PDA

View Full Version : VoP: Worthless?



Melamoto
2009-12-29, 04:13 PM
I am aware of the general consensus that Vow of Poverty sucks. And for the most part, I can see why. But why is it so bad that characters who take it, at the midlevels and later, are "unplayable"? How are they really all that crippled? I can understand against flying enemies there are major issues, but what about every other kind of enemy? You can still use weapons, you can still cast spells, and as far as I am aware there is nothing saying you need magic items to deal decent damage. Most optimization comes from builds, not items, so what is it that cripples them so horribly?

dyslexicfaser
2009-12-29, 04:16 PM
Not worthless, just suboptimal. At the 15-20 range, the bonuses you get from VoP just don't measure up to the massive amounts of WBL you receive.

Someone proved it mathematically, though I don't have a link handy.

Draken
2009-12-29, 04:18 PM
Well. As far as I know, VoP is not worthless or unplayable.

It is merely subpar, when compared to the option, which is the astonishing versatility of magic items.

Thing is, everything VoP does, magic items can do and can often do better. I also believe there have been calculations of the total "worth" of VoP in GP and that these turned out to show that if you took the benefits granted by it and got them through magic items, you would have spent less gold than the recomended wealth by level.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Bayar
2009-12-29, 04:19 PM
I am aware of the general consensus that Vow of Poverty sucks. And for the most part, I can see why. But why is it so bad that characters who take it, at the midlevels and later, are "unplayable"? How are they really all that crippled? I can understand against flying enemies there are major issues, but what about every other kind of enemy? You can still use weapons, you can still cast spells, and as far as I am aware there is nothing saying you need magic items to deal decent damage. Most optimization comes from builds, not items, so what is it that cripples them so horribly?

That sword costs gold so you cant wield it, that spell component pouch costs gold so you cant use it, those spell components cost gold so you cant cast spells, those thieves tools cost gold and frankly a thief with no gold sucks...

mostlyharmful
2009-12-29, 04:20 PM
if you're melee then being unable to fly makes you a mook. really nothing more, just a guy with a stick while actual builds bounce around doing things.

If you're a caster other than a Sorc you've gimped yourself on components, crafting, extra utility in backup items, focusses and such. Divine focusses have worth by the way so Clerics need to give up feat choices to get around that.

if you start being set against things that can planeshift, bind outsiders, recruit armies of minion/whatevers you're screwed.

really it's a subpar feat rather than a complete gimp so long as you've got the right build but it shuts down a huge range of options whatever you've got.

Studoku
2009-12-29, 04:21 PM
VoP can be useful in games where players have significantly less wealth than the wealth-by-level guidlines.

Otherwise, spending money on magic items to get the same or more useful bonuses is better.

Samb
2009-12-29, 04:21 PM
Actually, I don't agree with you. Items should come into play when it comes to optimization which is why VoP is just so blah.

Nothing in the rules of min/max'ing does it say you don't factor in items..... so not having them would clearly make you not that good.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 04:26 PM
VoP, off the top of my head, gives you 100 gold of mundane items not including a component pouch. A fighter with VoP would not be able to wear heavy armor, forced into medium Scale if he didn't want a ranged weapon or hide if he did. A rogue with VoP would be wearing studded leather, fighting with two daggers and barely be able to afford a crossbow plus arrows. Not to mention that any two-weapon wielder has a greatclub or worse.

Comparatively: A sorcerer/wizard/cleric/druid/primary-spellcaster-yes-even-the-warmage will still tear your face off.

VoP actively harms melee types while doing nothing to close the gap between casters and melee.

Mongoose87
2009-12-29, 04:30 PM
I guess you could say it's a "poor" choice.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-29, 04:30 PM
VoP, off the top of my head, gives you 100 gold of mundane items not including a component pouch.

No.

It gives a specific list of things you can own - a spell component pouch, a wooden holy symbol, a simple, mundane, nonmasterwork weapon, normal clothes (no armor) and enough food to last for one day. And a few cheap mundane items, like a bowl or something.

That's it. 100 gp is hardly 'poverty'.

(Note that it says nothing about a spellbook - a Wizard with VoP is screwed.)

Edit: No holy symbol?! Well that sucks. I guess VoP really is entirely for Druids.

Signmaker
2009-12-29, 04:30 PM
No, but I highly advise that you look at what's commonly considered 'lacking' in VoP users and fix that through non-gear methods before you actually take it. Seeing the number of VoP threads out there, you'll have plenty of material to sift through.

Draz74
2009-12-29, 04:31 PM
VoP, off the top of my head, gives you 100 gold of mundane items not including a component pouch. A fighter with VoP would not be able to wear heavy armor, forced into medium Scale if he didn't want a ranged weapon or hide if he did. A rogue with VoP would be wearing studded leather, fighting with two daggers and barely be able to afford a crossbow plus arrows. Not to mention that any two-weapon wielder has a greatclub or worse.

I don't know where this strange recurring notion of 100 gp comes from ... there is absolutely no such thing in Vow of Poverty.

Vow of Poverty precludes owning armor, at all. Though that's actually not a big problem considering the massive AC bonuses it gives you.

The Rogue can easily have as many daggers and crossbows and bolts as he wants. Simple weapons (nonmagical, nonmasterwork) are allowed regardless of cost.


No.

It gives a specific list of things you can own - a spell component pouch, a wooden holy symbol,

Edit: Yuki, you may have ninja'd me, but I can correct your inaccuracies! A holy symbol (wooden or otherwise) is sadly not one of VoP's allowed items. It should be, but it isn't. Clerics with VoP are kinda screwed that way (not as bad as a Wizard, but still ...)

Kylarra
2009-12-29, 04:32 PM
That sword costs gold so you cant wield it, that spell component pouch costs gold so you cant use it, those spell components cost gold so you cant cast spells, those thieves tools cost gold and frankly a thief with no gold sucks...Incorrect.

You may carry and use simple weapons (non magic/non mw) and you can use a spell component pouch (as well as substitute 1xp per 5gp of more expensive components).

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 04:33 PM
what is it that cripples them so horribly?Generally it's people exaggerating for effect; for the people not exaggerating, I'm convinced that they generally play in games that are significantly higher than the average power level.

Edit: this is specifically the people who label it worthless rather than just sub-par.


if you're melee then being unable to fly makes you a mook. really nothing more, just a guy with a stick while actual builds bounce around doing things.That's really rather game specific; it's only true if a good portion of your enemies can fly and the rest of the party cannot make it so that you fly, which may or may not be the case.

DragoonWraith
2009-12-29, 04:33 PM
Vow of Poverty burns a feat to make you weaker than you were before. A "worthless" feat would waste a feat slot not giving you anything, but VoP doesn't even do that, making it worse than worthless.

"Suboptimal" means, to me, that it helps you, but not as much as another (the optimal) choice might. Saying VoP is suboptimal is like saying stabbing yourself in the face is suboptimal. Suboptimal is not the appropriate description, though, of course, it is true - it is very definitely less than optimal. But that doesn't begin to describe exactly where it stands.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-29, 04:34 PM
Vow of Poverty burns a feat to make you weaker than you were before. A "worthless" feat would waste a feat slot not giving you anything, but VoP doesn't even do that, making it worse than worthless.

To be fair it gives you bonus feats, so "it costs a feat" is a nonissue if you were planning on taking a ton of exalted feats anyway.

Bayar
2009-12-29, 04:34 PM
Incorrect.

You may carry and use simple weapons (non magic/non mw) and you can use a spell component pouch (as well as substitute 1xp per 5gp of more expensive components).

Hmm....dont remember this rule.

Kylarra
2009-12-29, 04:37 PM
Hmm....dont remember this rule.

p30, BoED under the heading "Other Ramifications of Poverty"

Alternatively, an ascetic spellcaster can sacrifice experience points in place of expensive components, with 1 XP equivalent to 5 gp value of components

Pluto
2009-12-29, 04:38 PM
If you're planning on roleplaying a character who follows similar bizarre restrictions anyway, it's certainly a step up from having nothing.

But if you want to optimize, yeah, it's [generally] rubbish. Real WBL can provide everything the Vow does (well, your primary stat might be 2 points behind) and much more. Remember that you're trading all your useful weapon effects (Wounding, Magebane, Holy, etc.) and all your miscellaneous boosts (Wings of Flying, Boots of Speed, Wands of Wraithstrike and Knight's Move, etc.) for effects you can usually get at very low cost elsewhere (a couple pearls of power gets you Superior Resistance, Magic Vestment and GMW/F, 16000 gp gets you a +4 stat enhancement).

This makes certain assumptions about the game: that Wealth By Level guidelines are followed or that one or more party members take to item crafting or that you can cast spells and provide the effects for yourself. VoP can be worthwhile if none of these are true (which is rarely the case: if you aren't getting magic items from your DM, it's clearly beneficial to craft them yourself and if you don't want to do that, it's clearly beneficial to be able to provide the effects yourself).

Of course, there are exceptions to the "VoP sucks" rule like taking VoP immediately after spending all your late-17th level wealth on grafts, sparring dummies, permanent stat increases, et cetera, but those are typically highly abusive and aren't usually the sorts of things people talk about when referring to the feat.

Also, VoP requires being Exalted. That's suboptimal enough to make me think twice before entering Fist of Raziel.

edit:
VoP isn't worthless.
It's just worth far less then WBL.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 04:38 PM
Vow of Poverty burns a feat to make you weaker than you were before. That's simply not true.

With vow of poverty you are a guy with no items and less bonuses than you would have if you had items.

Without vow of poverty you are a guy with no items and less bonuses than you would have if you had Vow of poverty.

Aldizog
2009-12-29, 04:39 PM
I think it's a fine feat and the drawbacks are not as great as feared. D&D is not about PvP arenas. The flight drawback is the most commonly cited one; but in actual games, party members are normally quite happy to cast Fly or Air Walk on one another when it's needed. At least, that's been my experience.

The bonuses are also immune to Disjunction, Sunder, Chained Dispel, rust monsters, ethereal filchers, theft, and every other risk to which magic items are subject. The Exalted feats can be quite nice, although eventually you will run out of useful ones for your PC.

You certainly can keep and use a spell component pouch, and there is a special provision for dealing with particular components that have a GP cost.

The vow also offers a lot to players who have gotten sick of the time and attention required to optimize magic item loadout; searching splatbooks, finding magic shops, haggling with merchants, "advising" the DM about WBL, and so on. VoP is "Okay, I can just not worry about that in the least, and still have my numbers be basically where they're supposed to be."

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 04:40 PM
I don't know where this strange recurring notion of 100 gp comes from ... there is absolutely no such thing in Vow of Poverty.


..., off the top of my head, ...

Emphasis mine. I didn't care to look it up, since I already knew it did not help non-casters in any way and casters still have MAGIC! to fall back on.


That's it. 100 gp is hardly 'poverty'.

What constitutes poverty in the law of magic anyway? When Boccob, the guy who determines the laws, is dealing in the trading of souls, wishes and physical representations of concepts then I'd think utilizing gold of any sort would be considered poverty.

One of those: "Ew, you still use gold? What kind of Plane do you come from?"


Generally it's people exaggerating for effect; for the people not exaggerating, I'm convinced that they generally play in games that are significantly higher than the average power level.

Edit: this is specifically the people who label it worthless rather than just sub-par.

I'd suggest looking at the responses of the two people who bothered looking it up(Yuki and Draz). When your cleric is unable to prepare spells, your wizard lacks his spellbook and you actually used two of your feat slots to do it? It's certainly not helping you.

mostlyharmful
2009-12-29, 04:41 PM
That's really rather game specific; it's only true if a good portion of your enemies can fly and the rest of the party cannot make it so that you fly, which may or may not be the case.

not in my experience, whether it's fly, burrow, swim, dimdoor, ethereal, invis, hide/MS boosting items, Phantom Steed, whatever there's ways and means of making movement important. VoP cuts you off from all kinds of ways of controlling who you can fight and whether they can just flat ignore you.#

Say you're a melee build with a single simple weapon, you're confrounted by a guy with WBL, what's the bet that he'll have SOMETHING up his sleeve to render you impotent?

Kobold-Bard
2009-12-29, 04:44 PM
Hmm....dont remember this rule.

IIRC its a general rule that the VoP user can make use of, but I might be wrong.

VoP isn't terrible, just awkward for most characters.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 04:52 PM
I'd suggest looking at the responses of the two people who bothered looking it up(Yuki and Draz). When your cleric is unable to prepare spells, your wizard lacks his spellbook and you actually used two of your feat slots to do it? It's certainly not helping you.I'd suggest that you look up the definition of the word "generally" and realize that offering a particular counterexample doesn't actually show anything about the feat being "worthless" in general, just for that particular example.

I also don't see either of them actually referring to the feat as "worthless" just giving examples of classes that are screwed, which just means that those classes are an extremely poor fit for the feat. Yuki even offers a very minor defense of it when someone is exaggerating the problems with it.


not in my experience,Yes, well, that's pretty much a textbook example of "That's really rather game specific" ... you only play in the games that you play in, so your experience doesn't really say anything about other people's games.


whether it's fly, burrow, swim, dimdoor, ethereal, invis, hide/MS boosting items, Phantom Steed, whatever there's ways and means of making movement important. VoP cuts you off from all kinds of ways of controlling who you can fight and whether they can just flat ignore you.That's a very different statement from "If you're melee then being unable to fly makes you a mook."


Say you're a melee build with a single simple weapon, you're confrounted by a guy with WBL, what's the bet that he'll have SOMETHING up his sleeve to render you impotent?it varies a lot, game by game, depending on what sort of items are available, how much your party helps you overcome those limitations. It's not really too different from a melee with standard WBL who doesn't have access to magic item shops, so they have an assortment of whatever random items they could find (rolled for or chosen by the DM) rather than some sort of optimal set of items.

deuxhero
2009-12-29, 04:55 PM
Not worthless, just 80% or your worth that is permanently locked into what it can do.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-29, 04:57 PM
Not having a holy symbol isn't a huge loss to a cleric - he can still prepare spells. He just can't cast any spell that requires a divine focus.

The druid's fine, though. He can just use holly or mistletoe, or some other holy plant appropriate to his area, which he can pretty much pick right out of the ground most of the time.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 04:57 PM
I'd suggest that you look up the definition of the word "generally" and realize that offering a particular counterexample doesn't actually show anything about the feat being "worthless" in general, just for that particular example.

So the feat isn't worthless, except for the fact that a fighter doesn't get armor, the rogue doesn't get thieves tools, the cleric can't revive anyone, the wizard can't cast spells, no one has a two-handed weapon that can overcome DR/slashing, the ranger doesn't even get a bow(crossbows only!) and the only classes unaffected are the druid and monk?

I'm sorry, I guess 'generally' means 'any example that upholds my opinion'. In the future, I'll try and remember my English classes.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 04:58 PM
Not having a holy symbol isn't a huge loss to a cleric - he can still prepare spells. He just can't cast any spell that requires a divine focus.

He also cannot turn undead, but I suppose you're right. It would, however, make resurrection magic ridiculously expensive.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 04:58 PM
Not having a holy symbol isn't a huge loss to a cleric - he can still prepare spells. He just can't cast any spell that requires a divine focus.I seem to recall someone mentioning a way around that, something that costs additional feats.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 05:00 PM
I seem to recall someone mentioning a way around that, something that costs additional feats.

The XP:GP ratio is only for material components. Which means Raise Dead now costs a level off the guy being revived plus 1,000 XP from the cleric.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-29, 05:00 PM
Clerics with the Animal or Plant domains should totally be able to use holly or mistletoe.

Actually, most clerics should be able to use 'natural' divine focuses.

Not as a way to help out VoP Clerics. I just think it's a cool idea.

The Glyphstone
2009-12-29, 05:00 PM
Not worthless, just 80% or your worth that is permanently locked into what it can do.

And the other 20% is locked into doing absolutely nothing, because it doesn't exist even in the form of passive bonuses.

Talya
2009-12-29, 05:02 PM
It's just worth far less then WBL.



While VOP is still generally suboptimal (especially in games where the world is treated like a giant magic item walmart), this is not true. +8 enhancement bonus to an ability score alone is worth 640,000 gp (epic magic items, SRD). And don't give me any of that "It's only +6 enhancement bonus and +2 inherent bonus" stuff, nothing prevents a VOP character from also getting inherent bonuses. It requires more working, but chances are an exalted type character is working with other exalted aligned characters who can either cast Wish/Miracle for them or loan them a manual/tome (which is an expendable item like a potion, and therefore allowed by the rules of VOP if given them by another character), and even if not, can buy such services with the goodwill they acquire (part of the rules in the book) by donations of their loot to churches. A level 20 VOP character should have +5 inherent bonus AND +8 enhancement bonus to their primary ability score. There are a few builds that can really make use of VOP for some neat optimization...and in games with even slightly limited gear option (for instance, anyone who sanely decides not to allow the wildshape gear shuffle or "Wilding pins" or whatever their called), VOP can even become a very powerful optimization tool.

In general, however, the purpose of VOP is not to optimize, but to make the option of an aescetic character even viable.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 05:02 PM
Not having a holy symbol isn't a huge loss to a cleric - he can still prepare spells. He just can't cast any spell that requires a divine focus.

I would describe that as a relatively huge loss.

First off, VoP is exalted. This traps your character into a rather specific alignment slot, and if you stray from that, becomes even more of a dead weight than in otherwise is. Likewise, it adds restrictions to that. Violate them, and you are suddenly now poor AND lacking in ability.

Secondly, they provide you with benefits that are worth only a fraction of the WBL they cost you. For a great many classes, these costs also break class features.

I would frankly never even consider VoP unless I was playing a squeeky clean good character in an extremely low wealth campaign, and had chosen one of the few classes not crippled by it(ie, basically druid). It really isn't useful in anything approaching standard D&D.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 05:04 PM
Clerics with the Animal or Plant domains should totally be able to use holly or mistletoe.

Actually, most clerics should be able to use 'natural' divine focuses.

Not as a way to help out VoP Clerics. I just think it's a cool idea.

I agree, if the cleric has the animal or plant domain. But why, pray tell, would a sprig of holly or mistletoe work for a Cleric of Boccob? Or, for that matter, Tiamat? What about the irony of a cleric of Baldur using mistletoe?

Talya
2009-12-29, 05:07 PM
I would frankly never even consider VoP unless I was playing a squeeky clean good character in an extremely low wealth campaign, and had chosen one of the few classes not crippled by it(ie, basically druid). It really isn't useful in anything approaching standard D&D.


Check out the bard build linked in my signature! (Even without the vow of nudity homebrew, it's rather fun.)

Flickerdart
2009-12-29, 05:10 PM
VoP isn't a feat you take so your character can get better, it's a feat you take so that the archetypal ascetic is playable at all. It's better than nothing, it lags far behind magic items.

Talya
2009-12-29, 05:11 PM
VoP isn't a feat you take so your character can get better, it's a feat you take so that the archetypal ascetic is playable at all.

You were ninja'd!

Draz74
2009-12-29, 05:12 PM
So the feat isn't worthless, except for the fact that a fighter doesn't get armor,
Meh, doesn't need it. The feat gives him an armor bonus comparable to what his armor would have given him anyway. Except, I guess, when you consider high-level armor with nifty enhancements (Fortification, Soulfire, Greater Blurring ...)


the rogue doesn't get thieves tools,
Meh. Eat the -2 penalty for improvised tools, or get the skill trick that negates said penalty. Or get a Minor Creation ability somehow (e.g. from a party member) and create thieves' tools on the spot whenever you need them. (I'm pretty sure VoP doesn't care about you "owning" temporary magical creations.)


the cleric can't revive anyone,
Why? :smallconfused: Most healing spells are even the ones that don't require a Divine Focus.


the wizard can't cast spells,
But the Sorcerer can.


no one has a two-handed weapon that can overcome DR/slashing
I missed the part where the whole party has to take Vow of Poverty together.


the ranger doesn't even get a bow(crossbows only!)
True. Archers are poor candidates for the feat. As are Rangers in general (archery or otherwise).


and the only classes unaffected are the druid and monk?

Ironically, it's been argued that Monks are hurt more than most by taking VoP. I can't remember why, though, other than the flight thing.

Druids (and Psions and Incarnum classes) are definitely the best candidates for the feat, though.

Flickerdart
2009-12-29, 05:13 PM
You were ninja'd!
Was I? Accursed luck!

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 05:14 PM
a fighter doesn't get armorThis was mentioned and I seem to recall that the counter was that it's not a big issue due to the bonuses from VoP


the rogue doesn't get thieves toolsImprovised tools at –2


the cleric can't revive anyoneI'm not entirely sure that's true;


the wizard can't cast spellsUnless they have some way to prepare spells without a spellbook, but generally, yes, that's a class that's really screwed


no one has a two-handed weapon that can overcome DR/slashingGame specific issue, only comes into play if you face such enemies, and noone else in the party can deal with the problem. I also wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there was a feat somewhere that could be used to deal with that specific lack.


the ranger doesn't even get a bow(crossbows only!)Yup, it's bad for the bow wielding archetype


I'm sorry, I guess 'generally' means 'any example that upholds my opinion'. In the future, I'll try and remember my English classes.I don't see it as worthless for any of the ones you mentioned other than wizard (and arguably cleric). I'm sure there are plenty of other archetypes that fit VoP badly. Certainly, it offers penalties in many cases, which means it's decidedly sub-optimal, but worthless does not really seem accurate.

Talya
2009-12-29, 05:17 PM
I'm not entirely sure that's true;


Since a holy symbol is just a nonmagical simple peice of artwork, and can be drawn on the sand you are standing on, etched into a simple wooden weapon (explicitly allowed to be carried by VOP) with a sharp rock, or tatooed on your palm and be just as effective in all situations as the actual 100 gp silver version, I'd say it's not true.

arguskos
2009-12-29, 05:17 PM
Wait wait wait. We're complaining that the WIZARD, the Breaker of Games, is nerfed by a single bad feat? THE SCANDAL!!


:tongue:

On topic now, it's fairly clear that Vow of Poverty is a sub-par feat in most cases, but you can make something that is fun and functional from it, if you aren't too tied into the idea of being mechanically superior to all theoretical characters at all times. Seems simple enough to me.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-29, 05:23 PM
I agree, if the cleric has the animal or plant domain. But why, pray tell, would a sprig of holly or mistletoe work for a Cleric of Boccob? Or, for that matter, Tiamat? What about the irony of a cleric of Baldur using mistletoe?

...I meant, you know, different ones. Like, a cleric of Boccob could use some sort of naturally-occuring magical substance. Or something. Or a spellbook (although that's even more expensive).

mostlyharmful
2009-12-29, 05:36 PM
Yes, well, that's pretty much a textbook example of "That's really rather game specific" ... you only play in the games that you play in, so your experience doesn't really say anything about other people's games.

Because I don't play lots of games, have done so for a decade, talked to people about it and hang out on internet forums..... ok. 'game specific' doesn't really enter into it once you've played in two games with the same rules. it really really doesn't when every source you've got access to over years at a time are in perfect agreement on this if nothing much else (I agree that's not the case here just that ruling that personal experience can never be used as a convincing argument is a fairly unfair position).


That's a very different statement from "If you're melee then being unable to fly makes you a mook."

not really, movement modes are the primary objection to VoP. Flying is the most obvious, commonly cited one.


it varies a lot, game by game, depending on what sort of items are available, how much your party helps you overcome those limitations. It's not really too different from a melee with standard WBL who doesn't have access to magic item shops, so they have an assortment of whatever random items they could find (rolled for or chosen by the DM) rather than some sort of optimal set of items.

yup, games where you can never have access to decent options your WBL is less efficient than it could be but there's plenty of options below full megimart that'll give you access to items that give you options you'll never get through VoP.


I seem to recall someone mentioning a way around that, something that costs additional feats.

that'd be me. Faiths of Eberron gives you the one that lets your own body count as a holy symbol.

Kallisti
2009-12-29, 05:39 PM
Here you go, people who are arguing about fighters who get no weapons or armor with VoP. I looked it up for you. You're welcome.


To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothing (usually just a homespun robe, sometimes including a hat or sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch. You may not use magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf--you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, recieve a spell cast from a staff, wand, or scroll, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a staff, wand, or scroll.

So there you have it, folks. No weapons except one simple weapon. No armor. Yes spell component pouch. No 100 gp limit. And you cannot borrow cloaks of resistance.

Why they felt the need to prohibit cloaks of resistance specifically, I will never know.

Signmaker
2009-12-29, 05:49 PM
So there you have it, folks. No weapons except one simple weapon. No armor. Yes spell component pouch. No 100 gp limit. And you cannot borrow cloaks of resistance.

Why they felt the need to prohibit cloaks of resistance specifically, I will never know.

Example text.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 06:08 PM
Why they felt the need to prohibit cloaks of resistance specifically, I will never know.

"...or any other magic item."

The example chosen was to prove that it's not just "triggered" items, would be my guess, or even very magical ones.

Note that Apostle of Peace, though also following VoP, is able to overcome this limitation.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:12 PM
"...or any other magic item."

The example chosen was to prove that it's not just "triggered" items, would be my guess, or even very magical ones.

Note that Apostle of Peace, though also following VoP, is able to overcome this limitation.

The "any other magic item" is kinda a killer in general. How does the apostle of peace overcome this?

Eldariel
2009-12-29, 06:15 PM
Quick analysis on VoP.

You give up:
- Two feats
- Ability to use items

You gain:
- Tons of exalted feats
- Numeric bonuses to:
AC
To Hit
Stats
Saves
Energy Resistance
Damage Reduction
- Other bonuses:
Endure Elements
Sustenance
Breathless
Lesser Mind Blank
Freedom of Movement
Regeneration
True Seeing


So, quick analysis of the tradeoffs:
Two feats for tons of exalted feats: Seems like a good idea to start with, and indeed, some builds get more than they give up if they really care for sacred feats. Stuff like Druid, Apostle of Peace and in general, spellcasters can gain some rather useful exalted feats. Melee types, however, gain like...Touch of Golden Ice (excessive rolling galore, becomes "Roll 1 or ignore" rather soon), Intuitive Attack (only few builds want it and they can pick it up anyways) and few random Vows.

Verdict: Personally, I'd prefer two any feats to a ton of Exalted feats since Exalted feats are horribly limited and can only really boost certain types of characters. For some archetypes, this can actually be a beneficial trade, but by and large, this is a losing deal. Note that I'm not accounting for Dark Chaos Shuffle since...well, there are enough reasons everyone's bound to come up with at least one of them.

Numeric bonuses vs. Item Bonuses: It's worth noting that VoP gives you one +8. That's the one major thing about it, one that magic items can't replicate. On the flipside, there's another +6 but rest are +4 and +2. This means that multi-attribute dependent characters will suffer, with bonuses to only one stat early on and only two +6-level bonuses later. Single-ability characters like casters will quite benefit of this though.

Deflection and Natural Armor-bonuses remain under the equivalent items throughout your career and the armor bonus is only equivalent to Bracers of Armor meaning you better have some stat to AC or some such if you're planning to reach an equipped character's AC level. You'll never have a Shield-bonus outside the spell, so you better be a class that couldn't use them anyways.

Resistance-bonuses progress horribly slow; many a level 10 character already has a +5 Cloak of Resistance if they're from a class that doesn't have terribly good base saves, or has sufficient MAD that they'll need the boost. VoP gives you +1 by then.

Energy resistances are rather good, and probably better than non-casters bother having on otherwise, especially since it's global resistance to all elements.

Damage Reduction is /Magic at first in the teens, being utterly useless, but then it becomes /Evil, which would be good if it...y'know, wasn't /Evil. 'cause you usually, on those levels, fight evil things. Like Evil Outsiders and evil Dragons. When you don't, it can be quite beneficial, but much of the time, the things that can threaten you with actual attacks can also penetrate your DR.

Verdict: Numerically, VoP bonuses scale slower than the bonuses you'd be getting from items. Further, you can't customize VoP bonuses to cover for your weaknesses meaning you need to build a character that can compensate for VoP's lack of bonuses, not the other way around. Leaves you with precious few options.

Energy resistances are the single good thing about the feat. Getting them in items would be quite expensive. That said, I don't think they're applicable often enough for it to really be worth it, and they tend to be cheaper to acquire through spells from the party casters anyways.

Other Bonuses vs. Items: Well, you effectively have Ring (or whatever) of Endure Elements, Crystalmask of Mind Shielding, Ring of Sustenance, Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone, Ring of Freedom of Movement, Ring of Regeneration & sorta something like Robe of Eyes.

Of course, you find good stuff in Ring of Sustenance, Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone, Ring of Freedom of Movement and Robe of Eyes. Especially continuous True Seeing is very, very expensive to acquire. What you should also note is what you don't get though: You never learn to fly, teleport, plane shift, take extra actions, hit incorporeals, penetrate DRs, destroy Forcecages or any other number of things. This means you better be a spellcaster. But then you miss out on caster level buffs, metamagic rods, beads of karma and so on; not essential stuff, but useful beyond words. The stuff you get is useful, but lacks tons of essentials regardless of class.

I think at the very least, you should have constant Air Walk near teens, and constant See Invisibility already earlier (True Seeing is nice but comes really late). You also need some trickery to actually get inherent stat bonuses, which really hurts around the time True Seeing comes into play, even with your +8 to a stat.

Verdict: This is really where the biggest weaknesses in VoP are; gaining all the numeric bonuses more slowly sucks, but what really kills it is NEVER getting some very, very useful/important stuff, particularly for non-spellcasters. You get some relatively useful but completely overpriced stuff like Ring of Regeneration and Robe of Eyes which is great, but was counted heavily against your wealth for VoP meaning you miss out on a lot of important things. Ring of Reg is just plain inferior to actual healing (not to mention, it doesn't even give you real Regeneration; you'd expect more with a 90k price tag), UMD or otherwise, and True Seeing while great, shouldn't really cost 120 ****ing k.

dyslexicfaser
2009-12-29, 06:19 PM
A few notes:

Personally, I'd let a cleric or wizard keep their symbol or spellbook, respectively. It doesn't work by RAW, but it keeps things playable.

A fighter is gimped by lack of heavy armor; the armor bonus isn't THAT good. Dexterity-focused PCs that can only wear light or medium armor fare much better.

Monks need items as much as anyone else, perhaps more: they need bonuses for their MAD, they need a way to fly, they need an amulet of natural attacks or a monk's belt or any of a dozen other things.

The problem, feat-wise, is that there simply aren't ten exalted feats worth taking. For any single class, there are MAYBE 3-5 worthy ones. Find me some cool exalted feats (like so (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/DnD_Exalted_Feats)) and I'm much happier about it.

One cool character I never got to really play to my satisfaction (the game folded early) was a VoP Knight. A Longspear is a simple weapon with Reach. VoP gives the freebie feats needed to go Vow of Nonviolence/Peace. Knight's Challenge forces enemies to attack him, where they need a Will save to even do so; a Fort save or their weapon shatters in their hand; and then he locks them in place with Withstand or whatever. He was roleplayed as a half-naked, scarred up, wildman ascetic whose mighty pecs could get the better of swords.

EDIT: Oh, and one person found a way around the loss of item bonuses; take VoP late, after you've eaten as many Tomes or Manuals as you need. You lose the exalted feats, but none of the other stuff.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 06:24 PM
The "any other magic item" is kinda a killer in general. How does the apostle of peace overcome this?

"As part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor)."

So a Cloak of Resistance would qualify. Apostle of Peace, despite lacking all the cleric spells, is actually pretty strong - it's just their restrictive effect on most traditional D&D parties that make them a gamebreaker.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:28 PM
In practice, the only time I've seen it used without gimping characters, we house ruled it to "no magical items. All non magical gear is fine.", and allowed taking of any feats instead of just exalted ones.

It was still weak, mind you, but at least the feat flood helped a bit.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:30 PM
"As part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor)."

So a Cloak of Resistance would qualify. Apostle of Peace, despite lacking all the cleric spells, is actually pretty strong - it's just their restrictive effect on most traditional D&D parties that make them a gamebreaker.

Now, does that specifically negate the Vow of Poverty issue? Because simply not interfering with Apostle of Peace's prereqs doesn't guarantee it won't mess up VoP. A specific exception is needed.

dyslexicfaser
2009-12-29, 06:34 PM
Now, does that specifically negate the Vow of Poverty issue? Because simply not interfering with Apostle of Peace's prereqs doesn't guarantee it won't mess up VoP. A specific exception is needed.
I've heard it said both ways.

Many people don't allow AoP to use protective items for the reason you outlined.

olentu
2009-12-29, 06:46 PM
Oh they can use them the same as any character with vow of poverty could.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:49 PM
Oh they can use them the same as any character with vow of poverty could.

VoP results in losing the benefits of the vow if you intentionally break it. Using "a cloak of resistance or other magic items" is verboten. See above.

So, if they use them, they lose the VoP benefits. They may not lose Apostle of Peace benefits, but that's a seperate matter.

Serenity
2009-12-29, 06:52 PM
Also, Swordsages are pretty good candidates for VoP, since they can use their maneuvers to replicate many relevant effects.

olentu
2009-12-29, 06:53 PM
VoP results in losing the benefits of the vow if you intentionally break it. Using "a cloak of resistance or other magic items" is verboten. See above.

So, if they use them, they lose the VoP benefits. They may not lose Apostle of Peace benefits, but that's a seperate matter.

That is exactly what I mean.

expirement10K14
2009-12-29, 07:58 PM
Clerics: tattoo the symbol of your deity into your skin. Focus.

Wizards: Tattoo spells into your skin. Yes, there is rules for this somewhere (Carc?) and you can get a decent amount of spells if I remember correctly.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 08:04 PM
You *can* get them tattooed on to your skin, yes. Don't see it in complete arcane(though it does have a section on alternative spellbook options, none of them are suitable for VoP types). Don't see anything in Complete mage either. It's terribly familiar though, I know it does exist somewhere.

Problem is, it limits you substantially...I mean, you may as well be a sorcerer if you're going to have harsh limits on spells known.

sonofzeal
2009-12-29, 08:08 PM
VoP is playable at least for Druids and Sorcerers, regardless of level. It's good for Monks at level 1-3 or so, but actually hurts them more than they're already suffering by level 10 or so.

olentu
2009-12-29, 08:10 PM
You *can* get them tattooed on to your skin, yes. Don't see it in complete arcane(though it does have a section on alternative spellbook options, none of them are suitable for VoP types). Don't see anything in Complete mage either. It's terribly familiar though, I know it does exist somewhere.

Problem is, it limits you substantially...I mean, you may as well be a sorcerer if you're going to have harsh limits on spells known.

The tattoo rules are on page 186-187 of complete arcane. Unfortunately I recall that both this and I believe that one alternative class feature from dragon that trades a the familiar for no spellbook require expensive reagents and inks or incenses that might keep either from bring viable. Also the tattoo one might just make your skin into a spellbook that you can not really remove.

JaronK
2009-12-29, 08:24 PM
VoP, like many feats, is only useful for a handful of specific builds designed with it in mind. Generally, that means Druids, a few specific unarmed melees (something involving Kensai, Shou Disciple, Monk, and Unarmed Swordsage would make sense, especially if it involves a lot of attacks. Consider a Feral Half Minotaur Water Orc Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Kensai 7), and not much else. It's also handy in low magic games where your WBL wouldn't be as high as it's supposed to be anyway. But it's definitely not a generic feat that's good for all builds.

JaronK

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-29, 09:10 PM
But it's definitely not a generic feat that's good for all builds.

JaronKFew are. The real issue is that even those builds, you're compensating for the weakness of the feat, not capitalizing on it's strengths. And you still have items like Belt of Battle that you can't duplicate the effects of. Meanwhile, the feats give you almost nothing that you can't get through items.
The items aren't removable, which is great, except how often are you actually put in situations where you don't have items? Most DMs avoid those like the plague.
The +8 to a stat thing is also awesome, except inherent bonuses can do that anyways, and I disagree with Talya about how accessible those are to a VoP character. Yes, the Druid can get them easily, and a Cleric who has the lack of a holy symbol houseruled away can presumably grab them through Miracle, but for a non-caster, the only options are abusing Raw to use a Tome or bribing someone to cast spells on your behalf, both of which seem to go against the spirit of poverty.
Meanwhile, you're not gaining stuff like healing wands, swords of Dragonsbane, or barding for your Animal Companion. It's a drop in power that costs 2 feats. Outside of certain rare circumstances(Celestial Animal Companion can take it, as can NPCs and Druids focused on save DCs), it's a waste for any reasons other than roleplaying.

Telonius
2009-12-29, 09:24 PM
VoP, like many feats, is only useful for a handful of specific builds designed with it in mind. Generally, that means Druids, a few specific unarmed melees (something involving Kensai, Shou Disciple, Monk, and Unarmed Swordsage would make sense, especially if it involves a lot of attacks. Consider a Feral Half Minotaur Water Orc Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Kensai 7), and not much else. It's also handy in low magic games where your WBL wouldn't be as high as it's supposed to be anyway. But it's definitely not a generic feat that's good for all builds.

JaronK

I've heard it's decent with some psionic builds as well, but I'm not very familiar with Psionics.

I think I've said this in every VoP thread that I comment in, but VoP is not about making a super-powerful character. It's about making a character concept that would otherwise be totally unplayable - somebody who's given up material possessions for religious reasons - playable.

Lycanthromancer
2009-12-29, 09:32 PM
Vow of Poverty isn't worthless. It's just worth...less...

[/Bree Vanderkamp]

taltamir
2009-12-29, 09:35 PM
VoP... when your DM has you playing a super ultra low magic world... (no player crafting, no items to be found, no money to be had)

expirement10K14
2009-12-29, 09:37 PM
VoP... when your DM has you playing a super ultra low magic world... (no player crafting, no items to be found, no money to be had)

Or, you know, when you want to roleplay a character that has given up their possessions and instead gives their earnings away to charity, which is what the feat is for.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 09:46 PM
Now, does that specifically negate the Vow of Poverty issue? Because simply not interfering with Apostle of Peace's prereqs doesn't guarantee it won't mess up VoP. A specific exception is needed.

Vow of Poverty is explicitly a Sacred Vow. The exception applies to Sacred Vows. I fail to see the issue.

Also, see the illustration (floating scroll etc.) that the sample AoP uses.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 09:54 PM
Or, you know, when you want to roleplay a character that has given up their possessions and instead gives their earnings away to charity, which is what the feat is for.

you mean to "roleplay" someone who gets magical powers from giving all their magic items to charity.

dyslexicfaser
2009-12-29, 10:07 PM
you mean to "roleplay" someone who gets magical powers from giving all their magic items to charity.
Only if you're cynical.

Otherwise, it's just simulating someone who is an ascetic and is also not useless in D&D's magic item-fueled economy.

Grumman
2009-12-29, 10:08 PM
To be fair it gives you bonus feats, so "it costs a feat" is a nonissue if you were planning on taking a ton of exalted feats anyway.
Yes, but it gives you bonus Exalted feats. Getting bonus Exalted feats for Vow of Poverty is like shooting yourself in the foot and getting rewarded with more bullets.

(Yes, this is a joke. I know it's not technically correct, don't bother pointing out that it is wrong.)

olentu
2009-12-29, 10:10 PM
Vow of Poverty is explicitly a Sacred Vow. The exception applies to Sacred Vows. I fail to see the issue.

Also, see the illustration (floating scroll etc.) that the sample AoP uses.

The quoted text does not seem to give an actual exception without making a derived interpretation of the intent of the rules into a rule which I would say is improper in this situation.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 10:45 PM
The quoted text does not seem to give an actual exception without making a derived interpretation of the intent of the rules into a rule which I would say is improper in this situation.

"They may wear magic items that protect them" is definitely an exception to VoP, which all AoPs have.

olentu
2009-12-29, 10:51 PM
"They may wear magic items that protect them" is definitely an exception to VoP, which all AoPs have.

Any character with the vow of poverty feat may wear items if they wish thus making the apostle of peace no different from normal.

expirement10K14
2009-12-29, 10:58 PM
Why argue over wording? This seems to much like Model UN from my highschool. Move beyond the wording to what is really important- How you DM interprets it. Wearing those items does ruin the idea from a roleplaying perspective though.

Talya
2009-12-29, 11:17 PM
EDIT: Oh, and one person found a way around the loss of item bonuses; take VoP late, after you've eaten as many Tomes or Manuals as you need. You lose the exalted feats, but none of the other stuff.

As I said earlier, a tome or manual is an expendable item, equivalent to a potion in its usage. A VOP character specifically can use a potion that someone else gives them. If you're playing an exalted character, your party are all likely to be do-gooders as well, but a second source is from churches. As a VOP character, you donate most of your wealth to charity. If you donate to temples, according to BoED you build up tangible benefits with them: Goodwill, which can be exchanged for equivalent value in temple services. Such services can include the casting of high level spells.

There is no reason a VOP character cannot achieve the same inherent bonuses available to non-VOP characters in the game without ever breaking your vow.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-29, 11:23 PM
I'm sorry, Talya, the idea of a character swearing himself to poverty, dedicating his entire life to charity, then using an item worth over a hundred thousand GP just strikes me as violating the fluff of the vow. I feel the same way about 'donating' to churches with high-level clerics among their members, then asking them for spellcasting. Seems more like something I'd expect of a business executive looking for a tax break, not a paragon of kindness and good.

olentu
2009-12-29, 11:25 PM
As I said earlier, a tome or manual is an expendable item, equivalent to a potion in its usage. A VOP character specifically can use a potion that someone else gives them. If you're playing an exalted character, your party are all likely to be do-gooders as well, but a second source is from churches. As a VOP character, you donate most of your wealth to charity. If you donate to temples, according to BoED you build up tangible benefits with them: Goodwill, which can be exchanged for equivalent value in temple services. Such services can include the casting of high level spells.

There is no reason a VOP character cannot achieve the same inherent bonuses available to non-VOP characters in the game without ever breaking your vow.

Well given that it is not one of the examples it would fall under DM decision.

Optimator
2009-12-29, 11:29 PM
I was under the impression that the VoP requirement for Apostle of Peace was a typo.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 11:48 PM
Any character with the vow of poverty feat may wear items if they wish thus making the apostle of peace no different from normal.

Except if they do, they lose the feat, thus losing their abilities due to no longer qualifying. The intent was clearly to grant them an exception.

Are the items really that much more powerful than 9th-level spells, anyway?

Aldizog
2009-12-30, 12:02 AM
I'm sorry, Talya, the idea of a character swearing himself to poverty, dedicating his entire life to charity, then using an item worth over a hundred thousand GP just strikes me as violating the fluff of the vow. I feel the same way about 'donating' to churches with high-level clerics among their members, then asking them for spellcasting. Seems more like something I'd expect of a business executive looking for a tax break, not a paragon of kindness and good.
In the 3.5 campaigns you've played, how many tomes did your PCs get, at what bonuses, and at what levels? I'm curious as to how much of a difference it makes in actual play. I think that most games end well before they show up.

The 3.5 campaign I played in went to 20th; the party found a Tome of Str +1 (around 19th) and a Tome of Int +2 (around 20th).
The 3.5 campaign I ran ended at 12. No tomes.

olentu
2009-12-30, 12:05 AM
Except if they do, they lose the feat, thus losing their abilities due to no longer qualifying. The intent was clearly to grant them an exception.

Are the items really that much more powerful than 9th-level spells, anyway?

First off it may have been the intent but as I said it would not seem to be the rule.

And actually the vow of poverty feat says that "if you break your vow you ... lose the benefit of this feat." So one clearly retains the feat even if one gains no benefit from it as I would say that the quoted section is clearly talking about the section of the feat labeled benefit.

Edit: Though I suppose as with anything containing any ambiguity it would come down to a DM ruling.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 12:14 AM
"Suppressing" the feat's benefits without breaking it seems a reasonable interpretation - allowing the AoP to choose the beneficial effects of the Vow or powerful magic items depending on the situation, with a 24-hour "cooldown" between donning and doffing them.

Note that the vow stops the class from working strictly as written anyway, due to many of their spells requiring a holy symbol, such as Calm Emotions. So the only sensible interpretation is that the Vow does not apply as stringently to them.

FFTGeist
2009-12-30, 12:24 AM
I was always under the impression that VoP was useful for Monks and possibly druids. What do i know though?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-30, 12:33 AM
In the 3.5 campaigns you've played, how many tomes did your PCs get, at what bonuses, and at what levels? I'm curious as to how much of a difference it makes in actual play. I think that most games end well before they show up.

The 3.5 campaign I played in went to 20th; the party found a Tome of Str +1 (around 19th) and a Tome of Int +2 (around 20th).
The 3.5 campaign I ran ended at 12. No tomes.None that reached 20(most of my DMs hate the idea of playing past 12). However, since you don't hit the +8 until level 19, that's actually reasonable. And yes, there's better things to spend 55K on than inherent bonuses most of the time. But since VoP doesn't give you an option, that's pretty much saying VoP doesn't care what's best, it just gives you stuff that is weaker than WBL and the WBL spent is done so suboptimally.

Lycanthromancer
2009-12-30, 12:35 AM
I was always under the impression that VoP was useful for Monks totemists/incarnates and possibly druids. What do i know though?Monks are only bested by wizards and artificers as the worst classes for VoP.

A totemist or incarnate forsaker would probably be one of the best.

olentu
2009-12-30, 12:37 AM
"Suppressing" the feat's benefits without breaking it seems a reasonable interpretation - allowing the AoP to choose the beneficial effects of the Vow or powerful magic items depending on the situation, with a 24-hour "cooldown" between donning and doffing them.

Note that the vow stops the class from working strictly as written anyway, due to many of their spells requiring a holy symbol, such as Calm Emotions. So the only sensible interpretation is that the Vow does not apply as stringently to them.

I suppose some might find it a reasonable houserule. I would probably lean more towards changing the entry requirements as a houserule.

dspeyer
2009-12-30, 12:48 AM
What about the irony of a cleric of Baldur using mistletoe?

Baldur's holy symbol is three strokes. Carve it into your forehead with a dagger.

The norse pantheon works very well with this approach.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 12:51 AM
Baldur's holy symbol is three strokes. Carve it into your forehead with a dagger.

The norse pantheon works very well with this approach.

Or carve it into your leg. That might make you limp though.

...

"Baldur's Gait?" *flees*

Eldariel
2009-12-30, 12:52 AM
I was always under the impression that VoP was useful for Monks and possibly druids. What do i know though?

Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers and other spellcasters that don't need a bloody spellbook (though I suppose tattooing it on your body would have some possibilities) tend to be fine with VoP since they can bypass most of the issues I outlined here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7591182&postcount=51) while also getting more from the one high stat provided by VoP, and especially Druid gaining all the bonuses even while Wildshaping. Still weaker than no VoP, but pretty good.

Grumman
2009-12-30, 01:12 AM
"Suppressing" the feat's benefits without breaking it seems a reasonable interpretation - allowing the AoP to choose the beneficial effects of the Vow or powerful magic items depending on the situation, with a 24-hour "cooldown" between donning and doffing them.
A Vow of Poverty Unless It Is Inconvenient isn't much of a vow, you know.

chiasaur11
2009-12-30, 01:13 AM
Baldur's holy symbol is three strokes. Carve it into your forehead with a dagger.

The norse pantheon works very well with this approach.

I think the better Norse approach is to carve it into your enemy's forehead. And a bit into his skull.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 01:31 AM
I'm sorry, Talya, the idea of a character swearing himself to poverty, dedicating his entire life to charity, then using an item worth over a hundred thousand GP just strikes me as violating the fluff of the vow. I feel the same way about 'donating' to churches with high-level clerics among their members, then asking them for spellcasting. Seems more like something I'd expect of a business executive looking for a tax break, not a paragon of kindness and good.

Agreed. It takes a very, um, lenient reading of RAW to even allow this, since use of a potion handed them by an ally is a wee bit different than using a wondrous item providing a long term benefit worth ridiculous amounts of gold.

Fluffwise, it's pretty clearly not going to fit.

I wouldn't use the example image of an Apostle of Peace as justication for being able to use magical items, either. WOTC routinely has rule/example contradictions, and the rule takes priority, I do believe.




As for tattoos, good catch, olentu. I somehow missed that spot. Yeah, the 200 GP gold for each page equivalent is going to be immediately problematic. It also caps out at 80 pages, which is less than even a single standard spellbook. You then have the fun issue of needing to use mirrors and such to read some of your spells. It seems like a thematic option, or a way for the paranoid to protect their spellbooks...but not a particularly attractive option in general, and certainly not one that works with VoP.

Fhaolan
2009-12-30, 02:04 AM
Or carve it into your leg. That might make you limp though.

...

"Baldur's Gait?" *flees*

You win one internet. Please pick up you prize at the kiosk outside. Thank you.

Serenity
2009-12-30, 02:26 AM
Maybe the last +2 you get can be written off, but I fail to see how a +8, a +6, and a +4 is anything to sneeze at...

Lycanthromancer
2009-12-30, 02:34 AM
Maybe the last +2 you get can be written off, but I fail to see how a +8, a +6, and a +4 is anything to sneeze at...Look at that. I can have +16 to 5 stats using WBL. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625d)

Granted, it's using a PrC, a +6 belt of magnificence, and tomes, but still.

Scrolls of polymorph any object can get a LOT more than that, especially since they can be made permanent.

Artificers are worse. They can get +dozens, since they can change bonus types on the fly (and make them all stack).

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 02:37 AM
Maybe the last +2 you get can be written off, but I fail to see how a +8, a +6, and a +4 is anything to sneeze at...

Chameleons get two +6 inherent bonuses to any two ability scores which they can change every day, plus they can wear items and use tomes.

olentu
2009-12-30, 02:40 AM
Chameleons get two +6 inherent bonuses to any two ability scores which they can change every day, plus they can wear items and use tomes.

Competence bonuses I believe.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 02:43 AM
Right. That thing.

Lycanthromancer
2009-12-30, 02:45 AM
Right. That thing.That thing, which is even better, since it stacks with the others.

Adumbration
2009-12-30, 07:03 AM
One day I shall play a VoP Raptoran Monk 2/Soulknife 3/Soulbow X.

It's funny how a combination of suck can make for an awesome character. (Well, fairly competent, at least.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-30, 09:45 AM
Maybe the last +2 you get can be written off, but I fail to see how a +8, a +6, and a +4 is anything to sneeze at...I was writing off the +2 that turns a +6 into a +8 as being replaced by inherent bonuses for non-VoPers. A +6/+6/+4/+2 costs 92K. That is well within WBL. Making it a +8/+6/+4/+2 only costs 147 K. And most of the time, you wouldn't choose those exact bonuses. You'd grab +6 to one stat, a +6 Con item, then Dex until you max out your armor. If you're a save-focused caster, have an odd stat, or you're on the borderline for getting an additional 9th level spell, you grab a inherent bonus, but otherwise, you spend the money on something useful. VoP characters don't get that option.

Tetsubo 57
2009-12-30, 09:52 AM
One of the things I like about VoP is that the characters abilities are built into the character, not his equipment. I like that mechanically and thematically. This is probably why I also like the Warlock, Soulknife and Incarnum. I also just like the idea of a character unencumbered by bunches of baubles. They simple monk on a journey, with only his robes, staff and a bowl...

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 10:52 AM
One of the things I like about VoP is that the characters abilities are built into the character, not his equipment. I like that mechanically and thematically. This is probably why I also like the Warlock, Soulknife and Incarnum. I also just like the idea of a character unencumbered by bunches of baubles. They simple monk on a journey, with only his robes, staff and a bowl...

I like it too...probably why I enjoy sorcs who don't need spell components.

I just wish this concept were more mechanically sound for the average game. The idea itself is fine.

Amphetryon
2009-12-30, 10:53 AM
Maybe try a system built to better support the 'you are not your gear' archetype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes).

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 10:57 AM
I like it too...probably why I enjoy sorcs who don't need spell components.

I just wish this concept were more mechanically sound for the average game. The idea itself is fine.

Sorc with Eschew Materials who takes two feats that boost Cha for determining spell DCs and spells per day, with Vow of Poverty, and has casted Wish for +5 to a stat, with persisted Eagle's Splendor and at venerable age gets a very high Cha score. I count 18+8+5+5+4+3+4 = 47 Cha

How does this not work for your "average" game?

Saph
2009-12-30, 11:41 AM
I know this has been said at least three times in this thread already, but:


VoP isn't a feat you take so your character can get better, it's a feat you take so that the archetypal ascetic is playable at all.

The point of VoP is to make it possible to play a character without magic items. Comparing it to optimal magic item loadouts is completely missing the point. If a player's character concept is that of an Exalted-good ascetic who gives all his possessions away to charity, it's a pretty safe bet that optimisation is not their number one priority.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-30, 11:43 AM
Vow of Poverty makes adventuring + poverty merely inadvisable, not suicidal.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 12:06 PM
Sorc with Eschew Materials who takes two feats that boost Cha for determining spell DCs and spells per day, with Vow of Poverty, and has casted Wish for +5 to a stat, with persisted Eagle's Splendor and at venerable age gets a very high Cha score. I count 18+8+5+5+4+3+4 = 47 Cha

How does this not work for your "average" game?

Well, first off, IIRC, the bonuses from VoP are typed. So, they don't stack with matching typed bonuses. So, eagle's splendor adds nothing, right?

Secondly, casting wish five times consecutively costs 25,000 xp. This is not obtainable in one go by a single caster pre-epic. You can't have the money to bribe a caster to do this for you. You could get a +3 inherent bonus this way, though.

Thirdly, Venerable nerfs all your physical stats by 3. Personally, I like having con and dex on my casters in an average game.

I really don't see what all this has to do with an average game.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 12:10 PM
Well, first off, IIRC, the bonuses from VoP are typed. So, they don't stack with matching typed bonuses. So, eagle's splendor adds nothing, right?
My bad. 43 Cha.


Secondly, casting wish five times consecutively costs 25,000 xp. This is not obtainable in one go by a single caster pre-epic. You can't have the money to bribe a caster to do this for you. You could get a +3 inherent bonus this way, though.
Party members can help, if you don't want to spread it out.


Thirdly, Venerable nerfs all your physical stats by 3. Personally, I like having con and dex on my casters in an average game.
By more than three. You're right there too.


I really don't see what all this has to do with an average game.
I was merely pointing out that you can get a Cha score to rival that of several gods as a VoP sorcerer, which should be enough for most games.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 12:18 PM
Party members can help, if you don't want to spread it out.

Legally, they can't be spread out. The wishes need to be cast back to back.

So you need to talk your party into investing large quantities of xp into buffing you. This doesn't strike me as something terribly common, nor should contributions from your party members to help you get something you can't do yourself be considered as part of balance.


I was merely pointing out that you can get a Cha score to rival that of several gods as a VoP sorcerer, which should be enough for most games.

A single high stat does not a good character make. The fact that you "rival gods" in a single stat is no more indicative of power than the fact that level 20 monks have more attacks than some gods.

Meanwhile, generic sorc over there, who started with 18, got a +6 enhancement bonus, put his level ups into it, and got a +5 inherent bonus pulls off a 34.

We'll ignore feats, since both of them can get feats, and the boosting ones are not VoP specific, so far as I can recall. Likewise, we'll ignore age for the same reason.

Thus, VoP sorc has 18 base, +8 from VoP, +3 from inherent, +5 levels. He's got a 34.

Um, yay?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 12:22 PM
Mmm. Though I guess Sorcerers even without items are still enough for the average game...

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 12:30 PM
Well, sorcs are a pretty good class.

Thing is, you're really better off not saddling yourself with VoP. You can merrily donate lots of gold to the poor, be a good character, not burn the two precious normal feats to get exalted feats, and have the freedom to carry around some minor handy stuff if it makes sense at the time. You're not weaker without it...you just don't have the ideals forced on you all the time.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 12:46 PM
Well, sorcs are a pretty good class.

Thing is, you're really better off not saddling yourself with VoP. You can merrily donate lots of gold to the poor, be a good character, not burn the two precious normal feats to get exalted feats, and have the freedom to carry around some minor handy stuff if it makes sense at the time. You're not weaker without it...you just don't have the ideals forced on you all the time.

Come to think of it, if you're a sorcerer, you can alsu use your huge Cha and powerful spellcasting to get rid of the social problems that create poor people in the first place.

Potentially more useful to the poor people than charity.

Talya
2009-12-30, 12:50 PM
You cannot count the +8 bonus as the same as a +6 enhancement, +2 inherent because the VOP character should also have +5 inherent bonus to their primary stat. Even discounting tomes/manuals (which work by RAW, even if they violate the spirit--which isn't a problem, since Spellbooks and wooden holy symbols work by the spirit, but violate the RAW, and you're discounting them-- you can't have it both ways), there are still casting services from allied churches and temples, party members, or you yourself.

(Or in the case of my favorite sorcerer or bard/sublime chord PRC, a built in +5 inherent bonus to charisma as a class feature.)


It's not in character for my sorcerer...she's a bit decadent, she likes her luxuries. VOP simply would never work. But it's entirely workable, even beneficial, for a few specific builds.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 01:02 PM
work by RAW, even if they violate the spirit--which isn't a problem, since Spellbooks and wooden holy symbols work by the spirit, but violate the RAW, and you're discounting them-- you can't have it both waysYou know, other than the people* who repeat the RAW in a mantra like faction, that is probably the most irritating type of RAW based argument.

* That isn't to say this is all, or even most of the people who cite the RAW, but there are certainly people who do this.

Soranar
2009-12-30, 01:12 PM
Alright I tried to optimize a build to work with VoP

And, as mentioned before, this feat is the kind you build something around. not the other way around

1rst thought, not an easy task

you get 1 stat properly buffed, and eventually a second one
you need to be good so monk/druid hybrids are out unless you use variants

to compensate for the vow (after reading all of your posts) you need at least flight and something to bypass damage resistance if you're a fighter/melee type

if you're a druid you nearly only get bonuses as long are you wildshape(as if a tier 1 class needs more power)

I'm also curious to figure out what would happen at epic levels but logically the build stops at level 20

of course you could just make a warforge... technically your skin is not a possession

a throwing build would be impractical with all the knives you'd carry imo (no magical returning knife for you)

yet a crossbow build could be ok with crossbow sniper and I'm sure you could make a decent sling build but I don't like really like ranged weapons

so with this in mind

any class that gives abilities similar to magic items (without requiring items) should be interesting

I'm going to need ToB stuff if I want something worthwhile

with all of this in mind

Race: human

STATS (32 pts build)

STR 8 (feats make it a dump stat, no possessions = no carrying need)
DEX 18
CON 14
INT 8 (human + nymph's kiss make this a dumpable stat)
WIS 16
CHA 8

1 Swordsage (unarmed variant) sacred vow, vow of poverty nymph's kiss
2 Ninja sacred strike
3 Martial Monk weapon finesse, shadow strike
4 Martial Monk snap kick nimbus of light
5 Martial Monk
6 Martial Monk ascetic Stalker holy radiance
7 Ninja
8 Swordsage vow of chastity
9 Swordsage two-weapon fighting
10 Ninja touch of golden ice
11 Swordsage bonus feat: weapon focus unarmed strike
12 Ninja improved critical: unarmed strikestigmata
13 Ninja
14 Ninja servant of the heavens
15 Ninja improved two-weapon fighting
16 Ninja vow of abstinence
17 Ninja
18 Ninja greater two-weapon fighting vow of purity
19 Ninja
20 Ninja vow of obedience

shadow strike = DEX bonus to damage
snap kick = extra attack if you hit

your unarmed weapon is considered a +5 holy lawful good adamantine ghost strike weapon, unfortunately you can't get cold iron and silver without crossclassing and losing abilities and taking a race which would make this build incompatible

you cause 2d10 damage unless someone in your party enlarges you (4d8)
+5 from the vow+your DEX bonus which should be significant at that point
your sudden strike damage is ok (6d6, 6d8 if evil) and you get some useful ninja things to do


it's not perfect but it's decent and you get a lot of roleplay from all the

vows

and you don't eat/drink or breathe which can really annoy your DM and let you do weird things

SparkMandriller
2009-12-30, 01:15 PM
Even discounting tomes/manuals (which work by RAW, even if they violate the spirit--which isn't a problem, since Spellbooks and wooden holy symbols work by the spirit, but violate the RAW, and you're discounting them-- you can't have it both ways)

How is carrying around a 5000 GP item within the spirit of a vow of poverty?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 01:16 PM
You cannot count the +8 bonus as the same as a +6 enhancement, +2 inherent because the VOP character should also have +5 inherent bonus to their primary stat. Even discounting tomes/manuals (which work by RAW, even if they violate the spirit--which isn't a problem, since Spellbooks and wooden holy symbols work by the spirit, but violate the RAW, and you're discounting them-- you can't have it both ways), there are still casting services from allied churches and temples, party members, or you yourself.

Tomes do not work by RAW. A tome is not a potion by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no point pre-epic at which a single caster would have enough floating xp between levels to get more than a +3 inherent bonus via wish. There is no guarantee of free wishes being available from churches or party members in quantity at the same time. In fact, this seems pretty unlikely. It certainly isn't something available by RAW for free.



I agree that sometimes, yes, it may be more beneficial thematically for you to keep an item than sell it and give the money to the poor. Perhaps you can do more good with it. In this sense, VoP could actually be hindering to roleplaying specific concepts it seems to be designed for.

olentu
2009-12-30, 01:29 PM
You cannot count the +8 bonus as the same as a +6 enhancement, +2 inherent because the VOP character should also have +5 inherent bonus to their primary stat. Even discounting tomes/manuals (which work by RAW, even if they violate the spirit--which isn't a problem, since Spellbooks and wooden holy symbols work by the spirit, but violate the RAW, and you're discounting them-- you can't have it both ways), there are still casting services from allied churches and temples, party members, or you yourself.

(Or in the case of my favorite sorcerer or bard/sublime chord PRC, a built in +5 inherent bonus to charisma as a class feature.)


It's not in character for my sorcerer...she's a bit decadent, she likes her luxuries. VOP simply would never work. But it's entirely workable, even beneficial, for a few specific builds.

Again for the tomes without being a specific example DM interpretation is required and so there would be no RAW ruling on such things. Other methods would of course be fine depending on what they are.

Reinboom
2009-12-30, 01:41 PM
Y'know... if you combine two generally subpar options into one, you can cover many of the issues of Vow of Poverty. Though, it takes a DM ruling.
That is, make your Weapon of Legacy (and the ritual cost) exempt from the Vow of Poverty.
To me, this would be quite flavorful on its own and would lead to a rather interesting character.


On a separate note, as I recall, there are ways to tattoo spell pages to yourself in place of a spellbook. Would this get around the no spellbook issue?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 02:09 PM
On a separate note, as I recall, there are ways to tattoo spell pages to yourself in place of a spellbook. Would this get around the no spellbook issue?

Already covered, and no. Requires mucho gold, and anyway, it's very limited in capacity.

Legacy weapon might work with VoP in certain instances. Only going to help weapon based builds, though, and the negative attributes of many of the legacy weapons is a problem.

Kylarra
2009-12-30, 02:11 PM
Eidetic spellcaster gets around the no-spellbook issue, although it's been mentioned earlier. Scribe scroll loss is actually a non-issue in this case since you won't be able to do it anyway.

olentu
2009-12-30, 02:50 PM
Eidetic spellcaster gets around the no-spellbook issue, although it's been mentioned earlier. Scribe scroll loss is actually a non-issue in this case since you won't be able to do it anyway.

Unfortunately after checking it seems that one must still pay costs as normal just in special incenses rather then the rather expensive ink.

Kylarra
2009-12-30, 03:00 PM
Unfortunately after checking it seems that one must still pay costs as normal just in special incenses rather then the rather expensive ink.Only if you're trying to increase your spells known. You'd still get the 2/level for free.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 03:10 PM
Unfortunately after checking it seems that one must still pay costs as normal just in special incenses rather then the rather expensive ink.Only for spells beyond the 2 you get per level I beleive.

And since the incense would be consumed during use, I could see someone making a case for allowing an ally provide it, much like having an ally provide a healing potion.


Another thought, drifting a bit further from the rules: individual monks (not the class, just holy men) might not individually own any property, but ascetic order that they belong to owns things: the buildings and lands that they are working on, etc. Likewise, an order of ascetic wizards could own a tower and provide access to incense, or even the use of communal library of spells as necessary, even though the individual members own nothing. It's really no different than them using a shelter/bed/riding in a cart though the charity of a stranger.

olentu
2009-12-30, 03:13 PM
Only if you're trying to increase your spells known. You'd still get the 2/level for free.

Well yeah that part would work just fine I suppose that it would probably be better to get more than 3 hours of sleep a night.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 03:52 PM
Sorc with Eschew Materials who takes two feats that boost Cha for determining spell DCs and spells per day, with Vow of Poverty, and has casted Wish for +5 to a stat, with persisted Eagle's Splendor and at venerable age gets a very high Cha score. I count 18+8+5+5+4+3+4 = 47 Cha

How does this not work for your "average" game?

eschew materials is not necessary. The vow explicitly allows you to own a spell component pouch...
as for expensive material components... you may not own any, but your party members may buy those and give you for safekeeping (you can physically carry an expensive item that belongs to someone else without breaking the spirit of the vow).


Secondly, casting wish five times consecutively costs 25,000 xp. This is not obtainable in one go by a single caster pre-epic. You can't have the money to bribe a caster to do this for you. You could get a +3 inherent bonus this way, though.

You can chose not to level up and save the XP... you run into the same problem crafting a +5 tome, as the tome costs more XP than the wishes (tome is 5100XP per +1)

When level 17, you need 18k XP to next level, and 19k XP for level 19.
When you get that 18k xp, you chose NOT to level up and remain level 17... you continue to accrue XP, until 1 XP less than next level...
aka, 18+19 = 37
So you can store up to 36,999 XP as a level 17 character. any further XP gain will be lost until you actually apply it towards leveling up to level 18. (at which point, 1 XP levels you up)...

But both a sorc and a wizard will have problems doing that at level 17, the wizard doesn't have the castings per day, the sorc doesn't have SL9 until CL18.
But at CL18 your sorcerer starts stacking himself up with +5 inherent bonuses for XP only an no GP cost. To all stats. And it is less XP cost than crafting your own tomes.

As you fall behind on XP, the amount of XP you gain per monster increases, since you are lower level then your party.

At level 18 you have 3 base castings per day.
You should get a second casting from high cha.
You can use contingency for 1 wish casting (cast wish when I say "cast contingency wish")

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 03:55 PM
You can use contingency for 1 wish casting (cast wish when I say "cast contingency wish")I'm not clear at all on how you're saying that would work.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 03:56 PM
Legally, they can't be spread out. The wishes need to be cast back to back.

Yes, they cannot be spread out... that is the whole POINT of a tome of + item... you spend an extra 100xp per +1 over a wish, AND a lot of gold... for a bit more flexibility in crafting / casting.

Also, since when can party members contribute their XP for you to cast a spell (wish)? I thought it was always from the caster


Come to think of it, if you're a sorcerer, you can alsu use your huge Cha and powerful spellcasting to get rid of the social problems that create poor people in the first place.

Potentially more useful to the poor people than charity.

ha, yes...

taltamir
2009-12-30, 03:57 PM
Legally, they can't be spread out. The wishes need to be cast back to back.

Yes, they cannot be spread out... that is the whole POINT of a tome of + item... you spend an extra 100xp per +1 over a wish, AND a lot of gold... for a bit more flexibility in crafting / casting.

Also, since when can party members contribute their XP for you to cast a spell (wish)? I thought it was always from the caster


Come to think of it, if you're a sorcerer, you can alsu use your huge Cha and powerful spellcasting to get rid of the social problems that create poor people in the first place.

Potentially more useful to the poor people than charity.

ha, yes...


I'm not clear at all on how you're saying that would work.

cast a contingency and a wish (paying the 5000XP on the spot) on monday to cast a wish when you say a simple phrase.
On tuesday (while the contingency has still yet to expire), activate the contingency for a +1 to stat wish, then cast wish using your 4 slots per day.

remember, you must cast wishes within 1 round of each other for them to stack as an inherant bonus... if you take longer you will get multiple non stacking +1 inherant bonuses to the same attributes... aka, you wastes your wishes.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 03:58 PM
Also, since when can party members contribute their XP for you to cast a spell (wish)? I thought it was always from the casterI seem to recall reading that it can come from a willing ally, or even an unwilling victim.


cast a contingency and a wishyeah, I don't see how you're proposing to make that part work. Wish is a 9th level spell; 9 > 6.

unless you're talking about something other than Contingency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm)

taltamir
2009-12-30, 04:04 PM
How is carrying around a 5000 GP item within the spirit of a vow of poverty?

5000gp?
A tome costs 5100XP per +1, and is worth 127,500gp per +1 (half to craft).

for a +5 tome it is a 637500gp item...

Only full casters can reasonably get that... not via tomes, which completely violate the VoP spirit if not RAW... but by casting wish/miracle on themselves a bunch of times.
Not by making their own tome, mind you... but by casting wish directly and bypassing the tome entirely.


unless you're talking about something other than Contingency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm)

I just read it and I see no limitation on the spell level you can contingency...

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 04:05 PM
eschew materials is not necessary. The vow explicitly allows you to own a spell component pouch...
as for expensive material components... you may not own any, but your party members may buy those and give you for safekeeping (you can physically carry an expensive item that belongs to someone else without breaking the spirit of the vow).

It's not really "safekeeping" if you use them, now is it?

That, and VoP explictly nixes the idea of avoiding it's downsides via others "loaning" you equipment.


You can chose not to level up and save the XP... you run into the same problem crafting a +5 tome, as the tome costs more XP than the wishes (tome is 5100XP per +1)

Tomes need not be crafted by the player. Likewise, players can purchase wishes with their WBL.

If this level 20 player has chosen to save the xp to do this, he's now almost two levels behind players that opted to purchase them instead. Being that wish is 9th level, he won't have had time to close the gap up much.

Being behind the rest of the party is a direct power tradeoff, and among other things, means he wont have that last bonus from leveling up.


When level 17, you need 18k XP to next level, and 19k XP for level 19.
When you get that 18k xp, you chose NOT to level up and remain level 17... you continue to accrue XP, until 1 XP less than next level...
aka, 18+19 = 37
So you can store up to 36,999 XP as a level 17 character. any further XP gain will be lost until you actually apply it towards leveling up to level 18. (at which point, 1 XP levels you up)...

But both a sorc and a wizard will have problems doing that at level 17, the wizard doesn't have the castings per day, the sorc doesn't have SL9 until CL18.
But at CL18 your sorcerer starts stacking himself up with +5 inherent bonuses for XP only an no GP cost. To all stats. And it is less XP cost than crafting your own tomes.

Ok, you have a CL18 sorc that has done this...once. The rest of the party is now level 20. By all means, continue doing this while your party merrily hits epic levels. The power won't even close to equal out.


As you fall behind on XP, the amount of XP you gain per monster increases, since you are lower level then your party.

Eventually, yes. Your party will be at approximately level 24 by the time you've gotten all your +5 inherent boosts. Their WBL is now staggering. They have fun epic toys. You have high stats, and are six levels behind them. Have fun with that.

By the way, they've now gotten an additional +2 untyped bonus each compared to you via leveling, have enough gold that buying stat boosts is trivial, and oh, look, you can use epic feats to boost stats as well.


At level 18 you have 3 base castings per day.
You should get a second casting from high cha.
You can use contingency for 1 wish casting (cast wish when I say "cast contingency wish")

Contingency requires a 1,500 GP focus.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 04:05 PM
It's possible for a VoP to get a +5 Inherent. The wishes do need to be cast back to back. They do NOT need to be cast by the same person. An ally caster could supplement. Also, a party rogue with high UMD could cast Wish off of scrolls for you, to supplement your three castings.

There are options. They just take creativity.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 04:07 PM
I just read it and I see no limitation on the spell level you can contingency..."The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level). "

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 04:09 PM
It's possible for a VoP to get a +5 Inherent. The wishes do need to be cast back to back. They do NOT need to be cast by the same person. An ally caster could supplement. Also, a party rogue with high UMD could cast Wish off of scrolls for you, to supplement your three castings.

There are options. They just take creativity.

This really isn't any more relevant to the strength of VoP than "my wizard always buffs me more" is relevant to the strength of the monk class.

These are not options you can access. They are things that others can do for you, at great cost to themselves. If we're going down that road, you can argue the equally ludicrous proposition that the non-VoP character is better off because the party can donate their funds and magic items to push them well above WBL.

olentu
2009-12-30, 04:12 PM
I seem to recall reading that it can come from a willing ally, or even an unwilling victim.

yeah, I don't see how you're proposing to make that part work. Wish is a 9th level spell; 9 > 6.

unless you're talking about something other than Contingency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm)

I believe there is a web enhancement for the phb II that gives some ways for one to use XP from others for crafting. Let me see if I can find it as there were some limitations on doing such a thing.

Edit: Here we are. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a

taltamir
2009-12-30, 04:16 PM
It's not really "safekeeping" if you use them, now is it?
not safekeeping.. for consumption... they aren't YOURS though, they belong to someone else who wants you to use them.
If we loot 2000gp, and I donate my 500gp share... and the other 3 guys buy a 6 doses of stoneskin (diamond dust worth 250gp)... it is their diamond dust, not mine... and I am "using it" on them, not on myself.


That, and VoP explictly nixes the idea of avoiding it's downsides via others "loaning" you equipment.
It is not equipment... and it explicitly says they can give you potions and the like...


Ok, you have a CL18 sorc that has done this...once. The rest of the party is now level 20. By all means, continue doing this while your party merrily hits epic levels. The power won't even close to equal out.
You are getting an accelerated amount of XP from monsters from having not leveled...

In fact... all the XP aquired after the initial 19k (when the party leveled to level 19 and you stayed 18), is being aquired at an accelerated rate. By choosing not to level now you can level faster...
And actually, everyone can do that...
Say you have a level 3 party and you are a fighter... you gain 4000xp, everyone levels but you... you still have 4000XP, and may gain another 4999XP before XP goes to waste... you adventure some more... you gained 4500XP additional XP (putting you 499XP near the limit; a 8500 "unused" XP total) while the party gained LESS than that amount as they are higher level... you now chose to consume the original 4000 to become level 4 like your party...
You can find yourself several levels AHEAD of the party by using this trick (I have in some CRPGs like ToEE)


Eventually, yes. Your party will be at approximately level 24 by the time you've gotten all your +5 inherent boosts. Their WBL is now staggering. They have fun epic toys. You have high stats, and are six levels behind them. Have fun with that.
Thing is...
1. there could be a level 20 cap. (and there should be unless you are using epic levels... in which case, screw bonuses, you want to get epic castings and win DnD... and using epic castings you can and give get +arbitrary amounts inherant bonuses to everything for everyone in the party for 0 XP)
2. you are not 6 levels behind, because you gain extra XP for being lower level compared to your enemies. You would be hard pressed to be 3 levels behind.


Contingency requires a 1,500 GP focus.
Oh crap... although...
ok, you ask someone to lend you his contingency focus for 1 day and then you give it back.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 04:18 PM
It's possible for a VoP to get a +5 Inherent. The wishes do need to be cast back to back. They do NOT need to be cast by the same person. An ally caster could supplement. Also, a party rogue with high UMD could cast Wish off of scrolls for you, to supplement your three castings.

There are options. They just take creativity.

using scrolls is consuming extremely expensive items... not realistic... remember that ALL of YOUR share of the loot goes to charity... so you are asking the party to donate quite a lot to you, after already taking your equal share.
and asking another caster to blow his XP on you is a lot... BUT... it will work in a trade... you cast 2 wish/miracle on me, I cast 2 on you later to give you the same bonus...

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 04:19 PM
I believe there is a web enhancement for the phb II that gives some ways for one to use XP from others for crafting. Let me see if I can find it as there were some limitations on doing such a thing.

Edit: Here we are. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a

Very cool, and highly advised for any item crafters out there. Of course, being so specifically tied to item crafting, it's not of any help for VoP types, but it's still a great ruleset.

I'd assume that the whole xp from souls thing would also blatantly violate the whole exalted bit of VoP as well.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 04:20 PM
I believe there is a web enhancement for the phb II that gives some ways for one to use XP from others for crafting. Let me see if I can find it as there were some limitations on doing such a thing.

Edit: Here we are. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526athankee

I seem to remember reading something about drawing on unwilling victims (human sacrifice, certainly a vile sort of act), though I have no idea if that was from someone's homebrew or not. That's certainly not available for the exalted.

olentu
2009-12-30, 04:25 PM
Very cool, and highly advised for any item crafters out there. Of course, being so specifically tied to item crafting, it's not of any help for VoP types, but it's still a great ruleset.

I'd assume that the whole xp from souls thing would also blatantly violate the whole exalted bit of VoP as well.

Unfortunately yes but as I did not remember the enhancement before hand it might have been useful for things other then item crafting.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 04:25 PM
a lot of the "solutions" here require that an allied caster foot the bill in XP or in Gold...

But your party does not have more gold because of your VoP, explicitly stated... if a party of 4 loots 2 million GP and 1 has a VoP, then each gets 500k GP, and the VoP guy takes that 500k and donates it...

Now, "services" is one thing, I would expect a church that got a 500k GP donation to cast free SPELLS for you... but not free material or XP components...

And expecting them to furnish you with a 625k GP item as a "reward" for donating them 500k GP is pure BS.

So... can the party donate? I would say yes... if, after taking up your own 500k and donating it, the party decides they wish to each donate 300k out of their own share to further boost you... more power to them.
But the very notion is ridiculous... they each have their OWN tomes and items to buy and save for... why should you single handedly consume your own share of loot AND more than half of the share of everyone else?

if you have such a silver tongue as to convince other players to foot the bill, more power to you. But remember that you are constantly taking a percent cut from the party's loot.
A vow of poverty is explicit about that... you must take payments and your cut of all loot, and you must then give it away. No increasing the party's WBL and then getting "gifts".

all that being said... a working solution is to be a full caster, have another full caster, and agree to each put forth 2 wish/miracles towards the other's casting...
So on monday, the sorcerer with VoP casts 3 wishes and the cleric casts 2 miracles (strung together) to give a +5 to the sorcerer at the cost of only XP...
A little later they reverse the roles, and the cleric casts 3 miracles on himself and the sorcerer 2 wishes.


"The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level). "

oops. I guess you are right, that would not work..

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 04:36 PM
But your party does not have more gold because of your VoP, explicitly stated... if a party of 4 loots 2 million GP and 1 has a VoP, then each gets 500k GP, and the VoP guy takes that 500k and donates it...That depends a lot on how your party does loot. If you just take everything and go sell it and then split, then sure, that 500k goes away, given to charity. If on the other hand, you take the items and split them as fairly as possible based on who can actually use them (which is fairly common practice in game worlds where buying/selling magic items is not an easy option), not so much. For example, if there are 4 party members, and you find 4 magical items, there's no guarantee that the VoP guy will wind up with one of them... one of the other characters might wind up with multiple (especially if they have more DKP saved up :smallbiggrin:)


2. you are not 6 levels behind, because you gain extra XP for being lower level compared to your enemies. You would be hard pressed to be 3 levels behind.You'd be 150,000 experience behind them, minus whatever bonus exp you would have gotten; I don't really recall how much that is; assuming it's 33% more (which seems ridiculously high) the rest of your group would still have around 100,000 more exp than you, and be 5 levels higher than you.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 04:37 PM
not safekeeping.. for consumption... they aren't YOURS though, they belong to someone else who wants you to use them.
If we loot 2000gp, and I donate my 500gp share... and the other 3 guys buy a 6 doses of stoneskin (diamond dust worth 250gp)... it is their diamond dust, not mine... and I am "using it" on them, not on myself.

It is not equipment... and it explicitly says they can give you potions and the like...

What part of "can not possess magical items" is so hard to understand? What part of "forswear material possessions" is unclear? It explicitly states that the fact that another party member "owns" the gear you possess is not sufficient to break the vow.

Yes, they can cram a healing potion in your mouth if you are in need of it without breaking your vow. This doesn't mean you get to carry around a pack of valuable potions all the time.


You are getting an accelerated amount of XP from monsters from having not leveled...

In fact... all the XP aquired after the initial 19k (when the party leveled to level 19 and you stayed 18), is being aquired at an accelerated rate. By choosing not to level now you can level faster...

Yes...but it takes a grand total of 150,000 xp to get six +5s. Accelerated rate or no, they'll be solidly into epic before you get done with that.

Without an accelerated rate, they would be hitting level 26 when you actually hit level 19, for a grand total of being seven levels behind the party. It's only because of the accelerated rate that you're not this far behind.


And actually, everyone can do that...
Say you have a level 3 party and you are a fighter... you gain 4000xp, everyone levels but you... you still have 4000XP, and may gain another 4999XP before XP goes to waste... you adventure some more... you gained 4500XP additional XP (putting you 499XP near the limit; a 8500 "unused" XP total) while the party gained LESS than that amount as they are higher level... you now chose to consume the original 4000 to become level 4 like your party...
You can find yourself several levels AHEAD of the party by using this trick (I have in some CRPGs like ToEE)

Why yes...everyone could gimp themselves by waiting to get +5 bonuses across the board. Assuming everyone could cast wish, which is doubtful. Realistically, this isn't going to happen unless you have a party in which gate abuse is accepted, because it's just not worth it to put off that many levels.

XP also does not always come in perfect bite sized chunks. They can be quite big at high levels, meaning it's possible for you to max out, and have wasted potential. This is vastly more likely when your party is several levels above you, and you've already saved xp beyond the normal level up point.


ok, you ask someone to lend you his contingency focus for 1 day and then you give it back.

Except that borrowing expensive items is explicitly banned. Leaving aside the problem of the spell cap, the only exception to borrowing items is a potion when you need to use it. Spell focuses are not potions. Not even consumables.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 04:40 PM
That depends a lot on how your party does loot. If you just take everything and go sell it and then split, then sure, that 500k goes away, given to charity. If on the other hand, you take the items and split them as fairly as possible based on who can actually use them (which is fairly common practice in game worlds where buying/selling magic items is not an easy option), not so much. For example, if there are 4 party members, and you find 4 magical items, there's no guarantee that the VoP guy will wind up with one of them... one of the other characters might wind up with multiple.

Well, the feat also explicitly suggests adjusting loot so that thanks to VoP, the party doesn't actually end up with more stuff for the other players as a result.

In fact, wizard articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060609a) suggest that VoP may actually hamper the party by insisting that as much as possible be given to charity when the loot isn't easily divisible, etc. That'd be a nasty position to be in...find a rather nifty bit of loot, but the VoP char demands it be sold so his portion can go to charity...

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 04:46 PM
Well, the feat also explicitly suggests adjusting loot so that thanks to VoP, the party doesn't actually end up with more stuff for the other players as a result.Oh certainly... but that's something the GM and players are goign to have to kind of work out.

Personally I'd expect te GM to make sure there is sufficient liquid assets, or items that aren't really usable/useful to the party for the VoP guy to take and donate.


That'd be a nasty position to be in...find a rather nifty bit of loot, but the VoP char demands it be sold so his portion can go to charity...That's REALLY against the entire spirit of a vow of poverty. But I guess it makes sense from a "game balance" perspective. The whole idea is to shun material possessions, not demand your share so that you can give it to charity and look good.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 04:47 PM
That depends a lot on how your party does loot. If you just take everything and go sell it and then split, then sure, that 500k goes away, given to charity. If on the other hand, you take the items and split them as fairly as possible based on who can actually use them (which is fairly common practice in game worlds where buying/selling magic items is not an easy option), not so much. For example, if there are 4 party members, and you find 4 magical items, there's no guarantee that the VoP guy will wind up with one of them... one of the other characters might wind up with multiple (especially if they have more DKP saved up :smallbiggrin:)
No, in such a case it is explicit that you must take your fair share of magic items and donate them.


What part of "can not possess magical items" is so hard to understand? What part of "forswear material possessions" is unclear? It explicitly states that the fact that another party member "owns" the gear you possess is not sufficient to break the vow.

Yes, they can cram a healing potion in your mouth if you are in need of it without breaking your vow. This doesn't mean you get to carry around a pack of valuable potions all the time.
1. There is nothing magical about diamond dust.
2. You are not borrowing it, you are using it, on them. If a person hands you a lotion and says "apply it to me" he is not giving you a gift, you are not borrowing it, and you are not possessing it, you are merely holding it on your hand and applying it to them.
Giving you a magic sword to use on critters is one thing. Giving you an item to apply to them is another... as long as you do not apply it to yourself.


Yes...but it takes a grand total of 150,000 xp to get six +5s. Accelerated rate or no, they'll be solidly into epic before you get done with that.
Yea, doing all 6 stats is rather crazy... do only 1 or two important ones I guess.
And again... this was written when the original game had a hard limit of max level being 20...
You get your +5 int at level 17 to get extra skill points, then you get the rest as you level up.. eventually you are a level 20 with +6 to all stats and you max out your XP because there is nothing to do with it (even converting it to wealth is a waste since you should have access to neigh infinite wealth via a variety of magic tricks).


Why yes...everyone could gimp themselves by waiting to get +5 bonuses across the board. Assuming everyone could cast wish, which is doubtful. Realistically, this isn't going to happen unless you have a party in which gate abuse is accepted, because it's just not worth it to put off that many levels.
You completely misread that portion, read it again...
It isn't about +5 to anythings... or gimping yourself... its gimping yourself from about level 3, then catching up, then being several levels AHEAD of your party... it is a "cheat" that is by the RAW to get extra XP per monster killed.


XP also does not always come in perfect bite sized chunks. They can be quite big at high levels, meaning it's possible for you to max out, and have wasted potential. This is vastly more likely when your party is several levels above you, and you've already saved xp beyond the normal level up point.
that is extremely unlikely. And it is a matter of how much you are willing to risk... the closer to the max you get, the more risky it is... so that is why you level up somewhere midway, instead of waiting for exactly a certain amount... Yes, on occasion you do max out and waste XP, but generally you are a higher level then you would otherwise be. At least on the games I have tried it on.


Except that borrowing expensive items is explicitly banned. Leaving aside the problem of the spell cap, the only exception to borrowing items is a potion when you need to use it. Spell focuses are not potions. Not even consumables.
They are consumables, and you are not borrowing them. you are not loaning them, and they are not a gift. You are carrying them for their rightful owner, and then you apply them to their rightful owner... kinda like carrying a potion the belongs to someone else with the explicit understanding that you apply it only to them...
Consuming a tome of +something is very much against the "spirit" of the vow of poverty... I don't see anything wrong with carrying someone else's diamond dust and using it on them.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 04:50 PM
This really isn't any more relevant to the strength of VoP than "my wizard always buffs me more" is relevant to the strength of the monk class.

These are not options you can access. They are things that others can do for you, at great cost to themselves. If we're going down that road, you can argue the equally ludicrous proposition that the non-VoP character is better off because the party can donate their funds and magic items to push them well above WBL.

Incorrect. There is nothing in the VoP description prohibiting accepting services. He can accept a room at an inn in exchange for protecting the farmstead.

He can accept a Wish from an ally in exchange for saving a kingdom.

In other words: A VoP character can receive permanent enhancements/buffs for services, which can help offset the WBL. This is both RAW, and in keeping with the WBL tables, since these services have a value, but are not prohibited the VoP character.


that is extremely unlikely. And it is a matter of how much you are willing to risk... the closer to the max you get, the more risky it is... so that is why you level up somewhere midway, instead of waiting for exactly a certain amount... Yes, on occasion you do max out and waste XP, but generally you are a higher level then you would otherwise be. At least on the games I have tried it on.


In addition, the rules explicitly allow players to set aside XP and choose not to level up, for crafting/casting purposes.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 04:52 PM
Incorrect. There is nothing in the VoP description prohibiting accepting services. He can accept a room at an inn in exchange for protecting the farmstead.

He can accept a Wish from an ally in exchange for saving a kingdom.

In other words: A VoP character can receive permanent enhancements/buffs for services, which can help offset the WBL. This is both RAW, and in keeping with the WBL tables, since these services have a value, but are not prohibited the VoP character.

he is supposed to accept rewards and DONATE them... not accept them and consume them...
Room for a night is one thing, it is acceptable.
A wish is +1 to a stat and not gonna help... it needs to be a tome, or a wish granting item... which he is required to sell.
unless the kingdom says "as a reward, we will have multiple high level wizards burn massive amounts of XP to cast 5 wishes on you in a row"...
which is extremely out of line as a quest reward. not to mention it is not even gonna be available since they have to pay obscene amounts of gold to said casters to cast such a demanding spell. so he should be asking that this obscene amount of gold be given to the poor...

heck, VoP plain doesn't work in DnD... The conversion to dollars is about 1gp = 60$... so a million GP is worth about 60 million $... But:
1. Populations are VERY small in DnD world compared to the modern world.
2. They have items and spells that create food and water... a single decanter of everflowing water can provide enough clean pure water for a large city. And a few inexpensive items could ensure enough food for everyone... so where is the poverty exactly?

Talya
2009-12-30, 04:58 PM
These are not options you can access.

They are "options you can access" just as surely as if you didn't have VOP. The only difference is you have fewer options in doing so. (Tomes and Manuals would need to be gifts, or allies convinced into helping you.) There's no guarantee of tomes or manuals even being available (very unlikely you'd find them to buy them, and the chance of finding them randomly is slim), and if you can craft the tomes yourself, you're capable of casting wish yourself.

Or you can get the inherent bonus for free as a heartwarder. Highest spell casting stat possible in the game (pre-epic, anyway) requires a sorcerer or bard/sublime chord to take VOP, and Heartwarder PRC makes the inherent bonus easy. A human hitting 36 charisma (higher for races/templates with charisma bonuses) without needing gear is not something to be tossed aside as "worthless." There are just very specific situations where it ends up mechanically superior. That's one of them.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 04:58 PM
No, in such a case it is explicit that you must take your fair share of magic items and donate them.


1. There is nothing magical about diamond dust.
2. You are not borrowing it, you are using it, on them. If a person hands you a lotion and says "apply it to me" he is not giving you a gift, you are not borrowing it, and you are not possessing it, you are merely holding it on your hand and applying it to them.
Giving you a magic sword to use on critters is one thing. Giving you an item to apply to them is another... as long as you do not apply it to yourself.

That interpretation is not supported by the rules. Posession is posession, regardless of the intended target for an item. Diamond dust is explicitly valuable, and thus verboten. There is no exception to the possession rules for you to use them on your party members.


Yea, doing all 6 stats is rather crazy... do only 1 or two important ones I guess.
And again... this was written when the original game had a hard limit of max level being 20...
You get your +5 int at level 17 to get extra skill points, then you get the rest as you level up.. eventually you are a level 20 with +6 to all stats and you max out your XP because there is nothing to do with it (even converting it to wealth is a waste since you should have access to neigh infinite wealth via a variety of magic tricks).

This is then only ever useful(marginally) in specific, no longer applicable circumstances. Anyhow, as xp caps out, wealth accumulation continues. The disparity between you and the party will grow anyway.

That said, 3.5 was basically arriving as BoED was printed. It's not perfect, but it's not as if this hearkens from the dawn of 3.0. Or if playing beyond level 20 had never been considered pre-3.5.


You completely misread that portion, read it again...
It isn't about +5 to anythings... or gimping yourself... its gimping yourself from about level 3, then catching up, then being several levels AHEAD of your party... it is a "cheat" that is by the RAW to get extra XP per monster killed.

I ignored that aspect of it because A. it has nothing to do with VoP and B. I don't see how this could ever result in being several levels ahead of your party. Legally, anyway.


that is extremely unlikely. And it is a matter of how much you are willing to risk... the closer to the max you get, the more risky it is... so that is why you level up somewhere midway, instead of waiting for exactly a certain amount... Yes, on occasion you do max out and waste XP, but generally you are a higher level then you would otherwise be. At least on the games I have tried it on.

In the specific instance of saving xp at level 18 to get a +5, you're well into what would be 19 to get it. It's not going to happen every time, but it's possible. If you hang around to get multiple +5s, it gets increasingly likely as the gap grows, and your party takes on higher ECL encounters.

Not to mention, being multiple levels behind the party means you're more likely to just die.


They are consumables, and you are not borrowing them. you are not loaning them, and they are not a gift. You are carrying them for their rightful owner, and then you apply them to their rightful owner... kinda like carrying a potion the belongs to someone else with the explicit understanding that you apply it only to them...
Consuming a tome of +something is very much against the "spirit" of the vow of poverty... I don't see anything wrong with carrying someone else's diamond dust and using it on them.

It's against the RAW interpretation, and so far as the spirit of the vow is concerned, it's questionable at best. I'd certainly question a caster being "loaned" expensive spell focuses and thousands of gold in reagents if he claims to have taken a vow of poverty.

Talya
2009-12-30, 05:00 PM
which is extremely out of line as a quest reward. not to mention it is not even gonna be available since they have to pay obscene amounts of gold to said casters to cast such a demanding spell.

Depends how much of your accumulated loot you've donated to the temple/charity supplying the wizards. The rules for goodwill from charitable donations are also in that book, and nothing prevents a VOP character from aquiring a hell of a lot of goodwill, which can be spent as surely as gold.



It's against the RAW interpretation.

No, it's not. A tome is just a consumable item, making it identical to the potion example (and it is written as an example, not as a single exception) given in the VOP. There's no gold peice limit to comsuming your ally's potion listed, is there?

I'd say it's against the spirit of the vow, if it were also against the spirit of the vow to accept castings of the Wish spell. Since it's not, then...

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:02 PM
That interpretation is not supported by the rules. Posession is posession, regardless of the intended target for an item. Diamond dust is explicitly valuable, and thus verboten. There is no exception to the possession rules for you to use them on your party members.
The rules for VoP says the character needs to sell items and then donate the gold that is his share of it; or take items that are his share, then sell them...
By your interpretation the character must STEAL any valuable item they touch, ever; and donate it to the poor.

ok, I think I had enough...so basically

Tyndmyr, you are saying that any item of value the VoP touches must be stolen and sold. Thus he cannot carry someone elses item and apply them to them.
Tyla, you say it makes sense for a church to give you a reward that costs 675,000 gp for donating them money...

Fine... lets agree to disagree about those points. We are not getting anywhere just rehashing our points. I think either interpretation is too extreme (either in being too lenient, or too restrictive on the VoP)...
but it is up to interpretation and that is another problem of the VoP... lack of exactness on what you can and cannot do.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 05:03 PM
he is supposed to accept rewards and DONATE them... not accept them and consume them...
Room for a night is one thing, it is acceptable.
A wish is +1 to a stat and not gonna help... it needs to be a tome, or a wish granting item... which he is required to sell.
unless the kingdom says "as a reward, we will have multiple high level wizards burn massive amounts of XP to cast 5 wishes on you in a row"...
which is extremely out of line as a quest reward. not to mention it is not even gonna be available since they have to pay obscene amounts of gold to said casters to cast such a demanding spell.

The requirement is that the player accepts his share, and that the share goes to charity.

This does not prohibit the character from accepting kindnesses, blessings, benefits, or spells cast upon them. In fact, the VOP rules explicitly allow such characters to benefit from spells cast upon them.

Let me repeat that.

The VOP rules explicitly allow such characters to benefit from spells cast upon them.

That shoots down any possible counter argument that you can have. "Donation?" Sorry, explicitly allowed.
"Unfeasibility?" Eh, it's allowed.
"Devastating to my point?" Rules can be, when you're wrong.

Yes, spells can have an inherent value, and with wish, it's quite high. That does not change the fact that the principle is the same whether it's Cure Light Wounds or Wish. If you argue that it's wrong for the VOP character to receive a Wish, the same line of reasoning prohibits him from ever accepting a Cure spell, because it has a value. Instead, he should get the 25gp, and, should he survive his life threatening condition, should donate it. The point of VOP is to make a character that's NOT about material possessions and wealth, and instead works to benefit others. Teetotaling and calculating the value of every service you'd receive, and instead getting the donation? Doesn't seem to fill that standard well. Material possessions? Fine. But well-intentioned service? Absolutely ridiculous.

On a side note, you only need 2 wishes, as you've already pointed out that a character can get +3 independently.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 05:04 PM
Quintessenial Paladin 2 had "blessings" which are handed out by the gods instead of magic items- for "low wealth" campaigns

Wouldn't be too hard to adjust them to apply to other Good characters.

I think though that it was this concept of "blessings of the Forces of Good" that the Vow of Poverty was independantly inventing.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:08 PM
The VOP rules explicitly allow such characters to benefit from spells cast upon them.
Yes, while some argued that they cannot accept spells, I say that they MAY...
the problem is that some spells have a cost! a massive one, that is either directly in GP, or in XP that is translateable to a GP cost. that is the argument...
sure they can get spells... but when the reward is a spell that consumes a lot of gold...


Yes, spells can have an inherent value, and with wish, it's quite high. That does not change the fact that the principle is the same whether it's Cure Light Wounds or Wish.
it makes all the difference, because cure light wounds costs the caster nothing. wish, stoneskin, etc does cost.

olentu
2009-12-30, 05:11 PM
Depends how much of your accumulated loot you've donated to the temple/charity supplying the wizards. The rules for goodwill from charitable donations are also in that book, and nothing prevents a VOP character from aquiring a hell of a lot of goodwill, which can be spent as surely as gold.



No, it's not. A tome is just a consumable item, making it identical to the potion example (and it is written as an example, not as a single exception) given in the VOP. There's no gold peice limit to comsuming your ally's potion listed, is there?

I'd say it's against the spirit of the vow, if it were also against the spirit of the vow to accept castings of the Wish spell. Since it's not, then...

Again since DM interpretation is required as tomes are not one of the examples one can not say that such equivalency is correct. And clearly from this thread one can see that interpretations will differ. So I would say that such an extension while obviously reasonable to some remains just that, an extension.

Other methods again depend on the method.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:13 PM
Quintessenial Paladin 2 had "blessings" which are handed out by the gods instead of magic items- for "low wealth" campaigns

Wouldn't be too hard to adjust them to apply to other Good characters.

I think though that it was this concept of "blessings of the Forces of Good" that the Vow of Poverty was independantly inventing.

every single benefit the VoP gives is already blessings from the gods or the alignment force to them...
So basically this is a case of the DM giving them extra blessing.. he might as well just increase the VoP's rewards instead of working it in such a roundabout way.

Yes, the gods could gift you with a +5 inherant to a stat at no cost... and thus there is no argument... but in which case, why isn't it part of the VoP?

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 05:20 PM
it makes all the difference, because cure light wounds costs the caster nothing. wish, stoneskin, etc does cost.

VOP IS NOT ABOUT COST.

VOP is about VALUE.

Does Wish have a value? Yes.
Does Cure Light Wounds have a value? Yes.

The Cure Light Wounds you speak of as worthless? Has a PRICE in the PHB.

Or is your position that the VOP character may only accept spells/services/etc as long as it's easy for the giver, and that the service may not inconvenience them in any way?

If so?

Cite RAW support for your view, outlining that VOP characters cannot accept services that cost someone else something.

I'll cite one that says they can. The VOP rules explicitly allow a VOP character to accept a potion of Cure Light Wounds (which, presumably, cost its possessor something) and drink it. The VOP rules do not put a limit on the value of the item consumed in this manner. This is in the same area where the rules explicitly allow the VOP character to benefit from spells cast on him/her.

So, a VOP sorceror could accept a potion of Haste from someone. It's value is greater.

Show me where the line ends? What cost is ok, and what isn't, by RAW?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 05:21 PM
The rules for VoP says the character needs to sell items and then donate the gold that is his share of it; or take items that are his share, then sell them...
By your interpretation the character must STEAL any valuable item they touch, ever; and donate it to the poor.

Steal, no.

But a vow of poverty is not just a vow to only use other people's things. He gives his share of things to the poor. He does not use other people's valuable things.

He can just say "no thank you", and explain his vow to his party members, rather than stealing and donating it.


ok, I think I had enough...so basically

Tyndmyr, you are saying that any item of value the VoP touches must be stolen and sold. Thus he cannot carry someone elses item and apply them to them.

You are given an explicit list of (mundane!) items that will not cause you to break the vow. In addition, an exception is made for potions under specific circumstances.

Anything else magical or of value causes you to break it, and lose the bennies. Since it requires you be exalted, anything that violates the exalted code also results in losing bennies. A habit of theft would likely do this.

Nowhere does it say that any magical item with limited uses gets treated as potions. This would allow the ludicrous position of a caster with a stack of wands, runestaves, tomes, and other ridiculously valuable things. It's pretty clear that your ally cramming a healing potion down your throat is not equivalent to this.


Tyla, you say it makes sense for a church to give you a reward that costs 675,000 gp for donating them money...

I wont deny that a grateful church may seek to help you, but a reward of such magnitude seems ludicrous unless your donations vastly exceed that amount.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:24 PM
You know, Tyndmyr.. i think your interpretation might actually be correct by the RAW... not by the spirit of the vow, but the by the raw due to the phrasing.
Well, sucks for the poor soul playing with a VoP.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 05:30 PM
Please note: The rules for VOP are about possessions.

If a friend hands you a Potion, and you uncork it and drink it, you've broken your vow.

If a friend physically pours the potion down your throat, and you swallow, you're fine.


You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion’s ebony fly. You may not, however, “borrow” a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.

In other words: There is no prohibition on receiving magical effects. But, if those magical effects come in an item form, holding that item? Breaks your vow.

In other words:
If a cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on you? Good.
If a cleric gives you a potion of Cure Light Wounds? You broke it.

If a friend pours a potion of Cure Light Wounds down your throat? Good.
If a friend hands you a potion of Cure Light wounds? You broke it.

If a Wizard casts haste on you? Good.
If a wizard gives you a potion of haste? You broke it.

If a cleric casts Raise Dead on you? Good.
If a cleric gives you a scroll of raise dead, to cast on someone else? You broke it.

If a Wizard casts Stoneskin on you? Good.
If a wizard gives you a scroll of stoneskin? You broke it.

If a Wizard casts Wish on you? Good.
If a wizard gives you a scroll of Wish? You broke it.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 05:35 PM
Yeah, any effect put on you seems fine...(and a good thing too, or buffs would be horrifically dangerous).

Talt, I agree that the crunch doesn't seem to be great for the vow...I mean, would it have killed them to allow all mundane items, or at least all those below a trivial gold limit? Compared to an adventurer's loot, it's a pretty trivial amount, and we wouldn't have issues like a cleric unable to hold a simple wooden holy symbol.

Im not even going to speculate on what happens if a rogue slight of hands something valuable onto the VoP chump.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 05:39 PM
There is a cleric spell in Complete Champion (0th level) that temporarily summons a holy symbol. And you don't need a symbol to actually cast the spell. It is also available to paladins as a 1st level spell.

Since it has only been summoned, and goes away when the spell ends, does it "count as a possession"?

And what about other summoning spells?

Also- can a VoP person be a "pack mule" and carry other people's treasure without it being "a possession"?

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:46 PM
@ PhoenixRivers: very good analysis... wow the VoP as written is terrible. It makes no sense whatsoever and is basically a vow not to TOUCH magic items yourself.
for example: If a cleric gives you a scroll of raise dead, to cast on someone else? You broke it.

Goes completely against what people might think the spirit of the vow is... but is the RAW of the vow...

BTW, I wanted to issue a correction... I have been saying that tomes cost 127500 for a +1 tome. By the SRD they cost 27,500 gp for a +1 tome, and 5100xp to craft...
I was applying the standard crafting rules that item has a market value in gp of 25x the XP cost...

This came about from another thead:

That's not the case for tomes, though. There, you're getting 5.4 gp per 1 xp spent, basically the same as wishing for it.

Creating almost anything other than tomes will give you a much better gp-to-xp return.

Cost 1,250 gp + 5,100 XP (+1)

actually, it gives you 5.15 gp per XP...
the 12.5gp per XP was PROFIT...
the tome costs gp to craft. So does every other item btw...

So crafting a regular magic item costs you 12.5gp per XP, and has a market price of 25gp per XP...
so a 1000xp item would cost 12,500gp to craft and have a value of 25000gp...

Normal Item Crafting: 12.5gp profit per 1XP spent.
Wishing for gold: 5gp profit per 1XP spent.
Crafting a Tome: 5.15gp profit per 1XP spent.

Only a retard would ever craft a tome for sale... or craft a tome period...

Reinboom
2009-12-30, 05:47 PM
Already covered, and no. Requires mucho gold, and anyway, it's very limited in capacity.

Legacy weapon might work with VoP in certain instances. Only going to help weapon based builds, though, and the negative attributes of many of the legacy weapons is a problem.

I did not see in this topic where it's covered. :smallconfused:
As I said, let VoP include the ritual cost.

Also, why does it only help weapon based builds? :smallconfused:

Talya
2009-12-30, 05:52 PM
Please note: The rules for VOP are about possessions.

If a friend hands you a Potion, and you uncork it and drink it, you've broken your vow.

If a friend physically pours the potion down your throat, and you swallow, you're fine.


Actually, the rules for VOP explicitly allow you to use an expendable item (with the example given of a potion) that an ally owns/carries but then gives to you to drink it.

Of course, if done your way, it still allows you to read a tome or manual so long as you never touch it, getting someone else to turn the pages for you. :p

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 05:54 PM
I lean to the view that it isn't the physical contact thats the issue- its owning them, using them, and benefitting from them in any way.

Putting the magic cloak in your backpack is fine- as long as you don't "claim" the cloak.

In the same way, if a person with VOP was ordered to deliver a magic item from one person, to another, they could- because, at no point, is it their item.

olentu
2009-12-30, 05:54 PM
Actually, the rules for VOP explicitly allow you to use an expendable item (with the example given of a potion) that an ally owns/carries but then gives to you to drink it.

They explicitly allow one to use a potion. Generalization to other items not listed would be dependent on the DM.

Edit: Though I also recall that a scroll is explicitly denied.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 06:06 PM
I did not see in this topic where it's covered. :smallconfused:

First part was regarding alternative spellbooks. Already covered repeatedly. They all involve the usual scribing costs or more, just in different ways.


As I said, let VoP include the ritual cost.

Also, why does it only help weapon based builds? :smallconfused:

Because legacy weaons are weapons. Yes, non weapon legacy items exist, but they are few, and generally crappy. Monks get a nunchuck. Monks using weapons are crappy to begin with.

The tradeoffs of the negative aspects of many weapons also make them less desirable than would be expected for something so rare.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 06:16 PM
A "Potion" is a well-defined item in D&D. Complete Arcane expands the definition from bottles of liquid as follows:


The standard potion is, of course, a vial filled with a magical libation, designed to be consumed by anyone and having the following characteristics.
• Single-use only—once consumed, the potion is gone.
• Limited to spells of 3rd level or lower.
• No special magical training required—anyone can drink a potion and gain the benefit of its magic.
• Must be physically manipulated in some way (unstoppered or broken, then consumed).
• Must be in the user’s hand to be used.
• Use provokes attacks of opportunity.
Within these broad guidelines, though, a number of alternate potion forms might be possible.

They go on to list how potions can take the form of magic fruit (eaten), inscribed tiles (broken) and wafers of "spell bread" (eaten.)

It is clear though, that tomes are right out.

Temotei
2009-12-30, 06:26 PM
Well. As far as I know, VoP is not worthless or unplayable.

It is merely subpar, when compared to the option, which is the astonishing versatility of magic items.

Thing is, everything VoP does, magic items can do and can often do better. I also believe there have been calculations of the total "worth" of VoP in GP and that these turned out to show that if you took the benefits granted by it and got them through magic items, you would have spent less gold than the recomended wealth by level.

Edit: Ninja'd.

You have to spend a feat on it too.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 06:30 PM
You have to spend a feat on it too.

Two, actually - You have to take Sacred Vow first, then Vow of Poverty. Only humans, strongheart halflings and other bonus feat races can get VoP at level 1.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 06:30 PM
Two, actually - You have to take Sacred Vow first, then Vow of Poverty. Only humans, strongheart halflings and other bonus feat races can get VoP at level 1.

ack, ninjad :)

Mike_G
2009-12-30, 07:27 PM
Well, the feat also explicitly suggests adjusting loot so that thanks to VoP, the party doesn't actually end up with more stuff for the other players as a result.

In fact, wizard articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060609a) suggest that VoP may actually hamper the party by insisting that as much as possible be given to charity when the loot isn't easily divisible, etc. That'd be a nasty position to be in...find a rather nifty bit of loot, but the VoP char demands it be sold so his portion can go to charity...


We had that come up, and my Rogue basically told the VoP monk flat out to take a flying screw at a rolling doughnut. He can donate his share of gold to charity, but he'll get my Boots of Speed up his arse before they get donated to the Home for Disadavantaged Orphans.

We joked that the local orphanage has more gold leaf than the Vatican, given how much gp value a share of high level loot is, to people who consider a serving of turnips a day to be affluence.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 07:31 PM
We had that come up, and my Rogue basically told the VoP monk flat out to take a flying screw at a rolling doughnut. He can donate his share of gold to charity, but he'll get my Boots of Speed up his arse before they get donated to the Home for Disadavantaged Orphans.

We joked that the local orphanage has more gold leaf than the Vatican, given how much gp value a share of high level loot is, to people who consider a serving of turnips a day to be affluence.

I calculated about 60 to 80$ per 1gp from various RAW materials (exact conversion is naturally impossible)... do a conversion once and show him exactly how much money he donated that one specific orphanage :)

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 07:33 PM
No, in such a case it is explicit that you must take your fair share of magic items and donate them."Fair share" is a totally ambiguous term; it does not, as far as I'm aware, have a RAW definition. It is not the same thing as "you must divide the treasure evenly" unless the group of characters (not the dm, and not even the players directly) define it that way. Your fair share may not be an even split, especially for people playing in a world where magical items (or even items d'art) cannot be easily liquidated.

Then of course there are people who play in groups where they have a "party contract" ... The party contract may explicitly set aside certain portions of the loot for the party as a whole (covering expensive reagents, or communal items, etc), or give preference on certain items to certain characters, or even explicitly divide the loot in an uneven manner. In such a case, the VoP character's fair share is certainly not an arbitrary 1/4th of the of the party's gross income.

Also, considering that a VoP character has very little in the way of transporting the loot to the charity (no bags of holding, no pack animals, etc), their fair share may even be limited to what they can carry; they really cannot make a claim to more than that, because they lack a means of transporting it to some charitable organization.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 07:35 PM
"Fair share" is a totally ambiguous term; it does not, as far as I'm aware, have a RAW definition. It is not the same thing as "you must divide the treasure evenly" unless the group of characters (not the dm, and not even the players directly) define it that way.

Nothing I like better than ambiguous terms to come up regarding loot distribution and losing powers. All sorts of fun for everyone.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 07:42 PM
Nothing I like better than ambiguous terms to come up regarding loot distribution and losing powers. All sorts of fun for everyone.Well, assuming that you aren't using any sarcasm, I agree wholeheartedly. It means the rules support doing it whatever way the players and GM can agree on.

Speaking of losing powers... is there a clause somewhere that says that a character who has taken a vow of poverty must claim a fair share or lose their powers? I haven't read the actual wording of that part in a bit and I don't have easy access to the book at the moment.

Flickerdart
2009-12-30, 07:42 PM
If the VoP character was hired by the party on the terms that he is to be paid two silver for his service, then that's a fair share. If the terms were that the players donate all items that can produce food that they find, and the players find none, then that's still fair, in-game at least.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 07:43 PM
it doesn't literally say "fair share", that was my terminology.
It literally says that the VoP does not increase the party's overall wealth. and that the person needs to claim his share and donate it.

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 07:49 PM
it doesn't literally say "fair share", that was my terminology.
It literally says that the VoP does not increase the party's overall wealth. and that the person needs to claim his share and donate it.so, nothing prevents his share may be quite minimal compared to the rest of the party.

It seems likely to me that this clause is actually aimed at the DM rather than the players... the dm should know the loot distribution method that the players are going to use, and then generate loot in such a way that they aren't getting "extra" loot because of the VoP character.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 08:03 PM
There is a cleric spell in Complete Champion (0th level) that temporarily summons a holy symbol. And you don't need a symbol to actually cast the spell. It is also available to paladins as a 1st level spell.

Since it has only been summoned, and goes away when the spell ends, does it "count as a possession"?

And what about other summoning spells?

While I personally would allow this, it seems that RAI (from part 2 of the Save My Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a) article on VoP) intended for Clerics to be at a huge disadvantage when taking the feat.


Well, assuming that you aren't using any sarcasm, I agree wholeheartedly. It means the rules support doing it whatever way the players and GM can agree on.

I think the "agreement" part IS the problem. The group can houserule anything they please, you don't need ambiguous rules to facilitate houseruling. Clear language instead cuts down on the bickering before such a consensus can be reached..

taltamir
2009-12-30, 08:12 PM
so, nothing prevents his share may be quite minimal compared to the rest of the party.

It seems likely to me that this clause is actually aimed at the DM rather than the players... the dm should know the loot distribution method that the players are going to use, and then generate loot in such a way that they aren't getting "extra" loot because of the VoP character.

Yes, in theory you could decide that this player gets nothing, the others get everything, and the DM just lowers their rewards to match WBL.
The result is the same though. and it is still quite a leap to assume everyone else is just giving him gifts knowing that their "loot" is adjusted down because of him.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 08:14 PM
so, nothing prevents his share may be quite minimal compared to the rest of the party.

It seems likely to me that this clause is actually aimed at the DM rather than the players... the dm should know the loot distribution method that the players are going to use, and then generate loot in such a way that they aren't getting "extra" loot because of the VoP character.

Sure, his share can be minimal...but that doesn't seem in keeping with the whole "donate to the poor" theme. Sure, other party members will likely wish to minimize this "wasted" gold, but the player wants to be sure he isn't risking getting too low to fulfill the ambiguous requirements. It's a recipie for conflict.

The feat just wasnt written well. Im not even sure the concept should be done as a feat.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 08:21 PM
Sure, his share can be minimal...but that doesn't seem in keeping with the whole "donate to the poor" theme. Sure, other party members will likely wish to minimize this "wasted" gold, but the player wants to be sure he isn't risking getting too low to fulfill the ambiguous requirements. It's a recipie for conflict.

The feat just wasnt written well. Im not even sure the concept should be done as a feat.

it is also entirely metagamish... he doesn't take his share of the gold, and the DM instead reduces the gold found to match? talk about metagame... also talk about not living up to the whole "donating to the poor" portion.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 08:29 PM
it is also entirely metagamish... he doesn't take his share of the gold, and the DM instead reduces the gold found to match? talk about metagame... also talk about not living up to the whole "donating to the poor" portion.

Yeah, Im not even sure what that's supposed to accomplish.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 08:33 PM
Actually, the rules for VOP explicitly allow you to use an expendable item (with the example given of a potion) that an ally owns/carries but then gives to you to drink it.

Of course, if done your way, it still allows you to read a tome or manual so long as you never touch it, getting someone else to turn the pages for you. :p

Incorrect. It explicitly allows you to DRINK a potion.

It does not allow you to hold, borrow, or use any magic item, under any circumstances, ever. This is explicit. ANY magic item whatsoever that you take with intent to use, even for one round, breaks your vow. Why? Because that's what the feat says.

As someone else may administer a potion to you (which you then drink), this is not a contradiction. Someone else is using the item, taking the action required to do so, and you are receiving the benefits.

While the wording is less than clear on drinking vs holding a potion, the statement: "You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf"

That's airtight. The potion may be used on your behalf. But you may not use ANY magic item, of ANY sort. That's pretty open-and-shut. The following potion is an example of this.

Also: "You may not, however, “borrow” a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

That's airtight, as well. The prohibition is on the possession or use of any magic item. That means any item, if it qualifies as a magic item, will cause you to break your vow if you possess it or personally use it. If, per the text, someone else administers the magic item, you are allowed to reap the effects.

EDIT: Incidentally, done my way, there is no way any VoP character could read a tome to reap its benefits. That is the USE of the item. If the item were such that another character could read it to him, and he would gain the benefits, it is fine. But VOP bars any use of any magic item at any time for any reason. No exceptions. If you bring a +5 Ghost Touch Longsword to a temple to donate, and the cleric is beset by a spectre, and you take up that longsword to kill the spectre before donating it to the church, saving the lives of dozens, and ensuring that the temple to your god that you swore your vows to remains strong?

Congratulations. You just broke your vow.

Welcome to one of the examples showing that BoED wasn't a well-thought out book.

Reinboom
2009-12-30, 08:45 PM
Because legacy weaons are weapons. Yes, non weapon legacy items exist, but they are few, and generally crappy. Monks get a nunchuck. Monks using weapons are crappy to begin with.

The tradeoffs of the negative aspects of many weapons also make them less desirable than would be expected for something so rare.

Your first two sentences there directly contradict each other. :smallconfused:

Legacy items are still, as a single item, more powerful than any one given item without considering cost factors and things that are inherently abusive (or are already given to the VoP). And since there would be no comparison for the cost factor, nor, for that matter, towards any item it is a pure bonus.
Which, for as far as keeping the flavor goes, it does pretty well.

I don't see why there is an issue with this.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 08:48 PM
Your first two sentences there directly contradict each other. :smallconfused:

Legacy items are still, as a single item, more powerful than any one given item without considering cost factors and things that are inherently abusive (or are already given to the VoP). And since there would be no comparison for the cost factor, nor, for that matter, towards any item it is a pure bonus.
Which, for as far as keeping the flavor goes, it does pretty well.

I don't see why there is an issue with this.

Legacy items are weapon biased. That's why the book is called Weapons of Legacy. Even the few non-weapon items tend to be focused toward weapon using classes.

Some of the items are just junk. The fact that they may not be exactly replicable via a single item isn't always important. They tend to have effects like significant amounts of hit point loss.

I mean, I have no problem with house ruling them to be allowed, I just wouldn't get my hopes up that they'll work all that great.

Xenogears
2009-12-30, 09:21 PM
The exact wording of the donation part is that the character with the VoP has to donate MOST of their wealth to a charity. They also cannot own much of anything. So theoretically you could give 50% + one CP to a charity and the rest to the party and it doesn't break RAW.

"Hey Wizard friend here have 100k gold I don't need it."
Two weeks later: "Hey Wizard think you can cast Wish a few times on me?"

Meh not quite in spirit if the players decide on it beforehand but if you just so happen to need a spell and you already donated the money to the party it seems fine.

Hey if you had a 4 person party and all of them but one had VoP then the only non VoP character could have 2.5 times WBL.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 09:23 PM
The exact wording of the donation part is that the character with the VoP has to donate MOST of their wealth to a charity. They also cannot own much of anything. So theoretically you could give 50% + one CP to a charity and the rest to the party and it doesn't break RAW.

"Hey Wizard friend here have 100k gold I don't need it."
Two weeks later: "Hey Wizard think you can cast Wish a few times on me?"

Meh not quite in spirit if the players decide on it beforehand but if you just so happen to need a spell and you already donated the money to the party it seems fine.

Hey if you had a 4 person party and all of them but one had VoP then the only non VoP character could have 2.5 times WBL.

I've had this exact thought too...but the explicit clause about how VoP should not be used to increase WBL for the rest of the party would seem to negate this being effective.

Xenogears
2009-12-30, 09:28 PM
I've had this exact thought too...but the explicit clause about how VoP should not be used to increase WBL for the rest of the party would seem to negate this being effective.

I was thinking that too but since you only hafta donate most what else are you supposed to do with it? I mean really. RAW I can see that it is contradictory but are the rules really just suggesting that you just start tossing the money aside since you cant give it to the party and do't need to donate it?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 09:30 PM
I was thinking that too but since you only hafta donate most what else are you supposed to do with it? I mean really. RAW I can see that it is contradictory but are the rules really just suggesting that you just start tossing the money aside since you cant give it to the party and do't need to donate it?

You only have to donate that much to charity. I imagine there are others in this world besides your party and charitable organizations.

I mean...if that were the case, who is your party killing, hmmm?

Xenogears
2009-12-30, 09:35 PM
You only have to donate that much to charity. I imagine there are others in this world besides your party and charitable organizations.

I mean...if that were the case, who is your party killing, hmmm?

Are you suggesting I should defeat those ogres by tossing money at them?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 09:38 PM
Are you suggesting I should defeat those ogres by tossing money at them?

Well, there's that. There's the possibility of donating more than the bare minimum to charity. There's taxes. Presumably the lawful good types would pay those. There's expenses, such as paying the hirelings who carry out the magic items for you, since touching them is bad.

I see no problem with the minimum donated directly to charity being only "more than half". The vow is strict enough. It need not be stricter.

Slayn82
2009-12-30, 09:41 PM
So, vow of poverty for people that use a lot of incarnum Chakra Binds.
Also, somewhat decent if you go into Ravenloft.

Or alternatively, since you must donate to the poor, if there is no poor=no donation.

Try to move to an elemental plane or something.

Xenogears
2009-12-30, 09:43 PM
Well, there's that. There's the possibility of donating more than the bare minimum to charity. There's taxes. Presumably the lawful good types would pay those. There's expenses, such as paying the hirelings who carry out the magic items for you, since touching them is bad.

I see no problem with the minimum donated directly to charity being only "more than half". The vow is strict enough. It need not be stricter.

Personally Id just do a Hansel and Gretal Trail of breadcrumbs with all my spare GP.

Of course it wouldn't be woodland animals that take it...

Jayabalard
2009-12-30, 10:09 PM
I think the "agreement" part IS the problem. The group can houserule anything they please, you don't need ambiguous rules to facilitate houseruling. Clear language instead cuts down on the bickering before such a consensus can be reached..I couldn't disagree more.


Sure, his share can be minimal...but that doesn't seem in keeping with the whole "donate to the poor" theme.It keeps with the "forsaking material posessions" theme, which is much more in line with what a vow of poverty should embody than "go out and make money for the poor people".

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 10:21 PM
I couldn't disagree more.

Rather than pothole the discussion, how about elaborating?


Are you suggesting I should defeat those ogres by tossing money at them?

It works for FF samurai...

Flickerdart
2009-12-30, 10:31 PM
Well, there's that. There's the possibility of donating more than the bare minimum to charity. There's taxes. Presumably the lawful good types would pay those. There's expenses, such as paying the hirelings who carry out the magic items for you, since touching them is bad.

I see no problem with the minimum donated directly to charity being only "more than half". The vow is strict enough. It need not be stricter.


Charity

The Paladin has sworn to tithe at least 20% of all his earnings (including treasure) to charity and the church. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he fails to tithe that amount.

The Paladin receives a sacred bonus to Diplomacy checks equal to 1/2 his class level (rounded up). In addition, once per day for a number of rounds equal to his Charisma modifier, the Paladin can use charm person (as the spell). At seventh level, this changes to charm monster. At fourteenth level, the Paladin can either perform a charm monster or a mass charm person, and can use this ability twice per day.

Atonement Method: A Paladin who violates the Charity mantle can atone by giving away at least 50% of his assets.

Fax's d20r Paladin, Mantle of Charity. I think it works pretty well.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-30, 10:39 PM
I couldn't disagree more.

Several cases here IMO.
Case 1: Rules are clear. Group likes rules.
Case 2: Rules are clear. Group dislikes rules.
Case 3: Rules are unclear.

In case 1, the group has it easy. The rules are there, the group follows the rules, it's good. Rules are clear, and there's a win.
In case 2, the group has to come to a consensus to ignore the rules, and then build their own rules. Since the group dislikes the rules, ignoring their presence should be easy. Rules are clear, group has to go through the effort of making new rules from the bottom up.
In case 3, the group has to make a decision about what the rules should be.

So, if the rules are clear, the group sometimes has to ignore them and spend the effort to make new rules. If the rules are unclear, the group always has to ignore them and spend the effort to make new rules. Former case is better IMO.

Mike_G
2009-12-30, 11:17 PM
I think it's clear the intent of the rules on donations are so the party doesn't start splitting the loot three ways instead of four, which would make VoP allies popular with greedy parties.

The actual effect, if you have a rules lawyer player, who wants to account for every gp of loot value, take his 25% and give it all to the Home for Knocked -Up Teenage Sluts Disadvantaged Orphans, is that you have a big problem when the loot is 1000 gp and a Holy Avenger.

Because, by a strict reading, the party should sell the Holy Avenger, and divide the proceeds so the VoP character can build a new riding stable and marble fountain for the orphans.

This is a great tactic for cynical DM who want to watch the Paladin and the Exalted ascetic character get in a fistfight over treasure.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 11:21 PM
eh... its still solveable via "ok, you take the holy avenger, but you owe the party 3/4 of its gold value which will be deduced from future treasure... 1/4 of it going to the VoP guy will go to charity"...

actually i see it as less of a problem for the VoP guy then it is for the rest of the party who wants the money... they all want their fair share of what that holy avenger is worth

Mike_G
2009-12-30, 11:30 PM
eh... its still solveable via "ok, you take the holy avenger, but you owe the party 3/4 of its gold value which will be deduced from future treasure... 1/4 of it going to the VoP guy will go to charity"...

actually i see it as less of a problem for the VoP guy then it is for the rest of the party who wants the money... they all want their fair share of what that holy avenger is worth

Which seems way out of the spirit of the oath that the VoP guy, with no use for material possessions, will want an IOU from the Paladin for 30,000 gp. Which could build each orphan his own mansion, when you think about it.

We never, until saddled with a VoP monk, did the bean counting thing. If there was a Holy Avenger, it went to the Paladin, the Ring of Wizardry went to the Wizard, the Quiver of Ehlonna went to the Ranger, gold got split evenly, unless somebody got nothing good, then they might get an extra share of gold. Nobody owed the kitty anything.

Then once we had a guy who eschewed all material possessions, he wanted us to start playing Accountants and Escrow.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 11:32 PM
Which seems way out of the spirit of the oath that the VoP guy, with no use for material possessions, will want an IOU from the Paladin for 30,000 gp. Which could build each orphan his own mansion, when you think about it.

We never, until saddled with a VoP monk, did the bean counting thing. If there was a Holy Avenger, it went to the Paladin, the Ring of Wizardry went to the Wizard, the Quiver of Ehlonna went to the Ranger, gold got split evenly, unless somebody got nothing good, then they might get an extra share of gold. Nobody owed the kitty anything.

Then once we had a guy who eschewed all material possessions, he wanted us to start playing Accountants and Escrow.

In other words, playing the character who disavows wealth actually forces you to keep closer track of wealth. Irony; it's not just for cartoon sitcoms.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 11:34 PM
its kinda... communistic to never do the bean counting thing...
I have played games based on "need"... some players end up with tens of thousands of GP worth of items while others get jack squat... and you can still have vehement arguments about who is being greedy.

Kylarra
2009-12-30, 11:52 PM
I've never really done the bean counter thing either. Granted, most of my playgroup also started in 2e where you couldn't be guaranteed to have magic items or a magic mart of sorts, so it mostly goes to whoever needs it, and then if there's stuff no one wants, we sell it and split the proceeds. In our case, the VoP player would simply get a larger share of the liquidated gold, but not be considered as far as initial distribution. In the case of unbalanced things like Holy Avenger + 1k gp mentioned above, he'd just have to shut up and take it, since things will balance out eventually, generally.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 12:02 AM
its kinda... communistic to never do the bean counting thing...
I have played games based on "need"... some players end up with tens of thousands of GP worth of items while others get jack squat... and you can still have vehement arguments about who is being greedy.

I've seen it work both ways. In one of my current games, there's a quasi need, quasi division process going on. Basically, this is how it works.

Step 1. Whoever finds the gold checks to see if others can see him. If not, he steals as much as he can get away with, and lies about it.

Step 2. If they CAN see him, he bribes them heavily to keep quiet. See Step 1.

Step 3. If the general party is aware of the loot, it's roughly split up equally. Items too large to split evenly are handed to whoever wants them...but when the item is eventually retired, the sell value is split evenly.

Step 4. If there is a disagreement over who gets the loot, it's settled by a simple evaluation of need. Whoever is standing at the end of the brawl clearly needs it more.

This is the good group.

The other group distributes strictly according to need. By need, they mean, whoever has less of something. So, me, the barbarian, will never, ever get one of the amulets of natural armor because those with less AC, the casters and such, get first dibs. My barbarian is too poor to even afford hemp rope.

Grumman
2009-12-31, 12:21 AM
its kinda... communistic to never do the bean counting thing...
Not really. You've basically got two sorts of loot: capital loot and drawings loot. Capital loot is anything that you use to improve your ability as an adventurer or anything you sell for that purpose. Drawings loot is anything you use or sell for your own benefit - the ale and whores fund, so to speak. Bean counting is only really necessary for the latter, since the former benefits the entire party, even if Bob is the only guy actually using the item.

A perfectly legitimate way of organising loot would be to divvy it up only when it becomes drawings loot: when someone leaves the party and needs to sell their adventuring gear, for example.

Kantolin
2009-12-31, 01:01 AM
The other group distributes strictly according to need. By need, they mean, whoever has less of something. So, me, the barbarian, will never, ever get one of the amulets of natural armor because those with less AC, the casters and such, get first dibs. My barbarian is too poor to even afford hemp rope.

O_o That's... an interesting group you game with. Suck.

We actually do a very communistic style ourselves. We roughly even out things, and dispense items on where they're most useful. Things like 'Well, the Paladin and the Fighter are up front most often so they probably could use the AC' or whatever. Usually, things even themselves out.

If a holy avenger and smallish amount of money appears, usually whomever takes the big item will opt out of the money. Or not; things even out eventually. If someone ends up left out too often, the party works to help fix this.

Mike_G
2009-12-31, 06:44 AM
its kinda... communistic to never do the bean counting thing...
I have played games based on "need"... some players end up with tens of thousands of GP worth of items while others get jack squat... and you can still have vehement arguments about who is being greedy.


I don't have any patience for the strict accounting, valuing each item before the split thing, as the gold almost never equals the items, so it winds up frustrating.

We've always just gone through the items, giving them as needed/wanted, selling the unwanted, and splitting the gold. If somebody got nothing for items, we would throw him a bigger share of coins.

It just makes sense that the items go to whomever could get the most use out of them.

And it is mind numbingly stupid that the split becomes a big issue when you get a party member who is "unencumbered by material possessions."

mikej
2009-12-31, 06:55 AM
We actually do a very communistic style ourselves. We roughly even out things, and dispense items on where they're most useful. Things like 'Well, the Paladin and the Fighter are up front most often so they probably could use the AC' or whatever. Usually, things even themselves out.

That's pretty much how we do it. Items are given out to those who need it the most. The rest ( random junk ) is sold, added to the gp, then divided out. The player that didn't find a item that matchs him/her character get's a larger sum of the gp. It's a very complex process that involve player's interaction at the table.

Also, why is this still going on? I'm not going to read through the thread now. VoP is really suboptimal. IIRC, it's only really worth 80% of standard wealth and the benefits are set. If it had a form of flying and the ability to select feats other than exalted.

Serenity
2009-12-31, 02:21 PM
The book explicitly states that you can drink a potion given to you, not that the cleric has to pour it down your throat. It's also written as anexample, not a lone exception. The RAI is clearly that you can benefit from expendable items owned by someone else.

The Book of Exalted Deeds RAW is also very explicit that if a character is making regular donations to a church, that church should be willing to provide any spell that their accumulated donations would cover. So yes, they do have someone to cast Miracle for them.

It's not for everyone, it's not top tier, it could almost certainly use reworking. But most of the claims of worthlessness are, when all is said and done, highly overexaggerated.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 02:34 PM
The Book of Exalted Deeds RAW is also very explicit that if a character is making regular donations to a church, that church should be willing to provide any spell that their accumulated donations would cover. So yes, they do have someone to cast Miracle for them.

That's nice. Miracle does not grant inherent bonuses, nor can it replicate wish.

If you're saying this church is willing and able to provide multiple consecutive wishes, well...that's possible, but requires a lot of justification. First off, thats a giant pile of donations. Second, it requires the availability of high level casters with stacks of xp to be handy. There's no reason to assume this is automatically available in every campaign.

Talya
2009-12-31, 02:41 PM
That's nice. Miracle does not grant inherent bonuses, nor can it replicate wish.

If you're saying this church is willing and able to provide multiple consecutive wishes, well...that's possible, but requires a lot of justification. First off, thats a giant pile of donations. Second, it requires the availability of high level casters with stacks of xp to be handy. There's no reason to assume this is automatically available in every campaign.

There is no reason to assume tomes/manuals of stuff are automatically available in every campaign, either, as they also require the same available high level casters with stacks of XP to be created to start with. Of course, they can show up very, very rarely in a random treasure roll. This will give them a slightly higher chance of being available.

As for the giant pile of donations, it could generally be equal to your entire accumulated share of treasure during a campaign--treasure that you'd normally be using to buy items and spellcasting services such as Wish...

taltamir
2009-12-31, 02:50 PM
interesting point that miracle is not wish. however a tome requires wish or miracle. So it could be extrapolated that a miracle can grant it.

I think the only non crazy explanation is that an outsider (celestial, eladrin) or even a god directly gives you inherant bonuses as reward, rather then a church getting someone to blow 25k XP on your sorry ass for giving them "donations".

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsandservices.htm


Spell
The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This cost assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at his or her convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell you need to negotiate with him or her, and the default answer is no.

The cost given is for a spell with no cost for a material component or focus component and no XP cost. If the spell includes a material component, add the cost of that component to the cost of the spell.

If the spell has a focus component (other than a divine focus), add 1/10 the cost of that focus to the cost of the spell. If the spell has an XP cost, add 5 gp per XP lost.

Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn’t certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren’t returning with the caster.

In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn’t guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.


Spell, 9th-level Caster level × 90 gp1


1See spell description for additional costs. If the additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available.

0. Getting non needed consumables with a massive monetary sum value from a church because you donated to them makes no sense... it defeats the whole "donation" purpose.
1. Even the largest cities in the world are not guaranteed to have a spell caster capable of casting 9th level spells. You need 5 of them, each with 5000xp to burn, working together. (or less but with more XP... specifically, who chose not to level up just to save up the XP)
2. Dangerous spells are usually refused outright (so no buying a wish; the suicide spell).
3. A level 9 spell by a minimum level character that can cast it, a level 17 cleric. will cost 90gp * 17 (the caster level) + 5000xp * 5 gp/xp (extra costs) = 1530 + 25,000 = 26,530gp
4. Spells with a total cost of over 3000gp are generally not available... this is a spell with a total cost of 26,530gp. Just shy of 9 times that amount. That is total cost per cast, and you need 5 of them, cast within 6 seconds of each other.
5. The clerics in question must have 5000 XP just sitting around, and be willing to burn it on you.
6. This is nothing but DM fiatville. If your DM thinks that VoP isn't good enough, well he should just make it better, not give you in game and in character unrealistic "rewards" for your "donations" (aka, for having a VoP)
7. For a quick conversion, @60 to 80$ per gp, 26,530gp = 1,591,800$ to 2,122,400$
remember, that is per +1 bonus, so for a +5 you are looking at 5 times that amount.

And all this when certain outsides can cast it as an SLA, and gods at will... and both of those do NOT have an XP cost and do NOT carry a risk.
So, if your DM must give you such a stealth reward and doesn't want to just straight out make the VoP better, he should say that an archangel (or even your god) came and personally gave you an inherant bonus with its XP free SLA... rather then the church rounding up a bunch of casters with XP to burn and giving you a 26,530gp per +1 reward.

SparkMandriller
2009-12-31, 03:04 PM
As for the giant pile of donations, it could generally be equal to your entire accumulated share of treasure during a campaign--treasure that you'd normally be using to buy items and spellcasting services such as Wish...

This sounds like some sort of tax evasion plan.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:05 PM
interesting point that miracle is not wish. however a tome requires wish or miracle. So it could be extrapolated that a miracle can grant it.


Eh...sketchy. I see where you're coming from, but it's not unheard of for magic item prerequisites to be just the closest spell or spells to the effect granted. It certainly isn't always a match. It's quite possible that they added it simply so the odd divine crafter could also craft tomes.

It's also possible that it falls under the undefined "greater effect" area that's roughly analogous to wish's non-guaranteed effects. Possible, and a generous DM may allow it, but in that case, we're back to blowing 5000 xp on it, and it's not even guaranteed.

I agree with the rest of your points though...the idea that your "gifts" get the exact same rewards as going to the local market and purchasing stuff seems a bit at odds with the theme here.


Also, the non-VoP guy can search the entire world to find the requisite guy with skills. The VoP guy needs to find a charity that has one, well in advance of when he needs it(cause he cant just sock away piles of money for it).

Serenity, RAI isn't at all clear that a healing potion is equivalent to one of the most expensive magic items available. Especially given the blanket ban on magic items they have.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:07 PM
This sounds like some sort of tax evasion plan.

It does, doesn't it? Its a wee bit crazy that playing an aesthetic turns the game into an exercise in accounting.

Mike_G
2009-12-31, 08:25 PM
It does, doesn't it? Its a wee bit crazy that playing an aesthetic turns the game into an exercise in accounting.


That's what I hated most about it.

My wealth worshipping Rogue who would make Gordon Gecko look like the Buddha was less obsessed with accounting than the damn ascetic.

Cyanic
2010-01-01, 11:07 AM
On the wizard casting without a spellbook, couldn't one just use the Autohypnosis skill at DC 15 to memorize the whole spellbook. SRD on it is (but you can’t memorize magical writing or similarly exotic scripts), however the writing isn't per say magical in itself and as a wizard it certainly wouldn't be exotic to you.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 11:59 AM
Im pretty sure that spells in a spellbook are in fact magical writing. In fact...if spells aren't magical writing, then what is?

Also, the SRD includes all spellbook stuff under "Arcane Magical Writing".

Tetsubo 57
2010-01-01, 04:41 PM
On the wizard casting without a spellbook, couldn't one just use the Autohypnosis skill at DC 15 to memorize the whole spellbook. SRD on it is (but you can’t memorize magical writing or similarly exotic scripts), however the writing isn't per say magical in itself and as a wizard it certainly wouldn't be exotic to you.

I would allow a VoP Wizard to tattoo relevant data onto their body.

Of course I can't see why you would want to play a VoP Wizard when you could play a Sorcerer or Warlock.