PDA

View Full Version : how to get around the vow of poverty



deephelldragon
2010-05-13, 06:56 AM
I have a player that has taken the vow of poverty and they are about to fight in a major God battle that requires them to have a special set of weapons called the God killing weapons so how can i give this player a weapon without breaking his vow of poverty.

Greenish
2010-05-13, 07:00 AM
Assumedly whatever deity that took his vow could be willing to waive it just this once, so that he can save the world.

kamikasei
2010-05-13, 07:00 AM
Contrive some reason for the weapons to fuse with his soul. Mechanically it'll be exactly as if he's wielding normal weapons (well, I guess they shouldn't be disarmable/sunderable), but in flavour he's summoning them instead of drawing them and they're spiritual weapons of pure energy rather than pieces of metal that could be given a sale price.

In a more general sense, avoid scripting scenarios where the characters can't progress without doing something they're prohibited from doing.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-13, 07:01 AM
I have a player that has taken the vow of poverty and they are about to fight in a major God battle that requires them to have a special set of weapons called the God killing weapons so how can i give this player a weapon without breaking his vow of poverty.

One weapon is an incarnum soulmeld, which binds to his chakra. Or just gives him lots of pluses if he goes unarmed.

Jack_Simth
2010-05-13, 07:08 AM
I have a player that has taken the vow of poverty and they are about to fight in a major God battle that requires them to have a special set of weapons called the God killing weapons so how can i give this player a weapon without breaking his vow of poverty.

Is the character a religious sort? If he's got a deity of his own, that deity could, you know, boost him - make the PC the weapon.

JeminiZero
2010-05-13, 07:10 AM
I have a player that has taken the vow of poverty and they are about to fight in a major God battle that requires them to have a special set of weapons called the God killing weapons so how can i give this player a weapon without breaking his vow of poverty.

Make the God-Killing Weapon mundane. Its power comes not from any particular enchantment it has, but from the fact that the God is somehow particularly vulnerable to that ONE weapon (e.g. it might have mortally wounded him in the past before he became a god). Mr VoP can now wield it without issues.

Saph
2010-05-13, 07:24 AM
Add a tagline to the weapon description that says:

Special: This weapon can be used by characters who have sworn a Vow of Poverty without breaking their vow.

deephelldragon
2010-05-13, 07:36 AM
Thank you every body I think I know the way to do this now.

Optimystik
2010-05-13, 07:54 AM
Add a tagline to the weapon description that says:

Special: This weapon can be used by characters who have sworn a Vow of Poverty without breaking their vow.

:vaarsuvius: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html) Gordium called - they have a knot they may want you to take a look at.

Saph
2010-05-13, 08:29 AM
:vaarsuvius: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html) Gordium called - they have a knot they may want you to take a look at.

Hey, I'm not a fan of doing unnecessary work. :smallwink:

Fitz10019
2010-05-13, 09:44 AM
Houserule that sentient weapons are not owned, because they can teleport themselves away at will (uh, houserule that, too).

gbprime
2010-05-13, 09:47 AM
Here's a question... why give him a way around it? You want to save the world... sacrifices might be necessary. You have to set aside all those poverty abilities to get the job done. Atone later, suffer now.

Boci
2010-05-13, 09:48 AM
Here's a question... why give him a way around it? You want to save the world... sacrifices might be necessary. You have to set aside all those poverty abilities to get the job done. Atone later, suffer now.

Because you do not want to penalize a PC too badly just for trying out something new.

Reynard
2010-05-13, 09:51 AM
I have a player that has taken the vow of poverty and they are about to fight in a major God battle that requires them to have a special set of weapons called the God killing weapons so how can i give this player a weapon without breaking his vow of poverty.

Well, there's nothing that say he can't use it. He just can't own it.

PersonMan
2010-05-13, 09:51 AM
Make it an artifact. They have no worth, as they cannot be sold for more than -. Since, IIRC, VoP says you can't have over X GP worth of stuff, and artifacts aren't worth anything...

deuxhero
2010-05-13, 09:54 AM
Give him a level in Apostle of Peace without the other vows and make the weapon have uber defense boosts.

druid91
2010-05-13, 10:02 AM
Have him give it to an orphan. then pick up the orphan and wield the orphan who is wielding the god-killing sword, There now he can use it without using/owning it thus not affecting the vow.

Sereg
2010-05-13, 10:04 AM
The weapon is an intelligent, clingy McGuffin. He doesn't own it, it owns him.

Flickerdart
2010-05-13, 10:04 AM
Let him take Leadership with a sentient godkilling blade as his cohort.

nyarlathotep
2010-05-13, 10:05 AM
An Artifact is priceless and therefore does not violate the vow of poverty. :smallbiggrin:

On a more serious note I agree with gbprime. If you're gonna save the world while sticking to your vow it'll be hard but if you can do it you'll be all the stronger for it.

Kylarra
2010-05-13, 10:08 AM
I'd subscribe more to gbprime's philosophy... if VoP was actually mechanically a bonus.

Your Nemesis
2010-05-13, 10:09 AM
If an artifact is priceless, then use archmage to get apocalypse from the sky as a spell-like ability! :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2010-05-13, 10:16 AM
Well, there's nothing that say he can't use it. He just can't own it.

I'm not sure where the whole "you can use it as long as you don't own it" meme originated, but RAW shoots that one in the foot.


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

Reynard
2010-05-13, 10:16 AM
I'd subscribe more to gbprime's philosophy... if VoP was actually mechanically a bonus.

Yeah. Considering what you lose (the freedom to touch any magic item, all money), losing your vow for the final battle is a kick in the teeth without a heavy DM fiat.

EDIT: Ah. Well, that makes it even worse. Blame the description for Voluntary Poverty, it only mentions owning, not using.

Worira
2010-05-13, 10:17 AM
Here's a question... why give him a way around it? You want to save the world... sacrifices might be necessary. You have to set aside all those poverty abilities to get the job done. Atone later, suffer now.

You can't atone for breaches of VoP. You just make the character useless for the rest of the game.

aivanther
2010-05-13, 10:19 AM
Add a tagline to the weapon description that says:

Special: This weapon can be used by characters who have sworn a Vow of Poverty without breaking their vow.


I'd say make it Special: This weapon can only be used by someone who has sworn a Vow of Poverty, and does not violate the oath.

In other words make it a special, VoP only weapon

druid91
2010-05-13, 10:31 AM
I'd say make it Special: This weapon can only be used by someone who has sworn a Vow of Poverty, and does not violate the oath.

In other words make it a special, VoP only weapon

Go VoP orphan chucks....:smalltongue:

gbprime
2010-05-13, 10:34 AM
You can't atone for breaches of VoP. You just make the character useless for the rest of the game.

I'm sure there's an exception for saving the world. :smallcool:

Greenish
2010-05-13, 10:34 AM
Go VoP orphan chucks....:smalltongue:Hmm, you can also give said orphan Wings of Flying, and tie him to your back. Bonus: you'd be using his Move Actions, not your own.

druid91
2010-05-13, 11:13 AM
Hmm, you can also give said orphan Wings of Flying, and tie him to your back. Bonus: you'd be using his Move Actions, not your own.

Well they need to do something to attract his generous donations don't they?:smallbiggrin:

2xMachina
2010-05-13, 11:30 AM
The weapon is an intelligent, clingy McGuffin. He doesn't own it, it owns him.

In Soviet Russia, item owns you!

warmachine
2010-05-13, 11:40 AM
Remind the player that no laws or principles are absolute. If there is no choice about killing the god, no choice about using the weapon to do that and no choice about him using it, he is compelled to do so. If he's given 150% best effort to find an alternative, he can wield them.

Narmoth
2010-05-13, 11:42 AM
Well, let him keep the abilities after breaking the vow? Or give him a celestial something template that has the same functions as the vow?
So he has to sacrifice the vow, and then get some extra reward from whatever deity he worships?

nedz
2010-05-13, 12:34 PM
Well, let him keep the abilities after breaking the vow? Or give him a celestial something template that has the same functions as the vow?
So he has to sacrifice the vow, and then get some extra reward from whatever deity he worships?

I like this one, but I'd twist it a little.

He uses the weapons to save the world breaking his vow in the process. He loses its benefits. This is a sacrifice, which is very BoED.

Later: He is rewarded by the celestial powers who recognise his sacrifice and reinstate the vow. (perhaps with some further reward etc.)

Flickerdart
2010-05-13, 12:38 PM
Or better yet, the sword takes Leadership and takes the VoP guy as its cohort, then rides him as a mount. You don't see a Paladin's Warhorse losing VoP because the armour-clad Paladin is riding it.

Mongoose87
2010-05-13, 12:56 PM
Here's a question... why give him a way around it? You want to save the world... sacrifices might be necessary. You have to set aside all those poverty abilities to get the job done. Atone later, suffer now.

This would be almost as bad as the ending to Fallout 3.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-13, 01:24 PM
Or better yet, the sword takes Leadership and takes the VoP guy as its cohort, then rides him as a mount. You don't see a Paladin's Warhorse losing VoP because the armour-clad Paladin is riding it.
That would mean the sword could make ride checks so the VoP guy takes no damage from an attack once per round.

druid91
2010-05-13, 01:32 PM
That would be almost as awesome as the orphan powered mecha that the VoP monk uses!!

Ozymandias9
2010-05-13, 01:35 PM
This is one of the times where following WotC's non-RAW, non-errata advice, is actually a good thing. I can't remember if it was a FAQ or an article or custserv, but they made a wonderful post that basically boils down to: if vow of poverty is too restrictive for a campaign in a certain instance, rewrite the rules slightly for that campaign.

If you have a wizard that REALLY wants vop, make a spellbook exception. If you have a world ending apocalypse that REALLY requires a specific magic weapon, make a specific magic weapon exemption. You're the DM, you can change the rules. It is your job, after all, to structure the game in a manner that it remains fun for all players.

druid91
2010-05-13, 01:39 PM
But.... then he doesn't need to glue a bunch of orphans together in the vague shape of a mecha and then sit inside and give orders.


Yes I realize how horrific that sounds, and the reason why its orphans is because giving the loot you get to orphans was suggested in the feat IIRC. And they have no listed price so.....

Optimystik
2010-05-13, 01:42 PM
This is one of the times where following WotC's non-RAW, non-errata advice, is actually a good thing. I can't remember if it was a FAQ or an article or custserv, but they made a wonderful post that basically boils down to: if vow of poverty is too restrictive for a campaign in a certain instance, rewrite the rules slightly for that campaign.

If you have a wizard that REALLY wants vop, make a spellbook exception. If you have a world ending apocalypse that REALLY requires a specific magic weapon, make a specific magic weapon exemption. You're the DM, you can change the rules. It is your job, after all, to structure the game in a manner that it remains fun for all players.

Wait... there are DMs that needed CustServ to tell them that? :smallconfused:
What did they expect to hear? "Yeah I know that rule we put in splat book X is going to ruin yours and your players' fun, but them's the breaks, sucks to be you!"?

Panigg
2010-05-13, 01:53 PM
Just make it a non magical, special property quarterstaff. VOP people are allowed those.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-13, 01:56 PM
Wait... there are DMs that needed CustServ to tell them that? :smallconfused:
What did they expect to hear? "Yeah I know that rule we put in splat book X is going to ruin yours and your players' fun, but them's the breaks, sucks to be you!"?

It would be creepy, slightly fascinating and very, very expected (at least on my end) if WotC actually sent lawyer ninja teams to the houses of DMs who deviate from RAW.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-13, 02:52 PM
But.... then he doesn't need to glue a bunch of orphans together in the vague shape of a mecha and then sit inside and give orders.


Yes I realize how horrific that sounds, and the reason why its orphans is because giving the loot you get to orphans was suggested in the feat IIRC. And they have no listed price so.....
I believe in in one book, Book of Vile Darkness most like, there are rules for slaves. The price of an orphan, or at least a child, may exist. So Baby-Mech just may break vow of poverty.
*blink*
There is certainly a value for an adult of such and such HD, which means, by RAW, a VoP is impossible to keep unless the avower is a slave.
I think, I don't own the book.

hamishspence
2010-05-13, 02:58 PM
BoVD doesn't- but Lords of Madness (in the Neogi section) does.

Basic formula: (CR x CR) X 100 gp. (CRs less than 1 are round up to 1).

So, minimum price of a slave is 100 gp.

If the slave has exceptional abilities, price may be multiplied (typically by between 1 and 4).

Ozymandias9
2010-05-13, 03:01 PM
Wait... there are DMs that needed CustServ to tell them that? :smallconfused:
What did they expect to hear? "Yeah I know that rule we put in splat book X is going to ruin yours and your players' fun, but them's the breaks, sucks to be you!"?

Apparently. I'll try to find a copy of the original.

Edit: Apparently, it was a "Save my Game" article. The author clearly is a bit divorced from CharOp ("a monk needs nothing to be effective"), but the eventual advice is sound:

Customize it to the Character
Specialize it to the class or setting
or
Modularize it for the table

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060609a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a.

Wow-- the article's going on 4 years old. I'm surprised I remembered it existed. I really need to reread some of that stuff while they still have it archived.

hamishspence
2010-05-13, 03:06 PM
This Save My Game article:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a

doesn't suggest changing what breaks the vow- but it does suggest the possibility of changing the benefits it grants, so that it's fairer for characters which are penalized more by the vow.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-13, 03:10 PM
BoVD doesn't- but Lords of Madness (in the Neogi section) does.

Basic formula: (CR x CR) X 100 gp. (CRs less than 1 are round up to 1).

So, minimum price of a slave is 100 gp.

If the slave has exceptional abilities, price may be multiplied (typically by between 1 and 4).
OK then. Would you agree then, by RAWist RAW that no one can keep a Vow of Poverty without being a slave?
Actually, even as a slave, as use of an item counts against it.

hamishspence
2010-05-13, 03:14 PM
The point I was making was you can't have a Vow of Poverty and own a slave. Quite apart from the fact that the BoED states "slavery is evil" elsewhere.

What, in the Vow, are you suggesting requires you to be a slave?

I'm assuming you don't count as a slave of yourself, for VoP purposes- hence, since you don't technically "own" yourself- you are not a possession of you, even if you are free, being free doesn't violate VoP.

Ozymandias9
2010-05-13, 03:24 PM
The point I was making was you can't have a Vow of Poverty and own a slave. Quite apart from the fact that the BoED states "slavery is evil" elsewhere.

What, in the Vow, are you suggesting requires you to be a slave?

I'm assuming you don't count as a slave of yourself, for VoP purposes- hence, since you don't technically "own" yourself- you are not a possession of you, even if you are free, being free doesn't violate VoP.

He' suggesting that if you're not a slave you own yourself, and since you have a reasonably high value, owning yourself violates VoP.

hamishspence
2010-05-13, 03:29 PM
This was the bit that I was a bit unsure about- its a bit odd to think of a person as a possession of themselves.

Might be a bit like considering the character to be in possession of all the Vile humanoid body components- yes, you could in theory sell your eye as a Vile component, but that doesn't mean "having eyes" violates VoP.

Fitz10019
2010-05-13, 03:29 PM
Just make it a non magical, special property quarterstaff. VOP people are allowed those.

Or his diety could bless his humble MW quarterstaff in mid-battle. He won't be expected to drop it like a hot poTAto.

gbprime
2010-05-13, 03:36 PM
He' suggesting that if you're not a slave you own yourself, and since you have a reasonably high value, owning yourself violates VoP.

Cheese. :smallwink:

I'm reminded of a Champions campaign I once played in. Other PC's hero had a Code Against Killing, and someone died.

"well technically I didn't kill him, the semi truck did."
"Yeah but YOU dropped it on him. TWICE."

tordirycgoyust
2010-05-13, 03:53 PM
I think there's an exception for being magically forced to break the Vow...

Ravens_cry
2010-05-13, 04:15 PM
This was the bit that I was a bit unsure about- its a bit odd to think of a person as a possession of themselves.

Might be a bit like considering the character to be in possession of all the Vile humanoid body components- yes, you could in theory sell your eye as a Vile component, but that doesn't mean "having eyes" violates VoP.
Even if you don't own yourself, you are still making use of yourself, and that counts against VoP. And if this overstrict interpretation of RAW is correct, then yes, having eyes DOES count against VoP.
I am not saying I would play it this way or ever DM it this, way, it's just a real funky rules interaction.

hamishspence
2010-05-13, 04:21 PM
"yourself" isn't exactly an object though.

Similarly "make use of" is hard to define. If a druid has an animal companion, does that qualify as "making use of" something valuable? How about if thy're used Animal Friendship on a valuable wild animal?

Or someone with the Leadership feat- by having cohorts and asking them to do things, are you "making use of valuable things"?

I think most DMs would say not.

If making use of other beings shouldn't violate VoP- why would making use of yourself violate it?

Ravens_cry
2010-05-13, 04:24 PM
"yourself" isn't exactly an object though.

Similarly "make use of" is hard to define. If a druid has an animal companion, does that qualify as "making use of" something valuable? How about if thy're used Animal Friendship on a valuable wild animal?

Or someone with the Leadership feat- by having cohorts and asking them to do things, are you "making use of valuable things"?

I think most DMs would say not.

If making use of other beings shouldn't violate VoP- why would making use of yourself violate it?

Oh I agree, which is why we have DM's. But that begs the question, RAW wise, what of making use of a slave? Or multiple slaves. You could have slaves carry you on their shoulders, slaves fighting for you, and slaves healing you. Slaves dying for you.

hamishspence
2010-05-13, 04:28 PM
that may qualify- because slaves in D&D are property.

A free person, if they are nobody's property- shouldn't count as a possession.

Not even their own possession.

Sintanan
2010-05-13, 05:21 PM
So... simply make the baby-mecha by taking Leadership. Orphans would be a 1st-level [some NPC class here].

:smallbiggrin:

You don't own them, your personality has attracted their services... and since they aren't slaves, they are technically free of the monetary association.

------------

And: D&D doesn't consider a person an object unless that person is dead. If you pulled your eyeball out, you would violate VoP as the eyeball is now an object. :smallwink:

druid91
2010-05-13, 08:16 PM
Whoa, I didn't expect to Derail the thread this much... Its.... so beautiful. Though I find that people actually took my comment about Orphan-mecha seriously humorous.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-14, 01:41 AM
that may qualify- because slaves in D&D are property.

A free person, if they are nobody's property- shouldn't count as a possession.

Not even their own possession.
But they have a value, to the right buyer. And use of an item counts, even if you don't own it.
It's stupid, but it may be RAW.

Tyrandar
2010-05-14, 02:47 AM
In my opinion, the most brute force solution without negating/making the player lose his vow would be to imbue whatever godkilly powers he needs *into* him (or the 0gp quarterstaff I'm reminded that he can have). Surely, if your players are fighting against gods, there has to be somebody of god-like power on his side that can do this.

Jastermereel
2010-05-14, 12:57 PM
Or his diety could bless his humble MW quarterstaff in mid-battle. He won't be expected to drop it like a hot poTAto.

So basically an epic-scale version of Shillelagh (Cudgel or quarterstaff becomes +1 weapon and deals damage as if two sizes larger)? It sounds much better than an after-school-special style "The power was in you all along".

WoodenSword
2010-05-14, 01:03 PM
I suggest the idea of it being "pseudomundane" as was suggested at the beginning. The item isn't magical per se, but against this deity, it'll do bonus damage or something like that

And I feel it should work on minions/followers of this deity

Tetsubo 57
2010-05-14, 02:15 PM
Soulknife or Warlock like ability. I'd play either of those classes with a VoP. especially if you 'pathfinderized' either of them (made them better than the standard form they have now).

Lycanthromancer
2010-05-14, 02:18 PM
I'm sure there's an exception for saving the world. :smallcool:Nope. No exceptions whatsoever, even via magical compulsion. And once the vow is broken, it's unredeemable, RAW.

If the character wants to keep the world from being ruined and/or annihilated, he's going to have to decide which is more important to him: doing the right thing and saving the world, or being selfish and nonsensical and holding to a ridiculous (as in, worthy of ridicule) vow.

This is the (one of many) price(s) you pay for playing something from the (almost completely stupid) BoED.

The player knew what he was getting into when he chose to play a VoP character. Them's the breaks.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-14, 03:32 PM
I think there's an exception for being magically forced to break the Vow...

Not by RAW.

Technically, by RAW, if someone puts a Masterwork Dagger into your pocket... you've broken your Vow.

The same problem also applies to the Sacred Fist class... Not allowed to own, or even carry, any weaponry of any kind.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-14, 04:15 PM
Soulknife or Warlock like ability. I'd play either of those classes with a VoP. especially if you 'pathfinderized' either of them (made them better than the standard form they have now).

I would never play a soulknife with VoP. If I don't have awesome equipment, how will I do anything as a Soulknife?

Incarnum is where it's at for VoP though.

Jastermereel
2010-05-14, 04:28 PM
Not by RAW.

Technically, by RAW, if someone puts a Masterwork Dagger into your pocket... you've broken your Vow.

The same problem also applies to the Sacred Fist class... Not allowed to own, or even carry, any weaponry of any kind.

Technically, I'm not sure you're reading the same book everyone else is.

You can't own, use or "borrow" (quotes in the original), but if someone reverse pickpockets it onto your person, you're doing none of the above. Otherwise, we'd have a lot of villains trying to attack VoP players with +1 Harpoons; "Oops! I stuck a harpoon into you. You're carrying it now, so you just lost your VoP irreparably!"*

As I read it, there's nothing in the vow of poverty about unwittingly carrying unwittingly. For that matter, as long as you aren't wearing it (which would count as using it), I don't know that it would break it either. Think Samwise in LotR. When Frodo was incapacitated, Samwise carried the ring, but never wore it.

Now, it could be that there's an errata that nullifies this reading, but if you really want to go As Written, I do believe you're wrong.


*Note: you could argue that if you, and not another teammate, pull the harpoon from your person, you are then wielding it (if only for an instant) and thus using a +1 weapon which would make you lose your vow by normal readings of it. But a DM who would pull that sort of stunt would probably have people losing their VoP after rolling successful Search checks and finding treasure; after all, finders keepers, and if you found it by virtue of seeing it first, you'd own it and therefor be in violation of the vow.

Panigg
2010-05-14, 04:31 PM
I'd go by intent.

If you did not intent to carry or use it, you did not break your vow. Same with charm etc.

Boci
2010-05-14, 04:34 PM
You can't own, use or "borrow" (quotes in the original), but if someone reverse pickpockets it onto your person, you're doing none of the above. Otherwise, we'd have a lot of villains trying to attack VoP players with +1 Harpoons; "Oops! I stuck a harpoon into you. You're carrying it now, so you just lost your VoP irreparably!"*

As I read it, there's nothing in the vow of poverty about unwittingly carrying unwittingly. For that matter, as long as you aren't wearing it (which would count as using it), I don't know that it would break it either. Think Samwise in LotR. When Frodo was incapacitated, Samwise carried the ring, but never wore it.

So if the party rogue places a magical item into his VoP party members pocket that does not require it being worn to gain the benefit?

The Glyphstone
2010-05-14, 04:48 PM
So if the party rogue places a magical item into his VoP party members pocket that does not require it being worn to gain the benefit?

Then he gets a boot to the head and the chance to make a new character after a meteor inexplicably falls from the sky and pulverizes him.

Jastermereel
2010-05-14, 04:51 PM
So if the party rogue places a magical item into his VoP party members pocket that does not require it being worn to gain the benefit?

RAW, as inane and broken as the VoP Rules are, if the person were using it, then they'd be breaking their vow by the rules, no?

I'm sure there are some, but offhand I can't think of any constantly active slotless items though.

The Glyphstone
2010-05-14, 04:52 PM
RAW, as inane and broken as the VoP Rules are, if the person were using it, then they'd be breaking their vow by the rules, no?

I'm sure there are some, but offhand I can't think of any constantly active slotless items though.

A Luckstone.

Lycanthromancer
2010-05-14, 04:53 PM
A Luckstone.That's what came to mind for me, as well.

Also, a loadstone. Even better, as it screws over the character even after the VoP wears off.

Mongoose87
2010-05-14, 05:16 PM
Here's an awful idea: give them a mundane weapon they can use and, it turns out, the power was in them all along.

Lycanthromancer
2010-05-14, 05:28 PM
Here's an awful idea: give them a mundane weapon they can use and, it turns out, the power was in them all along.Time to kill off all the evil gods.

Have fun with that.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 06:53 PM
Vow of Poverty is an actual class feature or feat? In what version? And if this Vow of Poverty prevents you from owning or using anything what the hell do you wear outside? How do you survive hostile environments without warm clothes in the arctic or cover in the desert? It sounds like this Vow had better cause you to be able to save the world without owning or using anything, otherwise the world is just plain screwed.

Just for the record, Budhist monks take a vow of poverty - everything is provided for them by the temple. This doesn't seem to cause them any problems.

Stupid rules are stupid....

Maryring
2010-05-14, 07:34 PM
It does actually. You get some rather nifty AC bonuses, and don't need to eat, breathe and can survive in hostile environments eventually. Still needs sleep though.

The Exalted Vows are basically feats that allow players to play characters like a buddhist monk and be somewhat on par with the rest of the group. Sure, it may be odd to play a pacifist in a group that is about stabbing your buddy and taking his stuff, but when that stabby dagger turns to itty bitty shards as it tries to lodge itself into your spleen, it actually becomes fun.

Also, the book heavily endorses being thrown at people who try to make stupid situations where you must lose your vow, or lose your vow. Also also, it's a very difficult book because it... shows that common sense ain't common.

krossbow
2010-05-14, 07:43 PM
have him engage in a Spiritual battle with A manifestation of the weapon, and shatter the weapon upon doing so, Expressing his dominance over such Feeble Material concepts.

As he has now Shown Dominance over the very nature of this object, have him able to invoke whatever strength it had into his fists, as its new vessel. (or produce an energy Representation of it if you choose)

Mongoose87
2010-05-14, 07:55 PM
Vow of Poverty is an actual class feature or feat? In what version? And if this Vow of Poverty prevents you from owning or using anything what the hell do you wear outside? How do you survive hostile environments without warm clothes in the arctic or cover in the desert? It sounds like this Vow had better cause you to be able to save the world without owning or using anything, otherwise the world is just plain screwed.

Just for the record, Budhist monks take a vow of poverty - everything is provided for them by the temple. This doesn't seem to cause them any problems.

Stupid rules are stupid....

Please do the research, first. While VoP is considered a poor trade-off, it does grant sustenance and protection from heat and/or cold.

Maryring
2010-05-14, 07:57 PM
Seems to me he suggested he lacked knowledge of it and set some requirements for it to not be stupid.

It still is actually. Wizards can't take the vow at all, but it's not THAT bad. And you're allowed to wear clothing, so that's good at least.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 08:15 PM
Please do the research, first. While VoP is considered a poor trade-off, it does grant sustenance and protection from heat and/or cold.

Is it 4e? Because if it is, I'm not doing that research. Additionally, it sounds like something I have little or no use for in any of my campaigns....

Stupid rules are still stupid....

The Shadowmind
2010-05-14, 08:18 PM
Is it 4e? Because if it is, I'm not doing that research. Additionally, it sounds like something I have little or no use for in any of my campaigns....

Stupid rules are still stupid....

Probably ninja'd but Book of Exalted Deed 3.5, it is a feat.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-14, 09:22 PM
Seems to me he suggested he lacked knowledge of it and set some requirements for it to not be stupid.

It still is actually. Wizards can't take the vow at all, but it's not THAT bad. And you're allowed to wear clothing, so that's good at least.

Actually, Wizards can take the Vow. There's a feat that allows a Wizard to study his spells by memory rather than by book. Also, any costly material components can be paid for with XP... there's a conversion rate (1xp = 5gp) for casting spells that normally require an expensive component.

Also, claiming that a Cleric can't have a Holy Symbol is incorrect. For example, a simple wooden cross can be crafted by hand and would serve as a "holy symbol" that has no material value.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-14, 09:28 PM
I have a player that has taken the vow of poverty and they are about to fight in a major God battle that requires them to have a special set of weapons called the God killing weapons so how can i give this player a weapon without breaking his vow of poverty.

He bathes in sacred oils that make him into a god killing weapon.


Or better yet, the sword takes Leadership and takes the VoP guy as its cohort, then rides him as a mount. You don't see a Paladin's Warhorse losing VoP because the armour-clad Paladin is riding it.

The warhorse shouldn't be allowed to take VoP to begin with. The feat is intended for mature roleplayers. Its not about the letter of the rules of the feat but the spirit. And if it feels like cheating or a loop hole then it should break the vow.


Please do the research, first. While VoP is considered a poor trade-off, it does grant sustenance and protection from heat and/or cold.

He has to live up to his name WorstDMEver so its not possible for him to research the feat.

krossbow
2010-05-14, 09:31 PM
Additionally, wizards can simply tattoo their spellbook directly onto their flesh.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-14, 09:32 PM
He bathes in sacred oils that make him into a god killing weapon.

Well... sacred oils are probably expensive... As long as it's other people who pour them on him, and he doesn't keep any of it...

The rules say someone can use a wand to cast a spell on him, but he cannot use someone else's wand to cast a spell at all.

Perhaps just going to a sacred grove and bathing in the waters of a mystic fountain? He'd have to defeat the "guardian", of course... it's traditional.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-14, 09:35 PM
Perhaps just going to a sacred grove and bathing in the waters of a mystic fountain? He'd have to defeat the "guardian", of course... it's traditional.
That is exactly what I had in mind.

Boci
2010-05-14, 09:53 PM
Stupid rules are still stupid....

And you know this because? You admit you do not know much about the feat, so your essentially saying "I haven't read book X, but I found it stupid"

VoP was made as a way to play a character without walking around with enough equipment to feat the entire third world for a decade. It was poorly executed, but it provides good frame work and there was nothing wrong with the concept.

And as The Shadowmind pointed out, its 3.5.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-14, 09:53 PM
The weapon is an intelligent, clingy McGuffin. He doesn't own it, it owns him.
What if the weapon has a vow of poverty?

Lycanthromancer
2010-05-14, 10:05 PM
What if the weapon has a vow of poverty?No pwning the enemies, then.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-14, 10:08 PM
What if the weapon has a vow of poverty?

Then it causes a singularity as it implodes for owning itself.

Thurbane
2010-05-14, 10:28 PM
Isn't there some way to roll back time with psionics? Although, I guess that'd defeat the purpose, as the evil deity would revert to being not destroyed as well.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 11:17 PM
VoP was made as a way to play a character without walking around with enough equipment to feat the entire third world for a decade. It was poorly executed, but it provides good frame work and there was nothing wrong with the concept.

Who "walks around with enough equipment to feed the entire third world for a decade" anyway? What sort of Monte Hall campaign are you playing in?

Besides, I've played a fair number of monks and most of them live very well on what fits within the light load category, since not one of my monks has ever owned a horse. I play monks as monks, fighters as if they are soldiers (carry what you need, leave the rest), and generally adventurers as adventurers - not one carried more than they could carry and most carried considerably less.

Additionally, "poorly executed" isn't "stupid?" Let's rephrase then - "it was not well thought out." Happy now? You're offended because you wrote that rule? Or because you thought it was cool and now realise it really isn't? I far prefer 3.5 over 4, but not everything in 3.5 was well thought out either - like this wretched Vow of Poverty.

As I pointed out, the monastery should send the character to retrieve the item for the monastery, then order him to use the item for its intended purpose, thus bypassing all of the ludicrous restrictions of the vow. As anyone knows, many modern monks take this same vow and the monastery provides for them. There is my stupid solution to the stupid situation caused by stupid rules.

Jastermereel
2010-05-15, 12:31 AM
As I pointed out, the monastery should send the character to retrieve the item for the monastery, then order him to use the item for its intended purpose, thus bypassing all of the ludicrous restrictions of the vow. As anyone knows, many modern monks take this same vow and the monastery provides for them. There is my stupid solution to the stupid situation caused by stupid rules.

Retrieving the item shouldn't cause a problem unless the player uses the item. They're banned from owning or using, but if the players are simply acting as delivery persons for an item they don't own it and don't have to use it.

Using it, even if ordered, is forbidden, UNLESS someone without the vow triggers it and the VoP-burdened character benefits from it as a buffing effect. That is, if the character uses a mundane quarterstaff and someone else casts a variation of the Druid spell Shillelagh on it, it's still a mundane quarterstaff, but with someone else's magical buffing of it for the duration of the spell. The character's net worth doesn't go, up so all should be well.

The god-slaying campaign-centric weapon item in question could simply allow an NPC to buff the characters without giving them a magical item the could personally use.

Or, it could be like Lord of the Rings where the item isn't a weapon, but a phylactery of sorts. The players don't own or use it, but seek to destroy it. Frodo was the only PC equivalent character who used the ring (and generally would have been better off not using it) and his "ownership" of it was debatable.

Icewraith
2010-05-15, 12:36 AM
Your guys don't do any dragon-hunting or fiend-slaying then, nor apparently do they bother to loot the bodies of the villainous npcs they run across and adventure against.

Yes it's dangerous, but that's why careful planning and good use by the players of divination spells favors killing those major evil npcs and triple-standard-treasure monsters that end up being pretty common in mid-to high level play. Heaven help you if you roll randomly on the treasure tables.

Any epic or near-epic character in a game using wealth-by-level rules is running around with enough gp in equipment to feed a large nation, at least.

And don't talk to me about carrying limits, that's what the handy haversack (for useful items) and bags of holding are FOR. Look in the DMG, it's all there.

As for why a person would be interested in a Vow of Poverty, try this character concept:

"I want to base my character around this eastern legend about a kung fu master who echewed material possesions and was known to defeat powerful warlords and samurai with his bare hands."

Yeah a normal monk will work decently at really low levels of play, but after a bit the monsters are written assuming the PCs have magical items to aid them. So while your PCs monk can probably do decently against a fighter or whatnot of about the same level (ignoring the issues of the Monk class), the challenges he's facing are either kitted out with enchanter armor and weapons or are assuming your PC is wearing an amulet of WIS, monk's belt, and a cloak of resistance. So he'll get flattened. An unarmed swordsage will have the flavor, but will still die due to no items once levels get a bit higher.

But what's the point of a genre-blind epic fantasy roleplaying game if it can't handle a (fairly common) trope about zen masters who forego material posessions and still kick butt?

So BoED took a stab at it, but I think they were concerned about people abusing it since "it's in a book, therefore fair game" mindset prevails in a certain type of player so they made it a bit too restrictive. Plus, there aren't enough good exalted feats to make taking the vow really worthwhile.

Edit:

Let the forces in question give your party cryptic directions to find the fountain of +6 godkilling. The fighter dips in his weapons, the wizard dips in his staff and spellbook, the monk dips himself :).

When the objective is acheived, the buffs go away. The spirits of the fountain will withdraw their protection if the PCs dawdle unnecessarily and try to exploit the buff. Also, don't have the BBEG just try and delay until the buff wears off either, nothing ruins the specialness of an epic fountain that should be one-time-use like:

Fighter: "well guys he got away again, I guess we'll need to take ANOTHER dip in the Fountain of Fiat."

Monk: "Again? I'm getting epic-level godkilling swimmer's ear and my fingers are starting to wrinkle."

Wiz: "My spellbook has started acting funny."
Spellbook: "Believe in the great god OM, or be stricken with thunderbolts."

Cleric: "Sweet! One down, three to go!"

2xMachina
2010-05-15, 12:46 AM
Fun evil DM ideas:

Artifact that can only be used by a VoP. Will break vow.
Aritifact Holy Avenger for a Paladin that works as Helm of opposite allignment.
Artifact Spellbook that causes the reader to disjoint it.
:smallwink:

Thurbane
2010-05-15, 12:58 AM
Who "walks around with enough equipment to feed the entire third world for a decade" anyway? What sort of Monte Hall campaign are you playing in?
May I direct you to the DMG, p.135 - Table 5-1, Character Wealth By Level. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2010-05-15, 01:08 AM
May I direct you to the DMG, p.135 - Table 5-1, Character Wealth By Level. :smallbiggrin:

And then, if you still don't understand, or just can't be bothered to do the math, to the chart of Wealth Other Than Coins, reprinted in the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wealthAndMoney.htm).

A 20th level character is expected to own the equivalent of 76,000 cows, 760,000 goats, or 3.8 million chickens. Breaking that up a bit - say, 19,000 cows, 190,000 goats, and 1.9 million chickens...you can definitely feed a 3rd world country for a long, long time.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-15, 01:21 AM
I'm gonna complain - my characters are constantly being short-changed! I can't do any third-world-country feeding off of my characters' gear unless I can find someone who'll pay full market value (instead of the standard markdown) for it.

Take your average $30,000 car to, oh, pick a third world country, and see how much cash you get for it - or how many chickens.

The cash value of your gear might be significant, but it's not easy to cash it in. And I guess I'll have to scan the character sheet for that monk - no "Handy Haversack" at 15th level, but he's still not carrying more than a light load. He does indeed have magical equipment, probably worth close to 2 million chickens, but there are darned few places in my DM's setting that I could cash it in if I decided to retire and the gear goes to my character's monastery when he leaves off adventuring anyway.

You know, you guys are weird.... :smallsmile:

Maryring
2010-05-15, 06:05 AM
The problem with tattooing a spellbook onto your skin is that the inks still cost money. So according to RAW, you'll be breaking your vow by tattooing yourself. And SpellMastery requires you to have truly epic amounts of intelligence, or you'll be a sorcerer with less feats, less spells available, less spells per day and no ability to switch out depending on the situation.

Anyway, I tend to toss out the RAW when it comes to the book and instead focus on the intent behind the rules. Taking a vow of poverty means that you will eschew anything but the bare neccessities and not indulge yourself in unneccessary luxury. Vow of Peace means respecting the sanctity of life. Heck, I had a PrC who had Vow of Peace as a prerequisite, but the class was still allowed to deal lethal damage to undead, constructs and evil outsiders, because doing so would almost always be respecting the sanctity of life.

I also find that there are enough Exalted feats to take for a Cloistered Healer Cleric. Assuming you start out human, you'll have VoP from level one, and get ten bonus feats.

2: Nymph's Kiss
4: Vow of Nonviolence
6: Vow of Peace
8: Nimbus of Light
10: Holy Radiance
12: Stigmata
14: Words of Creation
16: Vow of Chastity
18: Vow of Obedience
20: Vow of Purity

That's quite a lot. All of em are quite useful and will make your character very well protected against all kinds of saving throws. And that's just using what you're given. I have a few self-made Exalted Feats and allow people to choose the metamagic feats as Exalted feats. Of course, it's just for a specific kind of character, but fun anyway.

Boci
2010-05-15, 07:39 AM
I'm gonna complain - my characters are constantly being short-changed! I can't do any third-world-country feeding off of my characters' gear unless I can find someone who'll pay full market value (instead of the standard markdown) for it.

Half a third world country for a year is still a lot.


Take your average $30,000 car to, oh, pick a third world country, and see how much cash you get for it - or how many chickens.

Here's a better idea. Sell it in a developed country then use the money to import food into a third world country.


The cash value of your gear might be significant, but it's not easy to cash it in. And I guess I'll have to scan the character sheet for that monk - no "Handy Haversack" at 15th level, but he's still not carrying more than a light load. He does indeed have magical equipment, probably worth close to 2 million chickens, but there are darned few places in my DM's setting that I could cash it in if I decided to retire and the gear goes to my character's monastery when he leaves off adventuring anyway.

You know, you guys are weird.... :smallsmile:

Your reading too literally into the example. Some players do not want their character to be so reliant on their gear, so Vow of Poverty was made.

Greenish
2010-05-15, 09:26 AM
Think Samwise in LotR. When Frodo was incapacitated, Samwise carried the ring, but never wore it.Yes he did. He used the invisibility to hide from the orcs and to save Frodo.

Jastermereel
2010-05-15, 09:53 AM
Yes he did. He used the invisibility to hide from the orcs and to save Frodo.

Oh no! My nerd powers...fading!.........as are Samwise's VoP bonuses.

Fisticuffs
2010-05-15, 01:00 PM
I used VoP once. It was a high level campaign. I played human so I got it at first, Healer X PoF 3 Saint(-2). I had my buddy spent all my starting gold on Tomes of Leadership and Influence until I couldn't afford them anymore, I donated the rest to the poor. BoED says you can still benefit from one time use items, it gives a potion as an example.:smallwink:

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-15, 01:28 PM
I used VoP once. It was a high level campaign campaign. I played human so I got it at first, Healer X PoF 3 Saint(-2). I had my buddy spent all my starting gold on Tomes of Leadership and Influence until I couldn't afford them anymore, I donated the rest to the poor. BoED says you can still benefit from one time use items, it gives a potion as an example.:smallwink:

True, but it says you can use a potion that someone gives to you. It says you must donate all your share of the party Gold (which must be a fair share). I suppose it's possible that if a Stat Tome were in a pile of treasure that the VoP character could read it... Or if another party member were willing to spend their own money and allow the VoP character to read it...

BTW, as for the Monk (or any of the other characters) listed in the DMG's quick NPC generation chart section... there's a reason they have extra Gold left over. So the DM can assign them items they feel the NPC should have. Things like Handy Haversacks & the Bedroll from Miniatures Handbook are some of the first items my characters buy when they can find/afford them.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-15, 01:50 PM
Here's a better idea. Sell it in a developed country then use the money to import food into a third world country.

Here's an even better idea. Teach them to farm and produce their own food more efficiently, and watch them flourish.

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself for a lifetime."

Have you any idea how much money we spend on sending food to third world countries just so that some drug cartel or warlord can steal it and sell it to the same people we were trying to give it to?

Anyway, if the feat doesn't pay off what's the point? Obviously the character in question is unable to complete his task because of the feat - crippling him, if you ask me. Like taking a feat that makes you a blind deaf-mute quadruplegic but makes you immune to poison and disease....

I rather agree with the poster who mentioned "spirit over word" in interpretation of that feat. I can't dispute the thematic value of Vow of Poverty, but I'm reluctant to agree that it's practical for an adventurer. My opinion is that you should be able to perform tasks on behalf of your Order with tools and equipment that belong to your Order. Otherwise you have stalemates like the one that the OP encountered, and that's obviously not the intent.

Fisticuffs
2010-05-15, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by The Cat Goddess
True, but it says you can use a potion that someone gives to you. It says you must donate all your share of the party Gold (which must be a fair share). I suppose it's possible that if a Stat Tome were in a pile of treasure that the VoP character could read it... Or if another party member were willing to spend their own money and allow the VoP character to read it...

My character gave all his gold to his friend and told him to do with it as he saw fit, he decided to give me tomes and donate the rest to the poor on my behalf, which was still a sizable amount.

Ozymandias9
2010-05-15, 06:46 PM
I realized last night that a simple and direct way of making exactly want the OP wanted to happen happen is to make the item a mundane item with technically limited duration spell cast on it. As long as it's a spell effect and not an actual magic item, it's kosher for VoP IIRC (you are explicitly allowed to benefit from magic others use to benefit you).