bit more cover to hide and ambush the party).

Then, you can also throw in a few monsters who fly, or NPCs riding griffins or similar mounts from time to time. Also, netting people in the air kinda sucks, since you can prevent their forward momentum. :smallamused:

====================================

Just a little food for thought. :smallsmile:

Samb

2009-12-22, 04:44 AM

{Scrubbed}
This is a slippery slope you are threading Lycan. Deeming your own teammate as an acceptable target just because he doesn't play the way you feel he should is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

To expand on your ideas, I can't buy items that don't increase my bonuses, and if I even mention it you will rob me? Sorry but I don't want others telling me how to play my PC and I don't want someone cheating me. If I feel like spending my loot to feed the poor then that's what I'll do, screw you and you elitism.

And your factotum's actions are more evil than chaotic as in selfish. You can try to rationalize it all you want but in the end you are decieving your friend and that isn't cool. I've always respected you as a poster but I'm not sure ID want to play with you after reading some of the posts you posted in this thread.

Ashiel

2009-12-22, 05:11 AM

This is a slippery slope you are threading Lycan. Deeming your own teammate as an acceptable target just because he doesn't play the way you feel he should is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

To expand on your ideas, I can't buy items that don't increase my bonuses, and if I even mention it you will rob me? Sorry but I don't want others telling me how to play my PC and I don't want someone cheating me. If I feel like spending my loot to feed the poor then that's what I'll do, screw you and you elitism.

And your factotum's actions are more evil than chaotic as in selfish. You can try to rationalize it all you want but in the end you are decieving your friend and that isn't cool. I've always respected you as a poster but I'm not sure ID want to play with you after reading some of the posts you posted in this thread.

I think the point Lycanthromancer is trying to make is (and I could easily be wrong) that it's arguably morally wrong to take a vow of poverty because it's a bad idea in most cases. If you choose to go into a dangerous situation unarmed because it's your spiritual preference, you are putting your allies in danger, which is reckless and selfish on your part.

His character is doing what he believes is right by choosing to be selfish and take the money he believes should be put towards better use for helping them all survive to actually do heroic things like stop bad guys from burning down orphanages. Taken literally, the person who demands a share of the treasure to be donated, while intentionally choosing to be weaker than the rest of the party has already made the first step as targeting the rest of the party. If someone wanted to get exceptionally technical, it would likely be more intelligent and justified to just leave reckless one who puts himself and allies in danger out of a desire of his own religious ideals.

If you wanted to be realistic about it, in the non-metagaming sense, it would be entirely likely that after the first few adventures (especially after the VoP player turns down several helpful magical items that his using would benefit the party for) the party could vote to demand his share of the treasure they're working their butts off for if he's not going to use it, or tell him to hit the road. This attitude is acceptable for evil, neutral, and good PCs to take, for reasons mentioned previously. It's not like the treasure magically whisks itself to each of the characters.

Now, he's not saying that someone shouldn't be able to spend their money like they want. If you wanted to donate some stuff, or buy a spoon that makes cardboard pudding to eat daily, or whatever, that's fine and dandy if you're pulling your own. You could also, otherwise, use equipment they opt to give you or take as your share. On the flip side, if you spent ALL your money on trivial items like golden statues of yourself ('cause you're so cool :smalltongue:), I would expect it to upset your party as well.

It's a matter of extremes, really. Some people drink without being drunks. Some people gamble without betting everything they have. Spending $30 out of your paycheck on a new video game, and good for you, you earned it. Dump your whole paycheck on video games and don't pay your share of the rent? GTFO! :smallamused:

=========

That being said, it really is just a game, so if a VoP player gets totally upset because his share or the loot is being swindled from his unknowing character, then you just shouldn't do it (swindle that is). Same goes for anything else that upsets people. Being accommodating is good manners, and once again, it's just a game to have fun with. :smallsmile:

Myrmex

2009-12-22, 05:23 AM

I think the point Lycanthromancer is trying to make is (and I could easily be wrong) that it's arguably morally wrong to take a vow of poverty because it's a bad idea in most cases. If you choose to go into a dangerous situation unarmed because it's your spiritual preference, you are putting your allies in danger, which is reckless and selfish on your part.

I'm not a fan of moral arguments, but this line of argument can lead to some pretty odd conclusions.

For instance, it is morally wrong to not be a kobold paladin. It is morally wrong to take levels in monk. It is morally wrong take levels in Shining Blade of Heironeous. It is morally wrong to spend 10 gold feeding a village when you could have spent it on a magical scroll that helped you defeat slightly more monsters.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 05:44 AM

How big is this village that you're spending ten gold pieces on feeding it?

Are you feeding it for a year or something?

Ashiel

2009-12-22, 06:02 AM

I'm not a fan of moral arguments, but this line of argument can lead to some pretty odd conclusions.

For instance, it is morally wrong to not be a kobold paladin. It is morally wrong to take levels in monk. It is morally wrong take levels in Shining Blade of Heironeous. It is morally wrong to spend 10 gold feeding a village when you could have spent it on a magical scroll that helped you defeat slightly more monsters.

Heh, which I think was the complaint of several people in regards to the VoP feat. With the Vow feats, you can't be selfish, and you definitely shouldn't put others at risk. One of the problems is it tends to inflict a self-nerf, since by taking vow of poverty you put yourself in a position to break your holiness really fast. You're putting yourself at a far different standard.

Is it morally wrong to refuse to accept using a sword over your bare hands if doing so means risking or allowing someone to die because of your own desire to be perfect? Yeah, I believe it is. You just lost exalted status, and your feats (including VoP). At the same time consider that I mentioned that it is a matter of extremes in my last post. One can drink without becoming drunk, and one can be generous without being stupid. At all levels of play, characters are expected to have some petty spending cash. You can live the life of luxury after only a few levels and still have equipment that lets you handle a variety of situations; so choosing to use some of that excess cash to improve the lives of others isn't putting anyone at risk.

Remember, we're not talking about taking levels in a particular class. We're talking refusing to use tools to help others in need, unless they supply everything for you, which is a tax on them, to appease some twisted sense of self purity.

As to your other question...
It could be seen as morally "better" to be a paladin. Even if it's morally wrong, normal characters can have the option of being imperfect and not screwing up the show for everyone else, or have their mechanics self-break them. They're not even needed for a generous character. If you want your character to pursue a life of immaterial contemplation, consider a guru on the hilltop who guides the heroes in the direction of their own destinies. In short, if you've got a spiritual vow to not use hammers, saws, or cut wood, you should really get out of the carpentry business. :smallamused:

At the age of five, my little brother played a better "exalted" character than anything I've actually seen done by people three times his age (this was several years back, he's now 11). He was playing a simple fighter, who had a warhorse, a lance, a sword, and a shield. He got the equipment he needed. If he didn't need it, he didn't keep it. He regularly would donate large amounts of his findings to people who he met who needed it (such as to families who lost husbands to hobgoblins, or little old ladies, or whatever). If he couldn't give to them, he would ask if there was anything he could help with. In one case, he said he would let his character chop wood for a widow for an hour, while the rest of the party went shopping. He told them to keep an eye out if there was anything they thought he could use well.

He wasn't even a paladin. Just a guy you could really just respect. When he was playing in a group (he usually solo-games when no one was around), he would ask for a few items here and there, and ask if anyone else wanted their treasure for something else. He would also humbly ask his friends if he could give some of it away to *random person in need here* and often they would. Some gold here, a few platinum here, and sometimes a quest without asking for reward, just "'cause someone needs to do it".

He also did it without his mechanics breaking because of it. He, at the age of 5, played a character who was morally righteous. He had a good heart. He was a man, a hero, that you could respect and admire. He was the guy who slew the ogre and his goblin lackies who were pillaging towns. He was the knight who gave little children rides on his horse through town. He was a good man, and he had the respect of the people and the party because he did what he did because he felt it was the best thing he could do - not because of some distorted concept of spiritual purity and humility. We respected him.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever use VoP (or anything out of that stupid book) to come anywhere close to how good this guy was. It makes me so proud of my little brother. :smallredface:
======

Food for thought. :smallsmile:

Roderick_BR

2009-12-22, 06:36 AM

I thought it was nice roleplay wise. The sacred dedication to your vows ( or deity ) to live without material goods. My uncle went the Buddhism route a few years ago, so I think of that when I think of this feat.

As for myself, I'll never take it, I love my cool magic items to much. Just I played with ( one in particular ) a few people that though it was "uber."
Giving up material possessions is nice when you live a calm, normal life. When you are out in the world, fighting monsters trying to destroy everything, you'll want all the help you need, including very big weapons, wands, rings, etc.

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-22, 07:31 AM

How big is this village that you're spending ten gold pieces on feeding it?

Are you feeding it for a year or something?

Poor meals cost 1 silver piece. Ten gold pieces have 100 silver pieces in it. So, you're feeding a village of 100 for one meal, precisely. And not even a good meal at that.

At least, according to D&D economy.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 07:51 AM

But doesn't a commoner make 1sp a day? How does that work?

I have a firm belief that the prices in the PHB are for adventurers only, as the common folk know they're loaded and will pay anything.

Killer Angel

2009-12-22, 07:57 AM

Giving up material possessions is nice when you live a calm, normal life. When you are out in the world, fighting monsters trying to destroy everything, you'll want all the help you need, including very big weapons, wands, rings, etc.

Oh, please...
the problem is not the concept, which can be good even if you're adventuring (remember "kung fu", starring David Carradine?).
The problem is that VoP is mechanically a poor choice, because is written badly: you give away your possession, but you don't obtain something equally worthwhile.

For example, if you could choose what benefits you get from VoP, it would be better and, suddenly, VoP would became an effective possibility.

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-22, 07:58 AM

Most commoners will have one Profession or the other, because that and Craft are the only ways they can make appreciable money. So, assuming 4 ranks in Profession, that means an average result of 14-15, which will get the said commoner one gold piece a day. Which means they can afford a common meal for three and save a few silvers on the side for new clothing and other tools of the trade. Or firewood.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:00 AM

I'm pretty sure most commoners would be unskilled laborers, not... people with Professions.

And why does Profession (dung shoveler) make the same money as Profession (sailor) anyway?

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 08:03 AM

So, have we already adequately explained why flight is not overpowered?

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-22, 08:09 AM

I'm pretty sure most commoners would be unskilled laborers, not... people with Professions.

Why not? Profession is a class skill for them. Hell, it is a class skill for anyone in core but Barbarians and Fighters...

And warriors. And experts. And aristocrats.

OK, so there are a few classes of people that don't have Profession as a class skill (seriously, experts?). But commoners aren't one of them.

Grumman

2009-12-22, 08:15 AM

The problem is that VoP is mechanically a poor choice, because is written badly: you give away your possesion, but you don't obtain something equally worthwhile.
Er, no. VoP is mechanically a poor choice because you're giving away all your useful stuff - it's your own fault if your character's self-destructive choices aren't rewarded with gifts of equal value.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:16 AM

Yes, it's a class skill, but I wouldn't think every commoner would have it. What with commoners having awful skill points but, oddly, several good skills.

Killer Angel

2009-12-22, 08:23 AM

Er, no. VoP is mechanically a poor choice because you're giving away all your useful stuff - it's your own fault if your character's self-destructive choices aren't rewarded with gifts of equal value.

Maybe I wasn't clear, let me try to explain better.
VoP is a bad choice, so it's your fault to pick it. The same (on a much different scale), if your barbarian takes dodge instead of power attack.
It's a self destructive choice.

But if it's so, is because VoP is written badly, not because the idea (give away money and equipment to obtain strenght through purity) is bad.

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-22, 08:24 AM

Yes, it's a class skill, but I wouldn't think every commoner would have it. What with commoners having awful skill points but, oddly, several good skills.

I would like to believe any commoner who is taking care of a family would have it, at least. Certainly some commoners that are taken care of by others, such as some spouses or most children, would not have Profession.

Not that D&D economy makes sense on a grand scale, but on NPC-class scale, you can make it work.

((That, or they just take Craft (ladder) and start breaking them into two.))

GallóglachMaxim

2009-12-22, 08:29 AM

(seriously, experts?)

Experts have 'any ten skills' which presumably could include Profession, unless I'm missing something obvious and am about to look stupid.

felinoel

2009-12-22, 08:32 AM

Pity it doesn't let you choose what benefits you get from a wide variety of different ones.

Yea that would be better, or maybe if it gave you different lists for different deities or different alignments

mikej

2009-12-22, 08:32 AM

Giving up material possessions is nice when you live a calm, normal life. When you are out in the world, fighting monsters trying to destroy everything, you'll want all the help you need, including very big weapons, wands, rings, etc.

Yes, very true. That's way I also wrote this.

As for myself, I'll never take it, I love my cool magic items to much.

That usually implies that use such big weapons, wands, ring etc etc. Now after this I'm totally "meh" entirely about it.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:34 AM

I would never take Vow of Poverty, for then I would never be able to own an Immovable Rod, Portable Hole and Spool of Endless Rope.

Everyone knows those are the only magic items you need.

Indon

2009-12-22, 08:36 AM

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 08:37 AM

I would never take Vow of Poverty, for then I would never be able to own an Immovable Rod, Portable Hole and Spool of Endless Rope.

Everyone knows those are the only magic items you need.

Decanter of Endless Water.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:40 AM

Decanter of Endless Water.

And Bottle of Air. Sorry. What was I thinking?

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 08:42 AM

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept of an impovished monk?
Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that people don't like feats that are mechanically weak?

That people shouldn't be punished by having to play weak characters because they wanted to play a specific concept?

felinoel

2009-12-22, 08:43 AM

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept of an impovished monk? A character who believes, as characters can do, that it's bad to have wealth for some reason, or that he should give all that he possesses to those who truly need it? Possibly a religious reason?

Roleplaying does not mandate your character to be a perfectly rational killing machine. Seriously.

That said, if you add VoP as-written, without the magic item restriction, to a Monk, they're still Tier 3 at best. We established in the first page that it was weak, which makes me wonder why most of the last five pages even exist, because it's mostly reiteration of what we already knew, in addition to people hating on roleplaying imperfect characters (seriously, wtf's up with that?), and in addition we touched upon how it could be fixed: My suggestion involved adding more Exalted feats, but I don't think it was the only one.

An even easier fix would be to allow general feats instead of the highly rare Exalted feats. There, now instead of being usually underpowered it's potentially extremely overpowered.I once played an awesome paladin like that, ended up becoming a Risen Martyr and the party leader

I would like to believe any commoner who is taking care of a family would have it, at least. Certainly some commoners that are taken care of by others, such as some spouses or most children, would not have Profession.

Not that D&D economy makes sense on a grand scale, but on NPC-class scale, you can make it work.

((That, or they just take Craft (ladder) and start breaking them into two.))Isn't the point of VoP to get more stuff as you level up? How many NPC Commoners level up their levels? I have yet to come across one? Though now that the idea is in my head I will definitely be making one =b

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:45 AM

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that people don't like feats that are mechanically weak?

That people shouldn't be punished by having to play weak characters because they wanted to play a specific concept?

To be fair, people already get punished by having to play weak characters when they want to play lots of specific concepts.

Isn't the point of VoP to get more stuff as you level up? How many NPC Commoners level up their levels? I have yet to come across one? Though now that the idea is in my head I will definitely be making one =b

The commoner thing had absolutely nothing to do with Vow of Poverty.

Threads tend to do that around here.

felinoel

2009-12-22, 08:46 AM

Grumman

2009-12-22, 08:48 AM

Maybe I wasn't clear, let me try to explain better.
VoP is a bad choice, so it's your fault to pick it. The same (on a much different scale), if your barbarian takes dodge instead of power attack.
It's a self destructive choice.
No, it isn't. There's a distinct difference between the two. Dodging better and hitting harder are both things that should, objectively speaking, make you a better fighter. Given that they are both things that your character is doing to improve their combat ability, it is fair to suggest that these options should be balanced against each other. Choosing not to use items for religious reasons is an intentional handicap that your character is giving themselves. It's like having a feat called Vow of Stabbing Yourself In The Face. Just because your character wants to stab themselves in the face doesn't mean that they should get bonuses for doing so.

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-22, 08:50 AM

Experts have 'any ten skills' which presumably could include Profession, unless I'm missing something obvious and am about to look stupid.

No, you're not missing something. What I'm trying to say is if you're named "expert" at something, you should probably expect to get money from doing it.

If I were a DM, I would probably house rule it to "any ten skills plus Profession". Because wasting a skill slot on Profession would be stupid.

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:52 AM

No, you're not missing something. What I'm trying to say is if you're named "expert" at something, you should probably expect to get money from doing it.

If I were a DM, I would probably house rule it to "any ten skills plus Profession". Because wasting a skill slot on Profession would be stupid.

How many Experts need all ten skills?

The Rose Dragon

2009-12-22, 08:53 AM

How many Experts need all ten skills?

Any Expert I build tends to use all ten of them and wants for more.

((Mostly for the Knowledge skills counting as different skills, even though Craft doesn't.))

Yuki Akuma

2009-12-22, 08:56 AM

That's why all Experts should have a level of Factotum and Able Learner.

Indon

2009-12-22, 08:56 AM

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that people don't like feats that are mechanically weak?
"Yeah, it's weak" is one thing.

"No character should ever have this" is quite another.

That people shouldn't be punished by having to play weak characters because they wanted to play a specific concept?

Not having VoP would be more punishing for the concept than having it. Unless you want to houserule the character essentially the equivalent of VoP (and I can't imagine why you'd bother when it'd be easier to just make VoP more powerful), that's the only writeup for the system for playing a character not reliant on the WBL.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 08:58 AM

And your factotum's actions are more evil than chaotic as in selfish. You can try to rationalize it all you want but in the end you are decieving your friend and that isn't cool. I've always respected you as a poster but I'm not sure ID want to play with you after reading some of the posts you posted in this thread.

*eases Lycan out from under the dogpile of hatred.*

Deep breaths, everyone. The post I think most relevant to this "sneaky Factotum" discussion was Ashiel's.

Lycan's character saw a VoP player as an easy mark. Sure, there may have been a slight OOC motive there, but that does not in itself automatically invalidate the IC motive. Any morally questionable character would immediately look on an Exalted player and think - "Wow, what a moron. Doesn't even want his share of the treasure/doesn't want any wine/doesn't want to take a turn in the hay with that grateful dryad/wouldn't even flinch if I slapped him. Profit!"

His actions are reprehensible, I agree - but as a character, not as a player. All the melodrama of "I don't think I can play with you if you behave this way" misses the point of what being an Exalted character is about: setting an example. A powerful roleplaying event could be his sneering Factotum given the chance to reflect on his behavior after associating with the Exalted character. Or further, the party discovering his duplicity (not easy, of course) and demanding he desist. Or even karma taking a bite, via the DM. As Lycan put it, roleplaying a "jerkass" can be extremely rewarding, so long as he keeps his emotions as IC as possible.

I view this situation differently from you do, Samb and Aldizog - The small bit of OOC contempt he feels for VoP players can actually season his roleplay (making him invested in the concept) rather than automatically overtaking his character. I think assuming someone lacks the capacity to accept IC consequences for IC jerkery is a lot more insulting than any taking advantage of a VoP player, don't you agree?

Killer Angel

2009-12-22, 09:16 AM

No, it isn't. There's a distinct difference between the two. Dodging better and hitting harder are both things that should, objectively speaking, make you a better fighter. Given that they are both things that your character is doing to improve their combat ability, it is fair to suggest that these options should be balanced against each other. Choosing not to use items for religious reasons is an intentional handicap that your character is giving themselves. It's like having a feat called Vow of Stabbing Yourself In The Face. Just because your character wants to stab themselves in the face doesn't mean that they should get bonuses for doing so.

Now i'm not sure to follow your reasoning.
If I want to give away my items for "role-playing", I'm nerfing myself, the same if I stab myself in the face.
BUT, if a book presents a feat that let me give away my items, but this is compensated by giving me cool powers, it's good. In that case, is the book that says to me: if you stab yourself in the face, I'll give you this in exchange.
If the feat is badly written and those powers are not on par with what i'm losing, then something is wrong.
It's not me, it's not you. A feat "Vow of stabbing yourself in the face" could exist, but in the moment it exists, better to have a mechanical reason to justify his existance (heck, there's also a PrC "I took away my eye for Gruumsh").

PA and dodge are both things that should make you a better fighter, but one works, while the other don't. Mechanically, they should be on the same level.
VoP should give you something better than what you're losing, or it's a senseless choice.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 09:18 AM

Not having VoP would be more punishing for the concept than having it. Unless you want to houserule the character essentially the equivalent of VoP (and I can't imagine why you'd bother when it'd be easier to just make VoP more powerful), that's the only writeup for the system for playing a character not reliant on the WBL.

I choose a third option.

My character takes a vow of poverty and donates all his possessions to his church. In return they equip him for his missions, but all such equipment is considered property of the church and must be returned when the mission is over.

Amphetryon

2009-12-22, 09:21 AM

Pity it doesn't let you choose what benefits you get from a wide variety of different ones.
This gives me an idea....

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 09:22 AM

My character takes a vow of poverty and donates all his possessions to his church. In return they equip him for his missions, but all such equipment is considered property of the church and must be returned when the mission is over.

Nice try :smalltongue:

"To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions..."

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 09:22 AM

Nice try :smalltongue:

"To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions..."

"My social status is that of a Samurai. That does not mean I have taken levels in the Samurai class."

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 09:23 AM

Lycan's character saw a VoP player as an easy mark.

Here's what Lycan wrote:

If I were playing in a group with a VoP character, I'd play a factotum or something and merely conceal the fact that the group was getting ANY treasure from him.

Sounds to me like Lycan would choose to play this factotum for the purpose of messing with another player's character. That sentence above reads like player jerkery to me.

Now, if the idea is "I'd like to explore the conflict between the Han Solo types and the Obi-Wan types, and after a quick chat with the VoP player to make sure he was cool with it I'd bring this scoundrel into the game," that's a very different thing.

SparkMandriller

2009-12-22, 09:24 AM

Messing with him by not giving him any money which he doesn't even want anyway?

Indon

2009-12-22, 09:24 AM

I choose a third option.

My character takes a vow of poverty and donates all his possessions to his church. In return they equip him for his missions, but all such equipment is considered property of the church and must be returned when the mission is over.

That's fine flavor for making a character reliant on WBL. Possibly a little silly if you think about it too hard ("Yeah, I donate my stuff to the church for charity." "Oh, what charity?" "Er, mostly my equipment fund, actually"), but fine flavor.

If you want a character who isn't running around in a bunch of glowing jewelry, which I personally (understanding that your idea of the concept may be different than mine) imagine would be part of playing an actually impovished, instead of technically impovished but actually wealthy character, that's not actually an option.

Edit: To better illustrate my point, I could play a CE thief who uses the same trick with a church I'm politically manipulating and essentially be wealthy while everyone thinks I'm the most charitable guy ever. It's an awesome idea, but, uh, not quite what people think of when they think of characters who aren't actually wealthy.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 09:29 AM

Messing with him by not giving him any money which he doesn't even want anyway?
Messing with him by making him look like a perpetual dupe. The guy is lied to by those whom he trusts with his life. He's lied to all the time. The whole rest of the party has to be in on it.

Indon

2009-12-22, 09:31 AM

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 09:34 AM

harpy

2009-12-22, 09:37 AM

I like the concept of the VoP as I can't stand the magic item treadmill that 3.5 emphasizes.

I did end up using it for one character and found it very effective. I was a hengeyokai (from Oriental Adventures) psion and the hengeyokai was built with the sparrow form.

Right from 1st level I was a sparrow with a fly of 50' and due to fine size and high dex had started with an AC 24, along with a hide check of +22. So the character was really fast, flying, and nearly invisible due to the combination of size, stealth check, and even just arguing "I'm just a itty bitty bird, why would anyone pay attention to me!" As my first feat I took improved flight which got my maneuverability up to good and thus I could hover, removing any complications flight might have.

Then add in Psion (it should be noted that in the update from 3.0 to 3.5 the LA+1 for Hengeyokai was removed) which allowed the character to do all of the psionic stuff while in sparrow form, since there are no somatic or verbal elements to psionics. I was a shaper psion so when I needed to manipulate stuff I'd summon psionic constructs and have them do the work that my fine sized body couldn't do.

Anyway, the only real problem with the character was that magic items were impractical for a fine sized sparrow. I could have bent over backwards negotiating with the GM to let me make fine sized rings and amulets, crystals and whatnot, but with a strength of 1 and being so small it just made it far too much of a hassle.

So VoP really was the way to go. I'd just get automatic bonuses as I leveled, most of the exalted feats I didn't qualify for, but a few worked (such as touch of golden ice!) and so overall it was a great fit. My AC went through the roof, making me pretty much invulnerable.

Now, I draped all of these mechanics around roleplaying and detailed character background and motivation, I didn't just focus on mechanics or emphasize them.

My character was broken, but I played it more like Gandalf. I was this chosen one who's job was to help bring balance to the world. I myself wasn't really threatened, instead the challenge was making sure none of the other characters died. The VoP really helped to mechanically link together the overall concept and it was a lot of fun to play.

Ashiel

2009-12-22, 09:42 AM

Messing with him by making him look like a perpetual dupe. The guy is lied to by those whom he trusts with his life. He's lied to all the time. The whole rest of the party has to be in on it.

I would pose a question. Which is worse?

To lie to someone to acquire more funding to make your adventuring party more capable of surviving the dangers of all this dangerous stuff (this would in turn mean protecting you as well, because they can cover your back)...

OR

To demand huge amounts of money that you won't use, intentionally to sate a religious fetish which heavily borders on insane, reckless, selfish, and perhaps just a tiny bit neglectful?

Either way, at least the first guy isn't going to loose any sleep (or various special but sub-par abilities gained from feats that inherently cause you to fall from their exalted state as part of their requirement, thus being a great trap for wasting feats that you can't get back without retraining). :smalltongue:

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 09:59 AM

Newsflash: We're all lied to all the time, even by those we trust.
And you know this? And you still trust them? Nice friends you have. Once I find that somebody has been lying to me, I don't trust them any more.

To demand huge amounts of money that you won't use, intentionally to sate a religious fetish which heavily borders on insane, reckless, selfish, and perhaps just a tiny bit neglectful?
If the party's agreement is that treasure is divided evenly and everybody can do with their fair share as they like, then deceiving the VoP character is a betrayal of trust and an affront to their rights. My PC has no right, none at all, to demand that your PC optimize their gear if your PC would rather spend their share on something else. A VoP PC is only "demanding" their fair share, just as anybody else gets.

If the party's agreement is that the total value of the treasure is used for the common good of the party through some decision-making process, your argument holds more weight. But in that case, the deception isn't needed. Simply spell out what the process is.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 10:10 AM

"My social status is that of a Samurai. That does not mean I have taken levels in the Samurai class."

Quote Miko all you like, once you're wearing anything the church gave you you're violating the vow.

(Except the specific exceptions, of course.)

Sounds to me like Lycan would choose to play this factotum for the purpose of messing with another player's character. That sentence above reads like player jerkery to me.

What's wrong with messing with another player's character? D&D can easily accomodate intraparty conflict, so long as it stays within the context of the game.

Invariably, a Vow of X character is going to run into someone that will try to use their Exalted nature against them. What's the point of being Exalted if you're never tested?

And you know this? And you still trust them? Nice friends you have. Once I find that somebody has been lying to me, I don't trust them any more.

That's fine. Don't trust them. Confront him/them on it, if your character finds out. Even with maxed Bluff, he won't be able to hide the fact that he's getting first crack at all the treasure forever. Get the DM in on it. Make it a hook in the campaign. Roleplay, for god's sake.

Good people get taken advantage of, even in D&D. If you're not prepared to deal with that, Exalted characters are not for you.

And if you're in a party where everyone is willing to collaborate and rip you off, guess what! They're evil, and you'd lose your Exalted benefits by hanging out with them anyway! So be glad to leave!

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 10:11 AM

Quote Miko all you like, once you're wearing anything the church gave you you're violating the vow.

But I haven't taken the feat Vow of Poverty. Quoting the text of the feat is meaningless in this instance.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 10:17 AM

But I haven't taken the feat Vow of Poverty. Quoting the text of the feat is meaningless in this instance.

Oh! Well in that case go nuts. Without any of the benefits of the feat, that is.

Jayabalard

2009-12-22, 10:17 AM

And this, my friends, is what we call a strawman argument. That's not what "strawman argument" means. A strawman argument is where you misrepresent present your opponent's argument in order to more easily refute it.

If downtime were not a guarantee you wouldn't ever be able to prepare spells, so you wouldn't be a spellcaster anyway. You'd be a warlock or a binder or something.You don't need a guarantee of any significant amount of downtime to prepare spells; certainly you can get by with much less time than what would be required to create items.

You craft for eight hours a day. The rest of the time you can do whatever.Yes, everyone understands that; they're just saying that they don't generally have those 8 hours free to dedicate to creating items in most of their games unless they have real down time, as in, the characters are not currently Adventuring, and they may not even have any of that.

You're also assuming that people play with the RAW item creation rules, and that's often not the case... I'd guesstimate that they're some of the most commonly houseruled pieces of the game, so I'd say that's generally not a safe assumption.

Newsflash: We're all lied to all the time, even by those we trust.*You* might be. Personally, I'm often not lied to.

Giving up material possessions is nice when you I live a calm, normal life. When you I are out in the world, fighting monsters trying to destroy everything, [s]you'll[s]I want all the help you I need, including very big weapons, wands, rings, etc.Fixed that for you... When you're debating with someone, this sort of projection is fairly rude (just my opinion).

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 10:18 AM

*You* might be. Personally, I'm often not lied to.

You're right. You're not.

SparkMandriller

2009-12-22, 10:19 AM

But I haven't taken the feat Vow of Poverty. Quoting the text of the feat is meaningless in this instance.

Hey, hey, hey, knock that off. You're not allowed to RP something when you could just take a feat instead.

It's the rules or somethin'.

*You* might be. Personally, I'm often not lied to.

You're falling into their trap!

Signmaker

2009-12-22, 10:20 AM

Oh! Well in that case go nuts. Without any of the benefits of the feat, that is.

His rent-a-gear will more than make up for it. =)

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 10:20 AM

What's wrong with messing with another player's character? D&D can easily accomodate intraparty conflict, so long as it stays within the context of the game.

I'm not opposed to intraparty conflict in all cases. It can have good dramatic potential. Though I think it's considerate as a player to make sure the others are okay with it before you introduce a disruptive character.

"Hey, I know you all are playing selfish greedy mercenaries. I'd like to play a LG cleric who will continually frustrate your attempts to do evil. Is that cool?"

"Hey, I know you like your VoP monk. But I've been itching to play a scoundrel type, and he's probably going to mess with you a bit. How does that sound?"

"Okay, what do you think about me bringing in a succubus and your Knight of the Chalice having to deal with a demon as a party member?"

Specifically choosing to play a particular character for the sake of creating conflict with another character does not strike me as necessarily the actions of a considerate player. Might be in a few rare cases.

Signmaker

2009-12-22, 10:23 AM

Text directly above.

All three examples ARE considerate, when you think about it. They're asking if they can introduce a character to spice up inter-party relations. Granted, that's usually not the best sign of a good roleplayer (Hey, can I play a no-armed, no-legged monk? It's flavorful!), but it shows the want for party input before they commit. As long as party input is considered first, I see no issue about being a back-stabbing violent individual adventurer.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 10:25 AM

*You* might be. Personally, I'm often not lied to.

You are responding to a statement to which there can only be agreement or disagreement. You either are lied to or aren't. There's no middle ground.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 10:27 AM

All three examples ARE considerate, when you think about it. They're asking if they can introduce a character to spice up inter-party relations. Granted, that's usually not the best sign of a good roleplayer (Hey, can I play a no-armed, no-legged monk? It's flavorful!), but it shows the want for party input before they commit. As long as party input is considered first, I see no issue about being a back-stabbing violent individual adventurer.
Right. If the other players actually welcome the intra-party conflict, then creating that disruption isn't inconsiderate. If they prefer to focus on the missions and the challenges that the campaign presents, and want the party to be a well-oiled machine, then they might say "We'd prefer a character that wouldn't cause problems with this particular group."

Signmaker

2009-12-22, 10:30 AM

You are responding to a statement to which there can only be agreement or disagreement. You either are lied to or aren't. There's no middle ground.

Technically, you have the ground where both occur, but that's more akin to having a foot on the black and white sides rather than being part of a grey middle ground.

@Aldizog: Yay, resolution of discussion. Good to see nothing needed a fire extinguisher.

Jayabalard

2009-12-22, 10:32 AM

You are responding to a statement to which there can only be agreement or disagreement. You either are lied to or aren't. There's no middle ground.I'm not sure what you mean, especially with the text that you quoted and bolded; I disagreed with your statement "We're all lied to all the time" by pointing out that I am often not lied to. So your claims of "We're all" and "all the time" are not correct.

All three examples ARE considerate, when you think about it.I think that was his point, at least, that's how I read it.

His rent-a-gear will more than make up for it. =)The rent-a-gear also makes him a very different sort of character than the standard VoP character. So I don't really see it as all that relevant to the subject.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 10:33 AM

I'm not opposed to intraparty conflict in all cases. It can have good dramatic potential. Though I think it's considerate as a player to make sure the others are okay with it before you introduce a disruptive character.

Well certainly, but he never said "I'll spring this on the bastard the instant we get some treasure" did he? You automatically assumed that he was being an ass when creating the conflict, simply because he had an OOC motivation to go with his IC one. I consider that to be jumping the gun.

Specifically choosing to play a particular character for the sake of creating conflict with another character does not strike me as necessarily the actions of a considerate player. Might be in a few rare cases.

Hold on now, that's a two-way street. Unless the entire party is Exalted, every Exalted feat does exactly that to the other players. You want to be Exalted? You'd better be prepared to nag everybody else constantly about capturing the bad guys instead of killing them, not accepting rewards for quests, trying the diplomatic solution with the bugbears, and going to brothels and bars. How is that not conflict?

In other words, if you want to play an Exalted character, you should be just as considerate, and ask the group's permission beforehand so they know what they're getting into. Yes, even for Vow of Poverty.

Perhaps my favorite take on Codes and Vows, is that of the Knight (PHB2):

While you cleave to your view of honor, chivalry, and pursuit of glory, you do not force your views upon others. You might chide a rogue for sneaking around the battlefield, but you recognize (and perhaps feel a bit smug about) the reality that not everyone is fit to follow the knight's path.

Really, this clause should be in every "Vow-related" class.

I'm not sure what you mean, especially with the text that you quoted and bolded; I disagreed with your statement "We're all lied to all the time" by pointing out that I and often not lied to. So your claims of "We're all" and "all the time" are not correct.

You're splitting hairs. We're not even spoken to ALL the time, if you get supremely technical about it. But we are lied to on a continual basis (which is what he meant) so the fact that Lycan's character - or even his entire party - might want to lie to and take advantage of a VoP character isn't necessarily an anomaly.

Exalted characters should be prepared to deal with that eventuality, and really shouldn't be in a group like that very long anyway, lest they lose their powers.

Signmaker

2009-12-22, 10:37 AM

I think that was his point, at least, that's how I read it.

Can't hurt to be safe and thorough.

Telonius

2009-12-22, 10:37 AM

"Yeah, it's weak" is one thing.

"No character should ever have this" is quite another.

Not having VoP would be more punishing for the concept than having it. Unless you want to houserule the character essentially the equivalent of VoP (and I can't imagine why you'd bother when it'd be easier to just make VoP more powerful), that's the only writeup for the system for playing a character not reliant on the WBL.

This is generally where I come down on the subject.

Vow of Poverty isn't about making an awesome powerful character. It's about making a character who forgoes material wealth for religious reasons, at least vaguely playable.

The one VoP character I played - a Monk named Mordechai, back when BoED first came out - was the second-favorite character I've ever played. He was also, mechanically, the weakest. Where he did excel was at out-of-combat situations. He had the Leadership feat (with a cohort that was better in battle than he was) and max ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive. It worked out well, because the campaign contained a good mix of social and combat situations.

As for what he did with his share of the wealth? He set up a charitable fund at the local moneychangers' office*, the proceeds of which went to fund a string of vocational schools for the city's orphans. The "Morcechai School for kids who want to read good (and do other stuff good too)" became so famous throughout the region that there were rumors of parents abandoning their children just so they could get an education there.

* - having known and been related to some people IRL who have actually taken a vow of poverty: such a vow absolutely does not mean that you are terrible at managing money or picking funds. It just means that you don't own much/any of it yourself. (Mordechai also had quite a few cross-class ranks in Appraise, and some of his followers were accountants).

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 10:42 AM

Hold on now, that's a two-way street. Unless the entire party is Exalted, every Exalted feat does exactly that to the other players. You want to be Exalted? You'd better be prepared to nag everybody else constantly about capturing the bad guys instead of killing them, not accepting rewards for quests, trying the diplomatic solution with the bugbears, and going to brothels and bars. How is that not conflict?

In other words, if you want to play an Exalted character, you should be just as considerate, and ask the group's permission beforehand so they know what they're getting into. Yes, even for Vow of Poverty.
Yes, generally on Exalted status, as with playing a paladin, I'd make sure to get the group's approval. (Actually, for most any character I'd want to play ever, I'd ask for the group's approval. Appropriate optimization levels, party needs, preference for certain tactics, etc.)

On the specific vows, Vow of Peace or Vow of Nonviolence, sure, those require additional buy-in from the other players. I think VoP doesn't have the same disruptive effect. If you have a more individualistic and less communitarian approach to the treasure, where everybody gets their share to do with as they wish, then VoP doesn't force anybody else to change their behavior. And the other vows are strictly personal. My image of an ascetic with the Vow of Purity is NOT one who prevents anybody else from touching dead bodies. He's just got a personal taboo. Same for bars and brothels.

Sinfire Titan

2009-12-22, 10:45 AM

Newsflash: We're all lied to all the time, even by those we trust.

And you could be lying just by saying that very phrase, thus proving it partially true, thus making it not a complete lie, thus meaning you were lying about lying thus....

"TIME PARADOX!"

Jayabalard

2009-12-22, 10:52 AM

It worked out well, because the campaign contained a good mix of social and combat situations. I wonder what sort of mix the people who are strongly denouncing VoP; I'm guessing that (on the average) their games are going to be weighted a little stronger on the combat side than the people who are defending it.

You're splitting hairs.*shrug*
people shouldn't use absolute language like that if they don't mean it.

That everyone is continually being lied to by the people they trust, well, that's an incredibly vague claim. I'd even go as far as to say it's really not a meaningful statement, since "Continually" isn't really accurate there. You could say often instead perhaps? I'm not sure I'd agree with that, especially once you start talking about it in the context of "people who I trust with my life"

Certainly, the amount I'm lied to by people I trust is not even comparable to amount that Lycan's VoP groupmate is lied to by the people he trusts. If you're suggesting that's normal, well, then we're back to "it's normal for you but don't project that on to everyone else"

Jan Mattys

2009-12-22, 10:57 AM

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that people don't like feats that are mechanically weak?

That people shouldn't be punished by having to play weak characters because they wanted to play a specific concept?

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that choosing a weak character will not automatically impact negatively on your ability to have fun with that character or with other party members?

Is it really hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that the way you roleplay makes the difference every second of your gaming life, while bonuses only make the difference when you run ouf of ideas and rely on your dice as your last resort for being satisfied or proud of your character?

Sir, I pity you for missing the very point of Roleplaying games by a long shot. You might be good with snarky comments and witty one-liners on these forums, and you might be a total ace in the tests of spite, but that doesn't change the fact that you're taking long looks at the marvelous world your dm created just for you and all you can see is a stage where you have to be the ultimate hero, and you use bonuses as the ultimate rating system to evaluate how interesting a PC is.

All the monkeys in the forest laugh at you.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 11:03 AM

*shrug*
people shouldn't use absolute language like that if they don't mean it.

That everyone is continuously being lied to by the people they trust, well, that's an incredibly vague claim. I'd even go as far as to say it's really not a meaningful statement, since "Continuously" isn't really accurate there. You could say often instead perhaps? I'm not sure I'd agree with that, especially once you start talking about it in the context of "people who I trust with my life"

Since we're on the subject of precise language, I did not say "continuously." I said "continually." There is a significant difference between the two.

"You are continuously lied to" means it literally happens all the time, without stopping, every time someone opens their mouth and addresses you.

"You are continually lied to" means that it happens repeatedly and reliably, but not on every single occasion.

Which it does - from birth to death, you can rely on someone lying to you, as I did earlier.

Certainly, the amount I'm lied to by people I trust is not even comparable to amount that Lycan's VoP groupmate is lied to by the people he trusts. If you're suggesting that's normal, well, then we're back to "it's normal for you but don't project that on to everyone else"

There's a lot of projecting going on here - many people are considering Lycan's IC treatment of the VoP character so utterly heinous that they wouldn't even want to game with him as a player as a result of them, simply because he has both IC and OOC reasons to want to make an example of the oathsworn person. I'm merely pointing out a simple truth - that OOC justifications are irrelevant if the character (a) has an IC justification for his behavior, and (b) is willing to accept IC consequences for his actions.

Aquillion

2009-12-22, 11:13 AM

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that choosing a weak character will not automatically impact negatively on your ability to have fun with that character or with other party members?

Is it really hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that the way you roleplay makes the difference every second of your gaming life, while bonuses only make the difference when you run ouf of ideas and rely on your dice as your last resort for being satisfied or proud of your character?If you feel that way, what is the point of the Vow of Poverty feat?

Nothing prevents you from playing a character who has taken a vow of poverty, without actually taking the Vow of Poverty feat. In fact, I would see the character without the feat as being, in all likelihood, the character designed by someone who is more interested in deep and serious roleplaying.

Why? Easy. The one without the feat can slip up. He can fail, or make mistakes, and then try to atone for them.

The guy with the VoP feat can't, basically. The feat is designed specifically to discourage roleplaying, because it puts you in a straightjacket in terms of character development. Real people can balance their faith with necessity, and can reconsider it at different points in their life, moving back and forth between different ways of looking at things.

Exalted feats deny this. They're simply terrible, not because of what they do to mechanics, but because they are an active impediment to good roleplaying. Ditto for class restrictions, the Paladin oath, and most similar things. Any system that punishes players mechanically for having their characters grow and develop as individuals is a terrible system; good systems should reward and encourage good roleplaying, not discourage it.

Jayabalard

2009-12-22, 11:17 AM

Since we're on the subject of precise language, I did not say "continuously." I said "continually." There is a significant difference between the two.Ah, thanks I've fixed that above. it didn't really change anything though. And my disagreement isn't really about precise wording, it's about someone making an argument by over-exaggerating A so that A~=B, then claiming that since the un-exaggerated A is the norm that B is also normal. It's just not a valid argument.

"You are continuously lied to" means it literally happens all the time, without stopping, every time someone opens their mouth and addresses you.

"You are continually lied to" means that it happens repeatedly and reliably, but not on every single occasion. No, I can't agree with your distinction; Continually also means that it often often: "continuing indefinitely in time without interruption; recurring in steady usually rapid succession"

Which it does - from birth to death, you can rely on someone lying to you, as I did earlier.No, I can honestly say that I am not continually lied to by the people that I trust. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but it's a fairly rare thing, and it is in no way comparable to the pattern of lying of Lycan's theoretical Factotum's group toward his theoretical VoP group member.

There's a lot of projecting going on here - many people are considering Lycan's IC treatment of the VoP character so utterly heinous that they wouldn't even want to game with him as a player as a result of them, simply because he has both IC and OOC reasons to want to make an example of the oathsworn person. That's not projecting, at least, not the way I'm using the term: projecting one's personal opinions on to other people

Personally I wouldn't want to play with a player would take an OOC reason to make an example of another player either. They're just not the sort of human being that I want to associate with.

Is it really so hard for the people in this thread to grasp the concept that people don't like feats that are mechanically weak?It's about the same difficulty as understanding the concept that some people don't dislike feats that are mechanically weak.

If you go back and read Indon's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7552463#post7552463), the post where you copy the "Is it really so hard" bit from... it's really plain to see that he's pointing out how it's important to consider everyone's perspectives, since he touches on that a bit when he talks about suggestions for "fixing" it so that's it's not mechanically weak. It's heavily weighted toward his own opinion, but it's phrased as "here are reasons that people feel this way"

Personally I find the fact that you copied him really ironic, since your response is the antithesis of what he posted... you're stating your opinion as if it were the universally held opinion.

That people shouldn't be punished by having to play weak characters because they wanted to play a specific concept?You're not punished by the existence of VoP in any way. If you want to play that concept, and the downsides of VoP make it unplayable for you, then don't use it, but play your concept anyway.

If you feel that way, what is the point of the Vow of Poverty feat?It lets you fine tune, at least to an extent, the level of weakness. In general, I'm a fan of more options even if I'm not going to personally use them.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 11:41 AM

No, I can't agree with your distinction; Continually also means that it often often: "continuing indefinitely in time without interruption; recurring in steady usually rapid succession"

The first (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/continual) definition is the one I posted. Secondary definitions frequently become ascribed to words through repeated incorrect usage that fall into common parlance. Continual is not (or should not be) a synonym of continuous.

Note the example they use - continual bus departures. A bus that departed continuously would be rather ridiculous, as it would never actually arrive anywhere. But a continual departure instead means an often-repeated event - like being lied to.

Which segues back to the topic at hand.

No, I can honestly say that I am not continually lied to by the people that I trust. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but it's a fairly rare thing, and it is in no way comparable to the pattern of lying of Lycan's theoretical Factotum's group toward his theoretical VoP group member.

The naive, unworldly ascetic is a very common archetype, and that is no doubt the trope Lycan was referring to. It's not hard to imagine a single-minded VoP monk or druid being taken in by a slick Factotum, both from a narrative perspective and a mechanical one, given his obscene ranks in obfuscatory skills.

But also from a narrative perspective, the Factotum should not get away with it; either he should come to see the error of his ways on his own (or via the Exalted characters shining example), be caught in the act by his party members or, if they're all in on it, should not adventure with the Exalted character for long. Even if he suspects nothing himself, his very Vow should look askance at adventuring with such opportunists, and a reasonable DM would find a divine way of appraising him of the danger before it's too late.

That's not projecting, at least, not the way I'm using the term: projecting one's personal opinions on to other people

As I said to Aldizog, that's really a two-way street, applying every bit as much to Exalted characters as it does to jerks.

Even the supposedly personal vows can have serious ramifications for others. Vow of Purity? Yes, you can touch a companion's corpse to resurrect it, but what if you need to carry it? You can't always take the luxury of performing a raise right in the dragon's den, or evil crypt, middle of the highway etc. You also have to touch corpses for spells like Gentle Repose that don't raise the body, but help you get it to the priest that CAN raise him and happens to not be right next to you. How about Vow of Obedience? That one works fine, until your superior ends up dominated, or just plain becomes a jerk. Vow of Abstinence rules out stimulants - so much for that Haste potion, now you're too slow to save your companion from falling off that cliff.

Personally I wouldn't want to play with a player would take an OOC reason to make an example of another player either. They're just not the sort of human being that I want to associate with.

I respect your decision but not the reasons behind it. The "sort of human being" that can have a bias but keep it in check is the kind I want to play with, because that's the kind of person I deal with all the time.

Realistically, an Exalted character should have to deal with people like this. What's the point in setting such a high standard if it's never challenged?

You're not punished by the existence of VoP in any way. If you want to play that concept, and the downsides of VoP make it unplayable for you, then don't use it, but play your concept anyway.

This I agree with wholeheartedly, but the feat is what started this entire debate, not the concept.

Indon

2009-12-22, 11:43 AM

If you go back and read Indon's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7552463#post7552463), the post where you copy the "Is it really so hard" bit from... it's really plain to see that he's pointing out how it's important to consider everyone's perspectives, since he touches on that a bit when he talks about suggestions for "fixing" it so that's it's not mechanically weak. It's heavily weighted toward his own opinion, but it's phrased as "here are reasons that people feel this way"

Personally I find the fact that you copied him really ironic, since your response is the antithesis of what he posted... you're stating your opinion as if it were the universally held opinion.

Not even that, really. I'm not arguing that VoP is a mechanical powerhouse or that everyone should use it, or that it's particularly powerful outside of a few specific situations (which others have mostly covered).

I guess I should have quoted a couple examples of the specific, extremely bad arguments that I was thinking of and obliquely referring to when I made those comments.

I'll do so now.

The Vow of Poverty is more like a tradesman who has taken a vow to sell his tools, yet still practices his craft. In other words: an idiot.

worse. the craft in question is saving other peoples lives, if you're thinking about VoP then you're auto-uber-good. taking it means you are less good at helping others, it is a gimp and one you don't actually need to take, there is a perspective from a moral philosophy standpoint that making suboptimal choices in character is a failure to protect others, you've chosen to suck... which loses you all exalted feats.... like dragon disciple but with more threads about it.

The concept that it's somehow bad roleplaying to pick non-optimal character options demonstrates a complete failure to understand How Roleplaying Works. Human beings - or characters of any race - are not necessarily perfectly rational beings who always take the optimal options towards a given objective. Instead, they have opinions, and emotions, and heaven forfend (presumably through making Exalted feats mechanically suboptimal), beliefs.

I doubt Pharaoh disagrees with my point with its' context clarified.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 12:03 PM

The naive, unworldly ascetic is a very common archetype, and that is no doubt the trope Lycan was referring to. It's not hard to imagine a single-minded VoP monk or druid being taken in by a slick Factotum, both from a narrative perspective and a mechanical one, given his obscene ranks in obfuscatory skills.
But both the classes you mention are known for having high Wisdom scores, generally held to be a measure of intuition and common sense. Wise adventuring ascetics bring to mind Obi-Wan Kenobi or Kwi Chang Kaine.

Even the supposedly personal vows can have serious ramifications for others. Vow of Purity? Yes, you can touch a companion's corpse to resurrect it, but what if you need to carry it? You can't always take the luxury of performing a raise right in the dragon's den, or evil crypt, middle of the highway etc. You also have to touch corpses for spells like Gentle Repose that don't raise the body, but help you get it to the priest that CAN raise him and happens to not be right next to you. How about Vow of Obedience? That one works fine, until your superior ends up dominated, or just plain becomes a jerk. Vow of Abstinence rules out stimulants - so much for that Haste potion, now you're too slow to save your companion from falling off that cliff.
Now that's reaching. Any build and any character can have instances in which they're less effective. Dumping Str makes one just as incapable of carrying that corpse. Playing a slower race makes one just as incapable of saving that companion. Playing the "wrong" class can make one unable to help in a given situation. The impact of those personal vows is minor. Only Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence actually push you to change the way the other PCs act.

Obedience, hmm... it doesn't quite affect the other PCs the way that Peace does, but might result in the character with the vow sitting out a given adventure. And it certainly offers plot hooks. I think, as with the Kensai, a party would only be comfortable with a member who had a sworn loyalty to a particular lord or order if they, the party, had at least some trust in that lord or order. So not only would you want party acceptance of you having the vow, but of to whom you have that vow. And of course, as with all the vows, trust that the DM won't abuse this vow to make the game less fun for all involved.

I guess I see a difference between "My character is going to disrupt this game by causing intra-party conflict based on attitudes" and "My character is going to disrupt this game by not being perfectly optimized and therefore possibly marginally less likely to save your character's life at some point in the future." The first one can be simple rudeness, or it can be an opportunity for great drama if the introduction has the approval of the other players. Vow of Peace can fall into that category, as could the thief stealing from other PCs. The second one I don't see as disruptive at all.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 12:25 PM

But both the classes you mention are known for having high Wisdom scores, generally held to be a measure of intuition and common sense. Wise adventuring ascetics bring to mind Obi-Wan Kenobi or Kwi Chang Kaine.

Right, which is why they will invariably uncover the deception eventually (narratively, or mechanically via Sense Motive.)

Now that's reaching. Any build and any character can have instances in which they're less effective. Dumping Str makes one just as incapable of carrying that corpse. Playing a slower race makes one just as incapable of saving that companion. Playing the "wrong" class can make one unable to help in a given situation. The impact of those personal vows is minor. Only Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence actually push you to change the way the other PCs act.

It's not a reach at all, nor is it minor. Isn't carrying a corpse (or even casting GR on it) a perfectly reasonable thing to expect to have to do in a D&D game? So now you have the choice, by your own actions, of being forced to violate your vow or being completely ineffective because of a feat. Note also, that voluntarily touching that body makes you LOSE the feat FOREVER, do not pass Go, do not cast Atonement. Period.

Being too weak lift a corpse, by contrast, might not even be your fault (strength-drained, already encumbered.) If you voluntarily dumped strength, one would hope you planned for it ahead of time (Bag of Holding, Handy Haversack) or did it for a casting class that has spells. VoPu has no such excuse, and DM dickery isn't even necessary.

Jayabalard

2009-12-22, 12:39 PM

The first (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/continual) definition is the one I posted. Secondary definitions frequently become ascribed to words through repeated incorrect usage that fall into common parlance. Continual is not (or should not be) a synonym of continuous.Your link has 2 definitions; both of them refer to being often, unbroken, or rapid occurrences; "of regular or frequent recurrence; often repeated; very frequent: continual bus departures. ". Something that happens continually does not happen infrequently.

Continual and Continuous both come from the same root, from the Latin continuus meaning uninterrupted. Trying to paint them as totally different ideas where one bled into the other is not correct. They both mean something very similar, things happening with no break, or such small breaks as to be insignificant.

As I said to Aldizog, that's really a two-way street, applying every bit as much to Exalted characters as it does to jerks.To my knowledge, noone in this thread has stated otherwise.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 12:39 PM

It's not a reach at all, nor is it minor. Isn't carrying a corpse (or even casting GR on it) a perfectly reasonable thing to expect to have to do in a D&D game?
Whenever anybody introduces a new character to a party in which you have a PC, do you consider that they are disrupting the game and reducing your enjoyment if they choose to play a character that cannot carry your corpse in the event that might be needed? Small characters, elderly or weak characters, or those with religious taboos (such as a wu jen or a Vow of Purity character)?

That +4 bonus against death effects might keep them alive in a critical battle and in turn enable them to save your life. Who knows? You can play what-if forever and figure out situations in which a given build isn't going to be as optimal for your character's survival as something else might have been. But introducing a PC with a different set of abilities isn't remotely comparable to introducing a PC that you know will be disruptive based on attitudes.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 01:02 PM

Your link has 2 definitions; both of them refer to being often, unbroken, or rapid occurrences; "of regular or frequent recurrence; often repeated; very frequent: continual bus departures. ". Something that happens continually does not happen infrequently.

I know it has two definitions. Generally when someone says "first," it means the example they are referring to isn't the only one.

I never said anything about continual events being infrequent; quite the opposite in fact. Such as.... being lied to, which I consider a pretty frequent event for anyone.

Moon's made of green cheese. Oh look, I did it to you again.

Continual and Continuous both come from the same root, from the Latin continuus meaning uninterrupted. Trying to paint them as totally different ideas where one bled into the other is not correct. They both mean something very similar, things happening with no break, or such small breaks as to be insignificant.

So they share a root, what's your point? Gynecologist and Misogynist share one too, that doesn't make them synonyms.

I'm not here to debate semantics with you anyway.

To my knowledge, noone in this thread has stated otherwise.

The problem here is a double-standard - sticking an Exalted character into a clearly non-Exalted group is a matter of "roleplaying preference," but rolling up a character who wants to take advantage of that Exalted character is somehow bad form.

My point is they are both equally bad, if they are not cleared with group beforehand. Neither concept is inherently better than the other.

Whenever anybody introduces a new character to a party in which you have a PC, do you consider that they are disrupting the game and reducing your enjoyment if they choose to play a character that cannot carry your corpse in the event that might be needed? Small characters, elderly or weak characters, or those with religious taboos (such as a wu jen or a Vow of Purity character)?

If I had agreed to it beforehand, I wouldn't consider it disruptive at all. But you can be damn sure I wouldn't be happy if when I died, the DM looks at his notes and says "oh by the way, Pete, remember you can't touch him," and he's the only one left that can carry me, and I had no knowledge of this beforehand. I might have played more cautiously if I knew that this guy would be useless in getting me back to the cleric (VoPu), or I'd know not to count on him to be able to quaff a potion to buff himself (VoA).

That +4 bonus against death effects might keep them alive in a critical battle and in turn enable them to save your life. Who knows? You can play what-if forever and figure out situations in which a given build isn't going to be as optimal for your character's survival as something else might have been. But introducing a PC with a different set of abilities isn't remotely comparable to introducing a PC that you know will be disruptive based on attitudes.

Conflict is only disruptive if not planned for. Assuming that a PC geared towards conflict will automatically disrupt your game is assuming that the player behind him is not a skilled roleplayer. That's just as judgmental and insulting as preventing players from playing Exalted characters for the same reason.

Serenity

2009-12-22, 01:09 PM

Is Vow of Poverty an optimal feat? No. A character fully able to use his Wealth By Level will ultimately be better off. But to compare it to 'cutting your arms off with a rusty chainsaw' is overstating the case by several orders of magnitude.

You could argue that it's selfish to go adventuring with a Vow of Poverty not represented by the feat as that would indeed be the equivalent of an unarmed commoner trying to fight the Gods. But with the feat, your AC, AB, and stats all rise just as if you had access to magical weapons, armor, and stat boosters (heck, in the case of the monk, his AC at least will be far better off, since he gets armor bonuses he couldn't otherwise get). In terms of straight ability to hit, do damage, and not be hit yourself, the VoP character is no worse off than the guy without it. Likewise, he gets many miscellaneous benefits which emulate the effects of magical gear, most of which are indeed desirable. The major weaknesses of Vow of Poverty are its lack of customizability--the massive number of Exalted Bonus feats aside, you cannot choose your benefits as a character using his WBL can--and more specifically its lack of flight--which, y'know, is what you have a party Wizard for--and the fact that Exalted feats offer no possibility for atonement.

Vow of Poverty is certainly not uber, but it's nowhere near unusable. Don't take it if your DM makes Paladins fall for fun, or to play in a decidedly non-Exalted party, or if you need to squeeze every last drop of optimization out of your character. But if you want to play an ascetic, the feat makes it possible in a relatively playable way--and if you're in a situation where the party is getting lower than recommended Wealth by Level, the Vow can really shine.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 01:13 PM

Conflict is only disruptive if not planned for. Assuming that a PC geared towards conflict will automatically disrupt your game is assuming that the player behind him is not a skilled roleplayer. That's just as judgmental and insulting as preventing players from playing Exalted characters for the same reason.
Okay, bad phrasing on my part that time. Introducing a Vow of Peace character, or a paladin, or a thief who wants to steal from the other PCs, is generally going to create at least some kind *conflict* (not necessarily disruption if it is well done).

So I should have said "introducing a PC with a different set of abilities isn't remotely comparable to introducing a PC that you know will create conflict based on attitudes."

Choosing to play a character with a different set of abilities (Vows of Poverty, Purity, Abstinence, Chastity) is no different than playing a character of a particular race or class or a different set of ability scores or items. That Vow of Purity character might be of more use to the party in some circumstances, and worse in others. Just as if the same player had decided to play a halfling scout instead of an orc barbarian.

Some Vows impose restrictions on what other PCs can do. Most only limit what the PC with the vow can do, and every decision a player makes for his PC limits their abilities in some way, generally at a tradeoff.

Indon

2009-12-22, 01:40 PM

...the massive number of Exalted Bonus feats aside, you cannot choose your benefits as a character using his WBL can...

This is actually a subtle flaw of VoP. Well, actually, two subtle flaws.

1.)You gain a lot of Exalted bonus feats with VoP. I mean, a lot. There are a lot of Exalted feats, but most are of the 'you are of X class you can benefit from X Exalted feat' line, meaning that most characters are going to run out of good Exalted feats for themselves entirely.

2.)You don't gain Exalted bonus feats for levels you didn't have VoP. This is just problematic for bookkeeping, as well as being screwy for balance - an aescetic of level 20 that started at 20 needs the bonuses of VoP just as much as the level 20 who took VoP at 1 with the human bonus feat.

Myrmex

2009-12-22, 01:51 PM

{Scrubbed}

Jayabalard

2009-12-22, 02:00 PM

Moon's made of green cheese. Oh look, I did it to you again.Sorry, but yuo don't fall into the category of "people I trust with my life" so that's not really all that relevant.

So they share a root, what's your point? Gynecologist and Misogynist share one too, that doesn't make them synonyms.Actually, parts of those words are synonyms, it's the prefix/suffix that makes them different. Continuous and continual don't have prefixes/suffixes that affect thier meaning, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

The problem here is a double-standard - sticking an Exalted character into a clearly non-Exalted group is a matter of "roleplaying preference," but rolling up a character who wants to take advantage of that Exalted character is somehow bad form.I think you're arguing against a straw man here. I don't really think anyone has suggested that you should play an exalted character in a group without talking about it with that group.

My point is they are both equally bad, if they are not cleared with group beforehand. Neither concept is inherently better than the other.Not at all. You're comparing apples to fruitbats.

One is a jerkwad player, who is intentionally being disruptive by creating a character designed specifically to take advantage of another character; getting upset at them is totally within reason.

The other is someone who picks a certain set of game limitations which the party has to deal with their limitations. Getting angry at them is like getting angry at someone for having a low str, or being a fighter and not being able to resurrect you. Getting upset at them is absurd.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 02:08 PM

Sorry, but yuo don't fall into the category of "people I trust with my life" so that's not really all that relevant.

You didn't qualify "people you trust with your life," you merely said you aren't frequently lied to as a counter to Pharoah's use of "All." So it stands.

Actually, parts of those words are synonyms, it's the prefix/suffix that makes them different. Continuous and continual don't have prefixes/suffixes that affect thier meaning, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

Sure they do - "-ous" and "-al".

I never understood that phrase - apples and oranges are both fruit, after all. Shouldn't it be apples and volkswagens?

I think you're arguing against a straw man here.

And I don't. *shrug*

Not at all.

One is a jerkwad player, who is intentionally being disruptive; getting upset at them is totally within reason.

Conflict is not automatically disruptive by itself. Assuming it is, is an absolute that defeats the purpose of roleplaying.

The other is someone who picks a certain set of game limitations which the party has to deal with their limitations. Getting angry at them is like getting angry at someone for having a low str, or being a fighter and not being able to resurrect you. It's absurd.

Now that's a strawman. A fighter is never expected to resurrect anyone.

If that same fighter dumped strength and dex solely for his "concept," then you'd have a good reason to be mad at him.

Okay, bad phrasing on my part that time. Introducing a Vow of Peace character, or a paladin, or a thief who wants to steal from the other PCs, is generally going to create at least some kind *conflict* (not necessarily disruption if it is well done).

On the other hand, choosing to play a character with a different set of abilities (Vows of Poverty, Purity, Abstinence, Chastity) is no different than playing a character of a particular race or class or a different set of ability scores or items. That Vow of Purity character might be of more use to the party in some circumstances, and worse in others. Just as if the same player had decided to play a halfling scout instead of an orc barbarian. It's not remotely the same as the other cases.

Ah, but now you're talking about completely different circumstances. What you've just described is a difference of role - you wouldn't expect the halfling scout to be frontlining, any more than you'd expect the orc barbarian to be sneaking ahead looking for traps.

To contrast, a Vow does not depend on your role - they are simply feats, and thus can be taken by anyone. Some classes do better with some vows than others, but situations like the ones I described (e.g. with Gentle Repose, or carrying a body) can happen to any player of any role, and don't occur to some players at the time they take the feat in question. They just look at their class as a whole and see if the Vow can work.

A Vow is thus easier to misuse, because using it effectively requires the oathsworn to plan ahead for all manner of situations that could cause him to break it inadvertently. As written, the game does not care whether you meant to do it or not, and BoED flat out tells the DM not to cut the player any slack because the benefits are so powerful.

They aren't just hard for you to plan around either. A Vow, unlike a Strength score or a class choice, is not a standard part of the D&D game. If I'm a Scout who dumped strength, everyone else in my party will know intuitively what I can do, and what I probably won't be able to do. The specifics of a Vow are far more esoteric, both those that cause it to be broken, and the benefits gained from its use.

I'm not saying Vows shouldn't be used at all, but these are all considerations that are not apparent at first glance.

My point has been that the Vows are NOT all the same in their potential for disruption. Some impose restrictions on what other PCs can do. Most only limit what the PC with the vow can do, and every decision a player makes for his PC limits their abilities in some way, generally at a tradeoff.

I agree, but Vows are a very special type of restriction. They cannot be circumvented in any way, or they lose their meaning - both metaphysically, or literally.

I can make a character with low strength as per your example, but there are a dozen ways around that limitation - extraplanar storage space, summoning something up to carry things (or corpses) for me, buffing my strength magically, just plain using spells to do my heavy lifting and transportation, etc.

I can't "cheat" VoP like that. My only ways around it are my own spells (which themselves are very limited - no costly material components, no holy symbol, not even a spellbook for a prepared caster) or those of my companions, who now have to use their magic to compensate for my deficiencies as well as their own. Whether the benefits are worth it depends on the specific challenges we're up against as a team. And it's not the only Vow like that - I've already discussed some of the drawbacks that can arise with the "personal" vows.

Roland St. Jude

2009-12-22, 02:12 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 03:37 PM

They aren't just hard for you to plan around either. A Vow, unlike a Strength score or a class choice, is not a standard part of the D&D game. If I'm a Scout who dumped strength, everyone else in my party will know intuitively what I can do, and what I probably won't be able to do. The specifics of a Vow are far more esoteric, both those that cause it to be broken, and the benefits gained from its use.

Okay, so a major concern of yours is information. You like to have pretty complete information about what your fellow PCs can and cannot do. If they tell you their class and level (and possibly their spell lists), and you know what items they have, you can plan accordingly. Same for taboos (Vows, Wu Jen, etc.), but the problem is those tend to not be immediately obvious.

I can see the argument for that kind of campaign. I can also see the argument for alternative models (and have been in games, particularly with old-school wargamer types, in which character sheets were kept secret).

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 03:54 PM

To reiterate a point I made earlier in the thread, I think the Vows as written are a little too heavy-handed. BoED seems cognizant of this; it asks DMs not to put Exalted characters in "choosing the lesser evil" situations, and only to subject them to suffering for their purity in the short term. ("Let Heroes be Heroes, pg. 20.)

I think Lycan's character could easily fall under this "short-term" type of suffering, and that bringing the DM and the other players in on the joke would, rather than being disruptive, add dimension to an Exalted game beyond simply being of Good alignment; provided, of course, that the Exalted player would later have the satisfaction of seeing the source of his irritation either redeemed or punished. Should the DM fail to ensure that outcome, then I agree that this would result in disruption.

I'm going to take a step back from the thread at this point, both in light of Roland's warning and the unfortunate consequences that can result from overly heated discussion.

Okay, so a major concern of yours is information. You like to have pretty complete information about what your fellow PCs can and cannot do. If they tell you their class and level (and possibly their spell lists), and you know what items they have, you can plan accordingly. Same for taboos (Vows, Wu Jen, etc.), but the problem is those tend to not be immediately obvious.

I can see the argument for that kind of campaign. I can also see the argument for alternative models (and have been in games, particularly with old-school wargamer types, in which character sheets were kept secret).

Even without having access to my character sheet, other characters in the game can at least know what I'm capable of physically. If I'm constantly struggling with my lightly-burdened pack, then I'm either weak or a very dedicated actor. So they wouldn't expect me to grab a shield and hold the line, and thus would not plan around that.

That is a very reasonable and IC way to look at your fellow party members, whether character sheets are freely available for perusal or not.

Vows, on the other hand, are completely invisible unless mentioned. The only marks of someone with an Exalted Feat is that they have an extremely strong good aura (for alignment detection purposes) and that they are capable of feats that ordinary people should not be (such as the VoP character walking through fire with no spells or magic items active.)

But even if the capabilities of the vows can be discerned through observation, the requirements are much harder for teammates to discover, and plan around.

Grumman

2009-12-22, 07:12 PM

Now i'm not sure to follow your reasoning.
If I want to give away my items for "role-playing", I'm nerfing myself, the same if I stab myself in the face.
No! I'm saying that your character, by wanting to give away all his items, is nerfing himself. A character who wants to learn to dodge better is not deliberately trying to nerf himself, even if the ruleset makes such a choice suboptimal.

It's not me, it's not you. A feat "Vow of stabbing yourself in the face" could exist, but in the moment it exists, better to have a mechanical reason to justify his existance (heck, there's also a PrC "I took away my eye for Gruumsh").
I'd call it a "Gruumsh will give me power if I prove my devotion" PrC. The self-mutilation is just a means to an end, which has nothing to do with being Good.

PA and dodge are both things that should make you a better fighter, but one works, while the other don't. Mechanically, they should be on the same level.
VoP should give you something better than what you're losing, or it's a senseless choice.
If the VoP gave you something better than what you're losing, charity is no longer a good act. It no longer actually reflects any willingness to risk or sacrifice anything for the good of others, since you can have your cake and eat it too, and get extra cake as a reward. Good and Evil only work if Evil gives you nicer things than Good does. Otherwise, being Good does not require anything beyond a desire for the most plusses, and being Evil means you're neglecting the things that Evil characters are supposed to care most about.

Stycotl

2009-12-22, 08:42 PM

{Scrubbed}

so, you––the player––feel personally slighted because someone makes a suboptimal choice in the game that makes their character somewhat less powerful. this then makes you feel justified in taking your OOC resentment and using it to cause IC problems?

i am having a hard time understanding the mentality behind this, so help me out. if you personally don't like the dm, do you feel that this justifies you purposefully making a train wreck of his game? if you really hate one of the players at a gaming table, does that justify creating intercharacter conflict? even if you can provide IC justifications?

further, if i choose to play a monk, am i nerfing myself sufficiently that you as a player become incensed and decide that i should suffer for my decision, or that i should feel bad for it?

this earlier quote of yours seems to say that this is how you would feel.

{Scrubbed}

i keep seeing this kind of ridiculous attitude on the gaming forums, and all i can say is that i have been damned lucky not to have had to deal with it with the people that i have gamed with throughout the years.

goes to show that picking your friends well, and then gaming with them instead of complete strangers is a wise tactic if you wish to enjoy the gaming experience.

as samb says:

This is a slippery slope you are threading Lycan. Deeming your own teammate as an acceptable target just because he doesn't play the way you feel he should is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

To expand on your ideas, I can't buy items that don't increase my bonuses, and if I even mention it you will rob me? Sorry but I don't want others telling me how to play my PC and I don't want someone cheating me. If I feel like spending my loot to feed the poor then that's what I'll do, screw you and you elitism.

i certainly feel that lycan would not fit in with the groups that i game with, with a philosophy like the one that he espoused.

Then again, the BoED is all about stupidity in over- under-achievement.

i won't argue with this; the book really is quite weak in almost all aspects. so, let's fix it instead of complaining about it and maligning those that are trying to use it as is.

Er, no. VoP is mechanically a poor choice because you're giving away all your useful stuff - it's your own fault if your character's self-destructive choices aren't rewarded with gifts of equal value.

Giving up material possessions is nice when you live a calm, normal life. When you are out in the world, fighting monsters trying to destroy everything, you'll want all the help you need, including very big weapons, wands, rings, etc.

on the contrary, it is when the world is crashing down around you that philosophy and religion become heavily accented, important concepts. if the philosophy that you adhere to includes some kind of asceticism, more power to you. even in wartime.

the problem is that the mechanics of the feat are crappy, not that the idea itself is bad. the whole purpose of asceticism is to get rid of the clutter and materialism that clouds minds and weakens souls. by all regards, in a fantasy environment, the vow of poverty should idealistically make one stronger than the normal pc (or at least equal to, if we want to promote the competition of different moral paradigms). that wizards of the coast failed to recreate that philosophy is again, a mechanical error––not an error in the idea itself.

There's a lot of projecting going on here

i'm not sure that you're using the term, projecting, in its clinical definition.

many people are considering Lycan's IC treatment of the VoP character so utterly heinous that they wouldn't even want to game with him as a player as a result of them, simply because he has both IC and OOC reasons to want to make an example of the oathsworn person.

first of all, i don't think anyone has made any statements that approach "utterly heinous," though i certainly feel it to be a breach of common sense, common courtesy, and the general cooperative attitude that is needed for a successfully fun game.

I'm merely pointing out a simple truth - that OOC justifications are irrelevant if the character (a) has an IC justification for his behavior, and (b) is willing to accept IC consequences for his actions.

bull. OOC justifications are still OOC justifications. if you would not cause interparty conflict, except for the fact that you can't stand the guy sitting next to you at the gaming table, then you are deluding yourself into thinking that you can find IC justifications.

for one, as has been mentioned before, and as you agreed to about the intent of someone to run an exalted character, there needs to be some consensus before conflict is introduced into the party dynamics.

i am all for party strife, if it is collaboratively orchestrated by the players and the dm, and if all are on board. it does add to a level of realism, and can make the roleplay aspect much more exciting, memorable, and deep.

that is not what lycan was promoting, or what you were defending. lycan was promoting the idea that because he resents something that the *player* did, he will punish the guy by hurting his character in the game.

good luck trying to collaborate with the group on some drama based off of that.

next, even if you lie to the group and neglect to mention that your desire for intercharacter conflict is actually based off of OOC resentment, good luck in your attempt to do it without your real life issues bleeding through into petty bickering.

further, if you do collaborate with them on the conflict, it kind of defeats lycan's purpose of punishing and being unfair to the target of your anger, since he is now in on the planning process.

i don't think that you guys have begun to think this through all the way...

I respect your decision but not the reasons behind it. The "sort of human being" that can have a bias but keep it in check is the kind I want to play with, because that's the kind of person I deal with all the time.

and this is what baffles me; i don't understand how you think that passive-aggressive OOC-IC conflicts are somehow keeping a bias in check.

in my mind, the sort of human being that can keep his bias in check is the kind that could overlook another player's decision to use a self-nerfing game option, because he realizes that everyone is entitled to their own game style, and some people are in it for the story and the fun experience, rather than playing a batman wizard out of fear of not being as powerful as they could have been.

If that same fighter dumped strength and dex solely for his "concept," then you'd have a good reason to be mad at him.

this also baffles me. why on earth would you have "good reason" to be mad at someone for gimping their own character? if they made the decision to gimp your character, i could understand, unless it was an in-game situation.

but since it isn't, then i think that this is totally ridiculous.

it comes down mostly to individual style and group style, but i have a hard time seeing your mentality as desirable in a *roleplaying game* where you are trying to put yourself into the position of something generally novel and unique.

if i wanted to play a ranger instead of a wizard, or a fighter instead of a wizard, you'd feel that i was giving you a justifiable reason to be mad at me? if i wanted to spend my loot on a sailing ship for my future cargo shipping dreams of entrepreneurship, you'd get angry? if i wanted to play an archer that was succumbing to old age and couldn't even draw his bow anymore, you'd be pissed at me?

maybe it is just the fact that i have played games other than just d&d, and that i have played other editions than just 3.5, or maybe it is merely a side effect of being older than most of you (i wonder where i would have sided on this issue 10 years ago...), but i don't see the desire to be less than optimized as a punishable offense.

in some other games, there are entire rulesets for playing paraplegic or quadriplegic characters, or for the chronically sick and frail.

in fact, some of the best characters in fiction, and some of the most entertaining and satisfying roleplaying characters to play, have all had incredible handicaps that certainly could be the focal point for extra story drama and/or intercharacter conflict, but for one of you to get pissed because someone would want to play something like this?

i think that some of you have missed the boat as far as roleplay experience is concerned.

there is nothing wrong with optimization, and it can actually make some games more enjoyable. but optimization for its own sake alone is empty and pointless, and passive-aggressive anger directed at someone that doesn't want to optimize their character into the best foe-killer that they could be (anything less than wizard), is similarly empty and pointless.

Hold on now, that's a two-way street. Unless the entire party is Exalted, every Exalted feat does exactly that to the other players.

this has already been covered, and i agree with its reasoning.

It really depends on the campaign.

If the campaign is USING the BOED, it is implied that, due to the nature of the book and its content, there will be a decent chunk of morality based RP, players being extra good, etc...

The problem comes when the BoED mechanics, classes, and feats, are separated from the underlying assumptions of the book, and viewed first as gameplay mechanics on their own, and only later as a mechanical facilitation of a particular type of character.

in that same respect, if you walk into a normal game with a normal mix between opitmized and suboptimized characters, and expect that everyone is going to optimize according to your taste, you are causing problems.

deciding that suboptimization is a sin worthy of OOC resentment and IC punishment would be along the lines of causing problems in that arena.

Arakune

2009-12-22, 08:51 PM

This is generally where I come down on the subject.

Vow of Poverty isn't about making an awesome powerful character. It's about making a character who forgoes material wealth for religious reasons, at least vaguely playable.

The one VoP character I played - a Monk named Mordechai, back when BoED first came out - was the second-favorite character I've ever played. He was also, mechanically, the weakest. Where he did excel was at out-of-combat situations. He had the Leadership feat (with a cohort that was better in battle than he was) and max ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive. It worked out well, because the campaign contained a good mix of social and combat situations.

As for what he did with his share of the wealth? He set up a charitable fund at the local moneychangers' office*, the proceeds of which went to fund a string of vocational schools for the city's orphans. The "Morcechai School for kids who want to read good (and do other stuff good too)" became so famous throughout the region that there were rumors of parents abandoning their children just so they could get an education there.

* - having known and been related to some people IRL who have actually taken a vow of poverty: such a vow absolutely does not mean that you are terrible at managing money or picking funds. It just means that you don't own much/any of it yourself. (Mordechai also had quite a few cross-class ranks in Appraise, and some of his followers were accountants).

Wasn't DIPLOMACY and LEADERSHIP some of the most broken aspects of the game? Even with a reasonable DM, the game starts to break down after a while...

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-22, 09:00 PM

so, you––the player––feel personally slighted because someone makes a suboptimal choice in the game that makes their character somewhat less powerful. this then makes you feel justified in taking your OOC resentment and using it to cause IC problems?
When did Optimystik do any of that?

i am having a hard time understanding the mentality behind this, so help me out. if you personally don't like the dm, do you feel that this justifies you purposefully making a train wreck of his game? if you really hate one of the players at a gaming table, does that justify creating intercharacter conflict? even if you can provide IC justifications?
As far as I can tell from the Lycanthromancer posts that started all this, there is no OOC motive. When did that enter the discussion? Lycan was roleplaying his factotum, in-character, and creating dramatic tension, in-character; thereby making a deeper plot, in-character. If the intercharacter conflict turns into interplayer conflict, that's bad. But it never turned into interplayer conflict. People just assumed it did.

further, if i choose to play a monk, am i nerfing myself sufficiently that you as a player become incensed and decide that i should suffer for my decision, or that i should feel bad for it?
We're talking in-character. Stop metagaming. If you decide to play a monk, as far as your character can tell, that's not a nerf. If you, in-character, decide to take equipment away from the party, an act that will likely jeopardize the party's important heroic quest; that's bad (in-character). My character, if he objects to that, has the right to stop your character from taking the equipment; and your character has a right to try to stop my character.

that is not what lycan was promoting, or what you were defending. lycan was promoting the idea that because he resents something that the *player* did, he will punish the guy by hurting his character in the game.

Could you explain how Lycan's posts imply that? Because I didn't read anything of the sort when viewing that text.

and this is what baffles me; i don't understand how you think that passive-aggressive OOC-IC conflicts are somehow keeping a bias in check.
I don't understand where you see a passive-aggressive OOC-IC conflict.

this also baffles me. why on earth would you have "good reason" to be mad at someone for gimping their own character?

The player is forcing your character to give an equal share of treasure to this incompetent "fighter", which forces you to break character, thereby making you enjoy the game less. Of course, in this particular scenario; somebody has to get the short end of the stick. Most people would side with the fighter.

if i wanted to play an archer that was succumbing to old age and couldn't even draw his bow anymore, you'd be pissed at me?
My character might be pissed at your character. OOC I'd be nice and chummy because you're a friend.

maybe it is just the fact that i have played games other than just d&d, and that i have played other editions than just 3.5, or maybe it is merely a side effect of being older than most of you
What the !%#$ sort of argument is this? You're accusing people of myopia and immaturity just because? I'm almost definitely younger than you, but you can't just assume that sort of stuff. This is almost personally offensive.

I'm not sure I should butt in, but I'm looking at posts based on logical premises that are wildly divergent from what I'm seeing. This troubles me.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 09:13 PM

As far as I can tell from the Lycanthromancer posts that started all this, there is no OOC motive. When did that enter the discussion? Lycan was roleplaying his factotum, in-character, and creating dramatic tension, in-character; thereby making a deeper plot, in-character. If the intercharacter conflict turns into interplayer conflict, that's bad. But it never turned into interplayer conflict. People just assumed it did.
No. Lycan specifically mentioned wanting to introduce a factotum if somebody else was playing a VoP character, for the purpose of stealing from the VoP character (no mention that this actually happened). Choosing what character you wish to bring into a game is a player decision, since the character doesn't exist until he's introduced into the game. Choosing to create a character that will cause conflicts with other PCs can be okay if and only if you've discussed it with the other players and they are looking forward to this dramatic tension being part of the game.

If you, in-character, decide to take equipment away from the party, an act that will likely jeopardize the party's important heroic quest; that's bad (in-character). My character, if he objects to that, has the right to stop your character from taking the equipment; and your character has a right to try to stop my character.
No, if my character is entitled to his share of the treasure (divided according to whatever rules the party uses), then he is free to do whatever he wants with it, whether that means giving it to the poor, spending it in bars and brothels, or buying powerful new weapons. Unless you have some party compact that states that the party as a whole will decide how the treasure is spent for the good of the party.

The player is forcing your character to give an equal share of treasure to this incompetent "fighter", which forces you to break character, thereby making you enjoy the game less.
Then petition your party to agree to divide treasure according to kills or something. From your character's point of view, a fighter that is incompetent due to bad die rolls or a bad build by a novice player is no different than one that is incompetent due to intentional gimping by the player. So if you would rather not break character, then you should treat those equally and only be concerned with the outcomes -- what they actually accomplish that your PC can perceive.

Optimystik

2009-12-22, 09:25 PM

Let's stay calm, guys. This thread is already on notice, after all.

@ Stycotl - you seem to be misunderstanding my perspective. When I speak of "getting angry" I'm not referring to myself as a player; I'm referring to my character's emotions, who would have every reason to get angry at the oathsworn buffoon who has forbidden himself from touching my dead body even to carry it, or forsworn himself from drinking potions so that the rest of us need to take extra care saving spells for him; just like my character would be annoyed with the frontline fighter who had dumped strength and dex, and therefore could barely lift his sword or aim a bow.

Again, these are the feelings of my character, not me.

I've said more than once in this thread that I would enjoy playing at a table with an Exalted character, no matter how exasperated my character would end up with them. I would also enjoy being that Exalted character, and being initially taken advantage of by my supposedly more worldly companion(s), so long as the narrative allowed me eventually to turn the tables. (Again, through making him/them see the error of his/their ways, turning the party against the lone miscreant responsible, or having a very cathartic and satisfying break with the group to keep my vows, followed by rolling up a less restricted character.)

And so many IC justifications start from OOC ones that I find it strange you take issue at this one. If I roll up a Beguiler, it's because I, the player, want to be tricky and engage in some espionage. If I roll up a barbarian, it's because I, the player, want a much more straightforward bash-fest. I'm not in character when I make either of those decisions, because I have no character yet. Similarly, Lycan's statement was an expression of his, the player's, desire to make a character that could take an Exalted VoP character for a ride.

You're opposing that idea on its face without even taking the time to see whether it could actually work in a gaming sense. I don't think that assumption - that none of the players at that table, including the ones most involved with the conflict, have the maturity to roleplay it properly - is fair to anyone involved.

Stycotl

2009-12-22, 09:51 PM

I'm not sure I should butt in, but I'm looking at posts based on logical premises that are wildly divergent from what I'm seeing. This troubles me.

what troubles me is that you have apparently not even taken the time to read through the thread before making your conclusions. and you want to discuss logical premise?

When did Optimystik do any of that?

optimistik didn't. lycan did. pay attention to the quote tags and you'll stay ahead.

As far as I can tell from the Lycanthromancer posts that started all this, there is no OOC motive.

as far as you can tell? go back a few pages; for crying out loud, it's been quoted nearly a dozen times, even once in my last post.

When did that enter the discussion?

when lycan told us that he took OOC umbrage with character choices. it was pretty specific.

Lycan was roleplaying his factotum, in-character, and creating dramatic tension, in-character; thereby making a deeper plot, in-character. If the intercharacter conflict turns into interplayer conflict, that's bad. But it never turned into interplayer conflict. People just assumed it did.

it started out as OOC conflict, which he specifically mentioned as justifying IC conflicts.

We're talking in-character. Stop metagaming.

this is not even worth responding to if you are not going to bother reading the thread before jumping in. i am not metagaming. in fact, i am arguing against just that from happening.

If you decide to play a monk, as far as your character can tell, that's not a nerf. If you, in-character, decide to take equipment away from the party, an act that will likely jeopardize the party's important heroic quest; that's bad (in-character).

that is not what VoP is doing. i am not taking loot away from you if i take the vow. i am taking it away from me. you are arguing up multiple wrong trees.

if you really can't stand the thought of players investing in stuff other than combat-specific treasure, then you play a waaaaaaay different game than i do.

My character, if he objects to that, has the right to stop your character from taking the equipment; and your character has a right to try to stop my character.

if i take a VoP and you try to stop me from giving my rightfully earned loot to the poor, you deserve to get whatever divine retribution is coming to you.

worse, if you can't see (you as in player, OOC) the logic to this, then you deserve whatever real life social drama is coming to you.

Could you explain how Lycan's posts imply that? Because I didn't read anything of the sort when viewing that text.

the posts are still there, my friend...

I don't understand where you see a passive-aggressive OOC-IC conflict.

when i see players become OOC angry because of IC or OOC issues, and then suddenly become both OOC and IC hostile and uncooperative in response to the situation, i tend to think passive aggressive.

when a person decides not to confront an issue, but would rather deflect, evade, and approach it from a "secret" or hidden angle, that is called passive aggressive behavior.

it is one of the underlying problems for when one player decides to kill someone else's character because in real life, they hate the player.

this is a similar situation. the definitions are all online for your individual perusal.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=96685

The player is forcing your character to give an equal share of treasure to this incompetent "fighter",

...

i don't think you are arguing about the same situation that you are quoting. we are talking about a fighter who has low dex and str in this scenario, not the vow of poverty.

if you are implying that the gimped fighter is forcing other players to give him loot that he does not deserve, because of his gimped status, then you are back into the arena of roleplay with purposeful consequences to IC challenges, and hopefully with some player-dm and player-player collaboration.

not to mention the fact that you are ignoring any possible alternative sources of power, that might not necessarily need high strength or dexterity, even for a fighter.

either way, this has nothing to do with the question that i asked; you are straying from the issue.

which forces you to break character, thereby making you enjoy the game less. Of course, in this particular scenario; somebody has to get the short end of the stick. Most people would side with the fighter.

sigh. you are meandering down paths that are truly different from any that i can connect to the quoted conversations. i am not really sure what you are talking about now, so i will leave this alone.

My character might be pissed at your character. OOC I'd be nice and chummy because you're a friend.

great. that is not what we are talking about.

What the !%#$ sort of argument is this?

it wasn't an argument. it was an observation attached to my argument. feel free to refute it or agree with it, but try to label it correctly.

You're accusing people of myopia and immaturity just because?

no, i am not, and certainly not "just because." this is either a straw man argument or another tangential deflection.

i am not accusing anyone of anything; i am arguing the idea that it is ridiculous to get mad at people in a normal game consisting of normal variances of optimization levels, if they do not optimize to the utmost.

I'm almost definitely younger than you, but you can't just assume that sort of stuff. This is almost personally offensive.

i'm not assuming anything, and if you want to read offensive material into a benign post, feel free. doesn't ruin my day any.

i am most definitely older than the average poster on giantitp; i have no doubt of that whatsoever. there are those here that are older even than i, but they are not as many as those that are younger.

i am more than free to question whether that has anything to do with my outlook as opposed to that of lycan and optimistik, and if you choose to become offended by it, you are looking for offense where none was intended. that would be your issue.

further, the rest of the observation was that i have played many different games, some of which are developed with little to no treasure acquisition, as opposed to d&d, and little to no combat, as opposed to d&d, therefore requiring little to no combat optimization––again, as opposed to d&d.

those that have only played d&d therefore, are most definitely of a different mindset than those that have not, regarding treasure, combat, and combat optimization.

owing to the fact that this site's specialty is d&d, i am going off of the hunch that most of the players here play d&d, and that this is the game that has been shaping their roleplay philosophies.

see where i am going with this?

all in all, before losing the intent of the original observation, i am simply trying to figure out what it is that causes this kind of roleplay disdain, optimization-for-its-own-sake worship.

in most of life's disagreements, it can be chalked up to simply two ways of looking at things, both of which have equal merit. it is possible that this is one of them, ut i tend to be skeptical of that idea as regards scorning suboptimization in roleplay. it is after all, roleplay, not the original mario brothers.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-22, 09:52 PM

maybe it is just the fact that i have played games other than just d&d, and that i have played other editions than just 3.5, or maybe it is merely a side effect of being older than most of you

The above text is condescending at best.

Randalor

2009-12-22, 09:55 PM

I might be missing something, but arn't people who are saying that VoP is an "OMGHorriblzfeat" going a bit extreme? I mean, your character can still use simple weapons, there's nothing stopping you from carrying a dead companion and his gear until you get to town (the feat says that you may not use or own material possesions other than the bare-bone necessities, nothing preventing you from holding onto a team-mate's gear because he's currently unable to himself) and, in all honesty, is every piece of treasure absolutly vital? So you agree to split the treasure, the VoP character either takes the items the party can't use, or his share in gold, and donates that when he gets back to town.

Is it a good feat? No, because I'm the type of person who hoards gold for the simple fact that he likes gold *to the point of selling gems to a town shop, only to break in that night and re-steal them back, before leaving town as fast as possible... long story, town shafted us on previously agreed reward, I got my revenge and split it with the party.* But is it as bad as people make it out to be? No. I would say it's good if you want to try something new (though maybe lighten the "You lose this feat" restrictions to just having to repent in some form) or you're playing in a party of mixed-experienced players and want to make sure that you don't overshadow the less-experienced players.

Aldizog

2009-12-22, 09:56 PM

Tavar

2009-12-22, 09:57 PM

Some of the other exalted feats are also being brought in, thus some of the other restrictions.

jokey665

2009-12-22, 09:57 PM

Without actually reading much of this thread, here's some thoughts about VoP, as my current group is using it. The party is level 8, and here's the party makeup: VoP Venerable Human Druid, VoP Lesser Aasimar Soulknife/Ranger/Soulbow, VoP Elan Erudite, Elan Wizard, Incarnate Construct Mineral Warrior Warforged Barbarian (lol).

Overall, the party feels balanced. The soulbow/barbarian are pulling their weight, and the druid/erudite/wizard aren't really stealing the show (especially not the wizard...). To be honest, VoP feels very balanced to me. The three VoP characters don't really feel any different than the two non-VoP characters, though it is pretty interesting having over half the party just not have any use for gear besides donating it. My party isn't made up of huge optimizers, though they do try and can do a pretty good job of it when they put their minds to it. The druid player is the biggest optimizer in the group, which is odd considering this is his first character that isn't build for straight melee damage.

I have no qualms with VoP, it's working great for my group for the characters that are using it; it gets them some nice bonuses even if they could have nicer things from gear. The non-VoP characters' gear isn't making them shine brighter than the VoP characters, and everything is working out great for us.

Hopefully that was coherent, though I'm not actually sure I made any good points.

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-22, 10:03 PM

what troubles me is that you have apparently not even taken the time to read through the thread before making your conclusions. and you want to discuss logical premise?
I'm not sure that I can reasonably believe that I didn't read the thread. Because, you know, I'm a first-hand witness.

when lycan told us that he took OOC umbrage with character choices. it was pretty specific.
We're looking at the same text. We're reading completely different meanings.

if i take a VoP and you try to stop me from giving my rightfully earned loot to the poor, you deserve to get whatever divine retribution is coming to you.
I may very well be playing an irrational character. I may very well not mind seeing my character being divinely hated

worse, if you can't see (you as in player, OOC) the logic to this, then you deserve whatever real life social drama is coming to you.
I'm playing D&D the way I want to play. If my actions are offensive to the players around the table, I will change course. If you think that I deserve social ostracism for this, my opinion of you is dim.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=96685
TY for the link

i'm not assuming anything, and if you want to read offensive material into a benign post, feel free. doesn't ruin my day any.
You're right; I'm sorry for assuming offensive intent on your part.

all in all, before losing the intent of the original observation, i am simply trying to figure out what it is that causes this kind of roleplay disdain, optimization-for-its-own-sake worship.
That's what we're talking about? I thought we were talking about a specific scenario involving Lycanthromancer. If we're talking about disdain of roleplay and worship of optimization, I don't have anything to say, because I don't see any disdain of roleplay in this thread.

it is after all, roleplay, not the original mario brothers.

What do the Mario brothers have to do with anything?

I will leave the argument now. I apologize if such action is insensitive; but I'm damn tired. Sorry for stirring up trouble.

Randalor

2009-12-22, 10:07 PM

The dead body thing was a side discussion about Vow of Purity.

Yes, vow of purity is stupid. Granted, some of the Vows arn't so bad if you absolutly need that +4 perfection bonus (Vow Of Abstinence/Chastity. How hard is it to RP NOT having a drink/sex?) though alot of the Vows seem to be more based on what kind of campaign you're playing, rather than generalized campaigns (Fighting against a Zombie apocalypse? Vow of Peace doesn't seem quite so bad when you're almost guarenteed no living opponents... okay, it's still not good, but still...)