[3.5] VoP hypothetical

[Thurbane]

If you had to have a party of 4 characters, and each had to have VoP (say, for story reasons) - what 4 would you chose to fill the four traditional roles (blaster/area control, healer/buffer, tank/meatshield and skillmonkey/trapfinder)?

And please, try to avoid the obvious "4 Druids LOL" answer. :smallwink:

[Bang!]

I feel like Psion, <Society Mind (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/society-mind) or Ardent>, Psychic Warrior, <Ranger/Psion/Slayer or Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b)> is cheating.

[TroubleBrewing]

Lol 4 Clerics?

But seriously. Every member of the party has to be a full caster.

This doesn't seem like a fun game to play in... I mean, one of the time-honored traditions of D&D is arguing over loot.

[Tvtyrant]

Totemist for melee, Binder for crafting stuff, Bard/Chameleon for skill monkey, and Warmage/Sandshaper for blasting. The Sandshaper lets him use sand to power metamagic, and you could argue that VoP works on ranged touch attacks so your orbs have a high hit chance.

[tuesdayscoming]

One would have to be an Incarnum class of some sort, since their best abilities require taking up item slots to begin with. I'm thinking Totemist. Bonus points if you can squeeze in one level of Soul Eater – though I guess the whole 'I'm super evil' thing conflicts with VoP a little bit... Alternatively, go Totemist 12, Black Blood Cultist 8.

A second would probably be a War Weaver. The party is really going to need some heavy duty buffing to compensate, and no class does it better. 4 levels of Spellguard of Silverymoon for extra awesome. Incantatrix, as always, adds the perfect hint of cheddar.

A third would probably be – yes, you guessed it – a Natural Spell druid. No further optimization needed.

The fourth would have to be a Dweomerkeeper. Cheesy enough on its own, but especially wonderful here. After all, resurrection gets rather pricey when you can't own diamonds.

[Coidzor]

Melee/Tank: Divine Minion (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a) of X(probably Nephtys) Totemist/Barbarian/TotemRager/MasterofManyForms Or maybe a more Druidy-flavored Totemist with Soulcaster and share soulmeld to increase the amount of fun pureeing going on.

Skills/Trapmonkey: Rogue 1/Wizard(Focused Conjurer) 5/Unseen Seer 10/Arcane Trickster 4 or something along those lines. Maybe Master Spellthief instead of Rogue.

Healer: Now this is a tough one.... what with no items. Maybe Binder can provide something here?

Battlefield Control: Anything with Wizard or maybe Archivist. Maybe Elven Generalist.

...Do animals violate VoP?

Hmm... I wonder if there's any way to get spell-stitched+Redeemer of Regrets while remaining exalted...

[Heliomance]

Surely Incarnate would fill the skillmonkey role perfectly?

[Talya]

By RAW:
Wizard doesn't work - no spellbook.
Cleric doesn't work - no holy symbol.

Yes, druid is the obvious one.
Sorcerer isn't terrible.
Unarmed Swordsage isn't bad.
Bard will work for the last one. If your DM is using traps, of course, go rogue, or perhaps Factotum with a few fonts of inspiration..

[Kylarra]

Wizard works ish, you just need to take the Eidetic spellcaster ACF. You lose out on your familiar and scribe scroll, but thanks to VoP you weren't getting mileage out of either anyway. Downside is, you can't trade your familiar for another ACF.

[manyslayer]

The mentions of the various Incarnum classes brings to mind the idea I had once of making a VoP incarnum character.

"You must learn to let go of material possession."

"But, you're wearing a glowing golden helm."

"But its not really there."

[Zaq]

Totemist for melee, Binder for crafting stuff, Bard/Chameleon for skill monkey, and Warmage/Sandshaper for blasting. The Sandshaper lets him use sand to power metamagic, and you could argue that VoP works on ranged touch attacks so your orbs have a high hit chance.

Um, what kinds of crafts does an all-VoP party need?

[Cartigan]

Unarmed Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker

He'll rip your arms off then beat you to death with them.

[stainboy]

At least one of them has to be Chameleon 2. The chameleon floats VoP, so that at least one member of the party isn't completely shut down by a locked door with a gold-plated key.

[Cog]

Knock, lockpicking without tools, Stone Dragon maneuvers.

[Greenish]

By RAW:
Cleric doesn't work - no holy symbol.There's a feat for that, in Faiths of Eberron: Wordly Focus.

After all, Sovereign Host are everywhere, all the time, and to pray to them is to acknowledge their presence, not to demand they acknowledge yours.

[Tyndmyr]

Realistically, one of my party would break his vow terribly, then enjoy the requisite 49% of the loot from the other three characters.

This guy would likely be an artificer.

[stainboy]

Knock, lockpicking without tools, Stone Dragon maneuvers.

Oh come on, it was just an example. The point is no member of this party can pick up and carry an item with a gold piece value, not that they can't figure out how to knock down a door.

[RaginChangeling]

I think my picks would be,

Incarnate, Totemist, Druid, Unarmed Swordsage

With the Incarnate and Swordsage sharing the Skill-monkey role, and also doing some blasting. The Totemist as the Rip your face off melee and the Druid as the Healbot/Kill everything by turning into a T-Rex.

[Cog]

And my point was that there are solutions to such problems. It just might involve a little sideways thinking.

[Tvtyrant]

Um, what kinds of crafts does an all-VoP party need?

For the orphans! Who happen to be leadershipped followers!

[Greenish]

I think my picks would be,

Incarnate, Totemist, Druid, Unarmed Swordsage

With the Incarnate and Swordsage sharing the Skill-monkey role, and also doing some blasting. The Totemist as the Rip your face off melee and the Druid as the Healbot/Kill everything by turning into a T-Rex.Funny that such a melee-focused group should consist entirely of medium and low BAB classes. :smallamused:

More proof that WotC drastically overestimated the value of full BAB (as if cleric vs. paladin and druid vs. ranger weren't enough).

[Cartigan]

For the orphans! Who happen to be leadershipped followers!
1001 uses for commoners.
"It's powered by a FORSAKEN CHILD?!"

[Addi]

I would try to get VoP as late as possible. These few missed exalted Feats don't hurt anyway.
This way you've got many options to pimp your character with a lot of pricy goodies before taking your vow - but nothing of this is sellable later. I'm thinking of Tomes and Manuals (with +X to a Stat), grafts or similar stuff.


Cleric is always a good option (as mentioned with "Worldly Focus" there is an Orison in Complete Champion - "Summon Holy Symbol")

Everything else has been said already. Incarnate, Pact Magic, Swordsage, Druid, ...

[stainboy]

And my point was that there are solutions to such problems. It just might involve a little sideways thinking.

Hey, if you want a game about four superheroes who all share the same weird weakness, go ahead. Just understand how phenomenally weird the game would be.

[Telonius]

Meatshield: Knight with Vow of Peace ("Hey you, come over here and hit me!" <weapon shatters on impact>)
Skillmonkey: Beguiler (Also serves as secondary spellcaster and face)
Healbot: Druid or Favored Soul (FS bonus: gets wings at high levels; Druid bonus: able to fly just about whenever)*
Area control: Psion ("Spellbook? Material Component? Wot's dat?")

* - Cleric might work, if you have Worldly Focus or the DM allows you to tattoo a holy symbol on your hand.

[Bang!]

Incarnum and VoP is cool, but Good Incarnates are turtles.

[hamishspence]

Cleric doesn't work - no holy symbol.


There's a cleric orison in Complete Champion that allows you to tempoarily summon a holy symbol.

[Hyfigh]

Unarmed Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker

He'll rip your arms off then beat you to death with them.

And later sell them for money to give to charity. :smalltongue:

Edit: I suppose I should contribute...
I'd go with a StP Erudite, Binder, Psy Warrior (Soulbound Weapon with some type of Ubercharger build), and maybe a Warlock...?

[gorfnab]

By RAW:
Wizard doesn't work - no spellbook.

There is an ACF that can fix that: Eidetic Spellcaster ACF - Dragon Magazine #357. It trades your Familiar and the Scribe Scroll feat for the ability to not need a spellbook for your spells. This also works nicely with an Elf Generalist Wizard (RotW) Domain Wizard (UA), and the feat Collegiate Wizard (CArc).

[CaptainPlatypus]

Totemist, Natural Spell druid, Psion(Egoist), Cleric. Once they get leveled, they're unstoppable (wild shape, metamorphosis, three full casters, a guy with VoP benefits plus "items", you get the idea). They can even get there reasonably easily.

[Lapak]

Oh come on, it was just an example. The point is no member of this party can pick up and carry an item with a gold piece value, not that they can't figure out how to knock down a door.
Is that really how the Vow is phrased, that doing so much as picking up a valuable item instantly invalidates it? If so, the sensible option is 'expect the DM to be sane.' I can't see an exalted character losing his vow benefits because he used the only cup available to give water to a child dying of thirst and it happened to be a silver chalice.

[Greenish]

Is that really how the Vow is phrased, that doing so much as picking up a valuable item instantly invalidates it?No, but using said item would.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The mentions of the various Incarnum classes brings to mind the idea I had once of making a VoP incarnum character.

"You must learn to let go of material possession."

"But, you're wearing a glowing golden helm."

"But its not really there."

No, but using said item would.

No, it's better, Greenish: "But it is my soul!":smallbiggrin:

[Cog]

No, but using said item would.
You're not using the key.

You're donating the key to an unfortunately key-lacking lock. Obviously the lock's need for a key is much greater than your own; it's only the right thing to do!

[Telonius]

You're not using the key.

You're donating the key to an unfortunately key-lacking lock. Obviously the lock's need for a key is much greater than your own; it's only the right thing to do!

"For heaven's sake, look at them! It's like they were made for each other. It would be a crime against nature itself to keep them apart."

[Tvtyrant]

You're not using the key.

You're donating the key to an unfortunately key-lacking lock. Obviously the lock's need for a key is much greater than your own; it's only the right thing to do!

Party spends its entire existence justifying how they are always giving to charity. "I'm just giving that Orc the Greatsword as charity! He died so I'll give it to this guy!"

[Cog]

"I'm not reading my spellbook so that I can memorize Fireball. I'm reading the goblins' spellbook because they look so miserably cold and I want to see them warm for the rest of their lives."

[Grendus]

Tank: Dragonborn Crusader of Bahamut with the ACF that lets him grow his own armor. One of the toughest classes in the game, and a lot of their power comes from maneuvers rather than gear. The scales are a part of him and have no value, so they aren't covered by the vow.
Healer: Cleric. Have him scar the holy symbol of his deity on himself with the one non-magical weapon he's allowed to carry. Alternatively, have the party sorcerer use Arcane Mark or Amanuensis to magically tattoo one onto him. Or you could do the logical thing and let him carry a wooden holy symbol, I still think not exempting them was a typo. Summon Holy Symbol works too, except it's a 1 round/level spell, which is a real pain in the action economy.
Blaster/Control: Sorcerer. No need for a spellbook, and a spell component pouch is specifically exempted by the vow.
Skillmonkey: Beguiler. Because not being a full caster in a gear-less game would suck, and beguilers are the only full spellcasting skillmonkey in the game. Plus he could help the sorcerer with control, beguilers are freaking impressive at control.


Realistically, they're going to get slaughtered. But they would have a decent run at it.

[Greenish]

Tank: Dragonborn Crusader of Bahamut with the ACF that lets him grow his own armor. One of the toughest classes in the game, and a lot of their power comes from maneuvers rather than gear. The scales are a part of him and have no value, so they aren't covered by the vow.I don't think Dragon Husk stacks with VoP AC bonuses.

[Cog]

Yeah, the way Dragonscale Husk is worded, I don't think you can even use something as basic as defensive fighting / Combat Expertise.

[Grendus]

I want to say that it only wouldn't stack with any other armor bonuses, but by RAW you would probably want to dump it at around level 8 (when magic vestment reaches +2 and you start losing the natural armor bonus). At early levels it would definitely be an advantage, the AC bonus would be greater than what you could get with the exalted armor bonus, and later on you could just shed it. It's two more AC (which is very useful at low levels) plus some free energy resistance at level 5. I'd take it, just to have the option.

[Cog]

This bonus doesn't stack with any feat, racial trait, or other special ability that would grant you a bonus to armor class.
I guess fighting defensively is alright, since it's not a special ability, just a combat stance available to anybody. Combat Expertise is still out, though.

[Thurbane]

I guess fighting defensively is alright, since it's not a special ability, just a combat stance available to anybody. Combat Expertise is still out, though.
I really hope they meant "This bonus doesn't stack with any feat, racial trait, or other special ability that would grant you an armor bonus to armor class."

Just another case of bad proofreading = RAWtarded.

[CaptainPlatypus]

I really hope they meant "This bonus doesn't stack with any feat, racial trait, or other special ability that would grant you an armor bonus to armor class."

Just another case of bad proofreading = RAWtarded.

Vigilante. That's all. :smallbiggrin:

[Etrivar]

Any DM that would enforce VoP exactly RAW, is an ASS.

The first change that needs to be made is: Any basic item required for the functionality of your class is exempt.

Now, this would obviously require either: A) a great deal of specificity to prevent abuse (but my fighter NEEDS the +5 greatsword of psychotic slaughteringness!) or B) a great deal of maturity on the players' parts (and good luck with that).

I would extend this to: the wizard's spellbook; the cleric's holy symbol; everyone gets to choose 2 armaments, so the ranger doesn't have to choose archery, and if you want to go sword-and-board you can (even though it's weaksauce).

This is only the beginning. I just barely started to work on a system for the VoP that would allow you to choose from tiered lists of abilities at certain levels, so that you could tailor what abilities you got to your class/needs. Which would remove a large portion of the problem from VoP: the utter lack of flexibility in what you get. You still won't be able to tailor situationally, but it will get better than it is now. You also need to rule that a 1/3 CR goblin can't take down the party by scattering a handful of gold pieces at them! Stoopid little stuff like that makes it unplayable, so you've gotta get rid of it.

I also augmented the numbers you get and how early you get them, but that is relatively minor compared to the other stuff.

[Cog]

Just another case of bad proofreading = RAWtarded.
My thought had been that it was meant to take out things like a Monk's AC Bonus... but then the husk counts as medium armor for penalties, so that wouldn't need to be stated separately after all.

[faceroll]

One would have to be an Incarnum class of some sort, since their best abilities require taking up item slots to begin with. I'm thinking Totemist. Bonus points if you can squeeze in one level of Soul Eater – though I guess the whole 'I'm super evil' thing conflicts with VoP a little bit... Alternatively, go Totemist 12, Black Blood Cultist 8.

A second would probably be a War Weaver. The party is really going to need some heavy duty buffing to compensate, and no class does it better. 4 levels of Spellguard of Silverymoon for extra awesome. Incantatrix, as always, adds the perfect hint of cheddar.

A third would probably be – yes, you guessed it – a Natural Spell druid. No further optimization needed.

The fourth would have to be a Dweomerkeeper. Cheesy enough on its own, but especially wonderful here. After all, resurrection gets rather pricey when you can't own diamonds.

There's no way you can be a soul eater or black blood cultist and have the benefits of VoP.

[kestrel404]

Area control/blaster - Druid is an ideal choice here, but as a secondary choice I think Rainbow Warmage is a good bet. With Versatile Spellcaster, you may be able to get into Rainbow Servant a 4th level, so by 14th-15th level you're back to being on-par with any tier 1. Being able to spontaneously cast any cleric spell makes up for a lot of missing gear.

Skillmonkey - I'm going to go with Beguiler/Incarnate/Soulcaster. You can get into soulcaster with a 2-level incarnate dip and still have 9th level spells by 18th level with versatile spellcaster. Meanwhile, you've got most of the bennies of actually having equipment from incarnate, plus lots of insight bonuses to your nicely hefty skill pool.

Meatshield - I'm going to go with Barbarian/Totemist/Totem Rager. Again, the benefits of equipment without actually owning any. Also, the fact that you can tank all of your mental attributes and not care is a nice bonus.

Healer/Leader - Crusader 1/Cleric 3/Incarnate 1/Sapphire Hierarch 10/Ruby Knight Vindicator 5. Yes, really. I'ts pretty feat intensive - you'll need Shape Soulmeld and Bonus essentia feats just to get into Sapphire Hierarch without taking more levels of Incarnate and you'll need the Open Chakra feat/spell for any bindings you want, but you can get unlimited healing in several different fashions, you've got spellcasting as a 17th level cleric by 20th level, and you've also got the incarnate magic-item independence.

Other good combos include:
Totemist/Psychic Warrior/Soul Manifester - you can easily pull off the 'unlimited psi points' trick by 6th level, and you're the god of natural attacks. Definitely a striker build, and slightly MAD (though you get more for your wis and con than a monk would). Add in Monk/Tashalatora and designate Soul Manifester as the psionic class and you'll be a serious no-equipment damage-machine.

[stainboy]

Any DM that would enforce VoP exactly RAW, is an ASS.


If someone held a gun to my head and forced me not to ban VoP, I'd play it by RAW.

A character with VoP who is also allowed to use whatever items he wants would be broken as hell, obviously. If I let the player ignore the vow under special roleplaying circumstances, I invite the player to increase his personal power by arguing about what does or doesn't violate his vow. The player gets to argue on the side of reason ("I should be able to use this Wand of Searing Light to protect the orphanage from spectres") and I have to argue on the side of stupid nonsense ("no, your Good-aligned character wants to let the orphans die because that wand has a cash value").

It's a slippery slope so I can never lose the argument, but the only way to win this ridiculous argument is to take the hard line. RAW says money is kryptonite so that's how we're playing it, YOU took the stupid feat so it's YOUR job to figure out how that makes any sense.

[Etrivar]

Which is, again, where the need for great specificity and maturity come in. If you have immature players that are incapable of resisting the temptation to BS their way into using they shouldn't, then yeah, you would have to play it RAW. I have DM'd several games with the modifications noted above, and all of my players have done an admirable job of not arguing for stuff they know they shouldn't.

Like I said, required for the basic functionality of your class. If you didn't have a wand of searing light, would your class still function? Yes. There is no class, base or PrC, whose class features are primarily dependent on a wand of searing light.

[Tetsubo 57]

I know it's probably sun-optimal but I would play a Psionics Unleashed Soulknife. I just like the flavor. And an upcoming supplement is suppose to have options letting you manifest armour as well as weapons.

[stainboy]

Like I said, required for the basic functionality of your class. If you didn't have a wand of searing light, would your class still function? Yes. There is no class, base or PrC, whose class features are primarily dependent on a wand of searing light.

House Cannith Wand Adept. :smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

Would it make someone a horrible DM if they used a VoP party as the main adversaries of an evil party? Even if the PCs kill them, there's no loot to be had. :smalltongue:

[Jack_Simth]

Oh come on, it was just an example. The point is no member of this party can pick up and carry an item with a gold piece value, not that they can't figure out how to knock down a door.
Actually, it's not "can't use anything valuable". It's "you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:"

On one side of ridiculousness, the Druid's Holly and Mistle, which has a price of "-", is not on that list. So despite the fact that donating it to charity is of absolutely no use, the Vow of Poverty Druid can't use it for spellcasting.

On the other side of ridiculousness, there's no limit to how many ordinary simple weapons you can own - so you can have as many heavy crossbows (50 gp each) as you like (or at least as many as you can arrange to transport), even though selling one for half gets you enough money to book a decent room at an inn for almost two weeks.

The Book of Exalted Deeds very explicitly says it needs mature players to use it properly. It needs mature DM's, too. Playing the Vow of Poverty precisely as written is crazy.

[PollyOliver]

I'm playing one right now, actually, in an alignment-free "act your ethical code" sort of pbp game. The first major party conflict has just arisen; we just offed the first wave of the king's men coming to destroy a town that supposedly has "wickedness" and "dissidents" in it, and my character among others want to evacuate the town to avoid the second wave, while several others, who are far more practical, just want to get the heck out of dodge. We'll see what happens.

Mechanics-wise, I'm a druid 6/lion of talisid 6. The lack of scrolls has already kind of bitten me, as I prepared really bad spells for the day and couldn't make up for it with the pile of scrolls I usually have on a twelfth level caster, but I really like the character a lot.

[CaptainPlatypus]

I'm playing one right now, actually, in an alignment-free "act your ethical code" sort of pbp game. The first major party conflict has just arisen; we just offed the first wave of the king's men coming to destroy a town that supposedly has "wickedness" and "dissidents" in it, and my character among others want to evacuate the town to avoid the second wave, while several others, who are far more practical, just want to get the heck out of dodge. We'll see what happens.

Mechanics-wise, I'm a druid 6/lion of talisid 6. The lack of scrolls has already kind of bitten me, as I prepared really bad spells for the day and couldn't make up for it with the pile of scrolls I usually have on a twelfth level caster, but I really like the character a lot.

That's the thing about VoP. No matter how annoying it gets mechanics-wise, it tends to make you (or at least me) way more attached to my characters, because who they are is less dependent on what they have. I've been thinking of overhauling/replacing it for a while, but I just can't figure out a way to make it even halfway decent without ruining the flavor or making it a tad overpowered.

[PollyOliver]

That's the thing about VoP. No matter how annoying it gets mechanics-wise, it tends to make you (or at least me) way more attached to my characters, because who they are is less dependent on what they have. I've been thinking of overhauling/replacing it for a while, but I just can't figure out a way to make it even halfway decent without ruining the flavor or making it a tad overpowered.

Well, the one real way to do that is to slap it on a druid. It's still a poor mechanical choice...but you're still a druid. Anyway, on a more serious note:

I've seen a few VoP fixes floating around, but I don't know if I've seen any that really work. Some of them make it too powerful, and some of them actually nerf it more. I think the main thing is that what you miss out on is not the +x's, even if the proscribed progression doesn't keep up with what you'd get on the requisite cloak or armor or weapon at that level. What you really miss out on is versatility--scrolls, weapon enchantments that aren't +'s (like keen or seeking), metamagic rods, pearls of power, wands, boots of fly, etc. It gimps noncasters a lot because, for example, they'll never get access to flight or enlarge or any of those useful gadgets that can make the rogue better at more than one thing or the fighter not useless against something with wings or too large to grapple or trip in your own form.

If I were to fix it, I would first make it so you could use with with a spell book or holy symbol or whatever, RAW.

Then, I'd devise some sort of optional bonuses that you choose at the point of level up at certain levels, which then become fixed. So limited flight might be a choice at one level, or trading in a couple points of your +x on your attacks for an enhancement, or "storing" a couple spells like a pseudo-scroll, or the ability to mimic a spell as an SLA occasionally. I'd probably still have it lag a little behind what you could do with WBL, because frankly I think it ceases to be a selfless choice to make if it doesn't impact you at all, but I'd still make it so that non-casters still have some versatility and casters don't give up all of the massive versatility that comes from items. Actually, re-reading this, I guess I would sort of ToB it. :smallsmile:

It would be an absolute pain to balance it properly, but I think it would make it, if not worth it, do-able for a character that isn't a caster or a wild shaper.

[Jack_Simth]

Then, I'd devise some sort of optional bonuses that you choose at the point of level up at certain levels, which then become fixed.How about making Exalted feats to do that type of stuff, which you then can select as bonus feats? If you take Vow of Poverty at 1st (Human, Strongheart Halfling, or with flaws), then you get 11 bonus Exalted feats out of the deal.... and most Exalted Feats... aren't really worthwhile.

[PollyOliver]

How about making Exalted feats to do that type of stuff, which you then can select as bonus feats? If you take Vow of Poverty at 1st (Human, Strongheart Halfling, or with flaws), then you get 11 bonus Exalted feats out of the deal.... and most Exalted Feats... aren't really worthwhile.

I like it; that could well work. If you made ones that gave you some decently versatile options (and slapped VoP or something similar as a pre-req), that could do it. I think the key things you would need to give to melee players to keep them playable would be some limited amount of flight, size-changing, and access to weapon and armor enhancements other than +x. And maybe a "UMD as a class skill" pre-req'd feat that lets you mimic a spell or subset of spells, with limits so that you'd be getting after, but not too long after, a normal character could buy the wand or the scroll? That would ungimp VoP rogues a little. Still a pain to balance, but it fits much better in the framework already there.

[CaptainPlatypus]

Well, the one real way to do that is to slap it on a druid. It's still a poor mechanical choice...but you're still a druid. Anyway, on a more serious note:

I've seen a few VoP fixes floating around, but I don't know if I've seen any that really work. Some of them make it too powerful, and some of them actually nerf it more. I think the main thing is that what you miss out on is not the +x's, even if the proscribed progression doesn't keep up with what you'd get on the requisite cloak or armor or weapon at that level. What you really miss out on is versatility--scrolls, weapon enchantments that aren't +'s (like keen or seeking), metamagic rods, pearls of power, wands, boots of fly, etc. It gimps noncasters a lot because, for example, they'll never get access to flight or enlarge or any of those useful gadgets that can make the rogue better at more than one thing or the fighter not useless against something with wings or too large to grapple or trip in your own form.

If I were to fix it, I would first make it so you could use with with a spell book or holy symbol or whatever, RAW.

Then, I'd devise some sort of optional bonuses that you choose at the point of level up at certain levels, which then become fixed. So limited flight might be a choice at one level, or trading in a couple points of your +x on your attacks for an enhancement, or "storing" a couple spells like a pseudo-scroll, or the ability to mimic a spell as an SLA occasionally. I'd probably still have it lag a little behind what you could do with WBL, because frankly I think it ceases to be a selfless choice to make if it doesn't impact you at all, but I'd still make it so that non-casters still have some versatility and casters don't give up all of the massive versatility that comes from items. Actually, re-reading this, I guess I would sort of ToB it. :smallsmile:

It would be an absolute pain to balance it properly, but I think it would make it, if not worth it, do-able for a character that isn't a caster or a wild shaper.

Yeah. I was trying to get a version that would specifically work for a monk, but then everything I was attempting got superceded by (or included in) jiriku's monk, so I kind of just gave up. :smalltongue:

I suppose one way it could be balanced is by giving equivalent options. Giving some sort of "blessing of the gods"-flavored ability that gave you a constant buff, which you could pick a limited number of options for as you leveled and switch as a free action, would make up a lot of the slack. Let it lag behind spell levels by at least one (so 2nd-level buffs no earlier than 5th level), and make it highly selective (allow comprehend languages and protection from evil as 1st level, but disallow shield or allow it with the 2nd level buffs). This way, you get magic-item-esque versatility and passive benefits, without actually needing magic items to obtain them.

EDIT: And yeah, making additional, non-sucky Exalted feats would do a lot for it as well.

[Coidzor]

A character with VoP who is also allowed to use whatever items he wants would be broken as hell, obviously. If I let the player ignore the vow under special roleplaying circumstances, I invite the player to increase his personal power by arguing about what does or doesn't violate his vow. The player gets to argue on the side of reason ("I should be able to use this Wand of Searing Light to protect the orphanage from spectres") and I have to argue on the side of stupid nonsense ("no, your Good-aligned character wants to let the orphans die because that wand has a cash value").

It's a slippery slope so I can never lose the argument, but the only way to win this ridiculous argument is to take the hard line.

It's called a fallacy more often than not for a reason. And here it is definitely in the form of a fallacy. There is nothing in allowing clerics to actually be able to cast spells that requires anything else to be opened up. And allowing a cleric to be able to cast his spells is not allowing the player to negotiate(and you're erroneously implying that somehow players always get exactly what they want when they negotiate rather than an actual negotiation occurring) to ignore the vow under "special roleplaying circumstances."

The problem the wizard runs into is the separate issue of copying spells into his spellbook, and being able to get more pages/another book when it gets filled up, though if he's limited to his number of spells known from leveling up or even that + the collegiate wizard feat, I don't know that it would. Though collegiate wizard and economizing on spell selection would take care of the cost to copy spells issue anyway...

Simply allowing the players to be able to cast spells is not making their character one which is "allowed to use whatever items he wants."


RAW says money is kryptonite so that's how we're playing it, YOU took the stupid feat so it's YOUR job to figure out how that makes any sense.

Well, in the example scenario it'd be the DM forcing them to take the feat, so...

[Etrivar]

I've seen a few VoP fixes floating around, but I don't know if I've seen any that really work. Some of them make it too powerful, and some of them actually nerf it more. I think the main thing is that what you miss out on is not the +x's, even if the proscribed progression doesn't keep up with what you'd get on the requisite cloak or armor or weapon at that level. What you really miss out on is versatility--scrolls, weapon enchantments that aren't +'s (like keen or seeking), metamagic rods, pearls of power, wands, boots of fly, etc. It gimps noncasters a lot because, for example, they'll never get access to flight or enlarge or any of those useful gadgets that can make the rogue better at more than one thing or the fighter not useless against something with wings or too large to grapple or trip in your own form.

If I were to fix it, I would first make it so you could use with with a spell book or holy symbol or whatever, RAW.

Then, I'd devise some sort of optional bonuses that you choose at the point of level up at certain levels, which then become fixed. So limited flight might be a choice at one level, or trading in a couple points of your +x on your attacks for an enhancement, or "storing" a couple spells like a pseudo-scroll, or the ability to mimic a spell as an SLA occasionally. I'd probably still have it lag a little behind what you could do with WBL, because frankly I think it ceases to be a selfless choice to make if it doesn't impact you at all, but I'd still make it so that non-casters still have some versatility and casters don't give up all of the massive versatility that comes from items. Actually, re-reading this, I guess I would sort of ToB it. :smallsmile:

Please see post number 45.

[PollyOliver]

Oh, cool. Sorry, I read the first half page or so of the thread, forgot about it, and started reading it again partway down the second page and apparently just missed you.

[myancey]

I'd probably build a fighter-based grappler. Provided 2 flaws are allowed, you can legitimately build a level 1 human fighter with a +12 grapple. You need a heavy dose of Lords of Madness though.

[Greenish]

I'd probably build a fighter-based grappler. Provided 2 flaws are allowed, you can legitimately build a level 1 human fighter with a +12 grapple. You need a heavy dose of Lords of Madness though.Of course, a VoP grappler fighter won't stay relevant for very long, as opposed to, say, totemist or psychic warrior/tashatalora.

[stainboy]

@Etrivar, Coidzor: You guys took my post way more seriously than I did.

My players are mouthbreathing trolls who could not be trusted with a mechanically important roleplaying restriction. If you play with mature, reasonable people... I don't know how to tell you this, but you're playing D&D wrong. Go recruit some mouthbreathing trolls ASAP.

[Etrivar]

My players are mouthbreathing trolls who could not be trusted with a mechanically important roleplaying restriction. If you play with mature, reasonable people... I don't know how to tell you this, but you're playing D&D wrong. Go recruit some mouthbreathing trolls ASAP.

This made me laugh harder than I have in quite a while. You most definitely get a cookie.

[Metahuman1]

Doesn't VOP allow you too take the loot so long as it's not used for personal benefit? You can get it as long as you don't get a real boon form it and it get's donated asap too an orphanage or your deity's temple or something of that nature?

[JaronK]

If you had to have a party of 4 characters, and each had to have VoP (say, for story reasons) - what 4 would you chose to fill the four traditional roles (blaster/area control, healer/buffer, tank/meatshield and skillmonkey/trapfinder)?

And please, try to avoid the obvious "4 Druids LOL" answer. :smallwink:

Factotum, Binder 1/Marshal 1/Warlock 1/Bard 7/Exemplar 10, Cloistered Cleric, Bard. The Cleric will have to tattoo on a holy symbol, of course. But then I'd give them all vow of peace too, and make sure the Bards had Requiem. They'd all walk around, and every time someone got too close the vow of peace would make them not want to attack, and just in case the Bards could use Fascinate (even on undead) to bring the point home and lock them in place. And then all of them would use Diplomacy on the now stuck in place enemies (the Binder guy binds Naberius and does it as a standard action, the others take longer) to make them all Helpful or possibly even Fanatical, by talking about their problems and discussing why they want to eat people and all that. And the party would walk around peaceably converting everybody to their new religion of peace, eventually ending all war and making everyone happy and convincing everyone to talk out their problems instead of fighting. Where needed, the Factotum and Cleric could solve resource problems for the local populace with magic, thus removing the need for fighting.

Yes, this works. It's hilarious to play through pregen adventures this way (instead of slaying the evil necromancer, we teach him a better way and make him happy and convince him to use his mindless undead to handle menial labor for the local population while using his other magic to create tippyverse style magical food generating traps, thus creating utopian necrocommunism as a government!). Probably not so great for long term campaigns as you solve all problems the same way (just make sure you have a plan for dealing with mindless golems... I find illusionary boxes works well) but it's hilarious in the short term. It totally destroys most D&D adventures (we approach the evil castle, then politely knock on the door!).

JaronK

[Jack_Simth]

Doesn't VOP allow you too take the loot so long as it's not used for personal benefit? You can get it as long as you don't get a real boon form it and it get's donated asap too an orphanage or your deity's temple or something of that nature?
You can't use it at all. Not for a single round, not for the benefit of someone else in the party - and you're supposed to take your full share for charity. So if you find an immovable rod, which becomes your share of the treasure, you put it in your sack for donating later... and if before you get to town, you run into a situation where the immovable rod would be incredibly useful for crossing a chasm... tough luck.

[Cog]

... and if before you get to town, you run into a situation where the immovable rod would be incredibly useful for crossing a chasm... tough luck.
I'm not sure. All VoP cares about is the worth of your fair share, not the particular contents of it (how enlightened!). If somebody in your party says, "Hey, mind if I swap this Rod of Cancellation for those two Immovable Rods you're carrying back to the church?" that's a net increase to the donation and shouldn't be a problem at all.

[Coidzor]

You can't use it at all. Not for a single round, not for the benefit of someone else in the party - and you're supposed to take your full share for charity. So if you find an immovable rod, which becomes your share of the treasure, you put it in your sack for donating later... and if before you get to town, you run into a situation where the immovable rod would be incredibly useful for crossing a chasm... tough luck.

Cause you're getting knocked out under mysterious circumstances.

Admittedly, the better solution is to not divvy out loot formally until you hit a place where the VoP could actually donate things.

[stainboy]

It seems easier to ignore the charity thing and have the DM hand out less treasure. If there are four PCs and one of them has VoP, the party gets 3 x WBL worth of loot.

That way there's no wondering why the rest of the party gives the VoPer loot when they know he'll just give it away.

[Hida Reju]

Melee types need to have a way to get a cheap weapon that matters. Unarmed Swordsage is decent, Psi warrior with ACF for soulbound weapon, and even if I get flamed for it I still think that Soulknife/soulbow would work in this case. If you get to use a pathfinder Soulknife it works even better since it lets you go epic on a weapon way early.

My reasoning for Soulknife/Soulbow is that you get decent close in and ranged firepower, good HP, some skills, and a magic weapon that will be at decent enhancement and get things like Wounding on a ranged weapon. Basically since you are gimped with a class that its only ability is a free weapon you actually get some benefit(Minor though it may be) from a build that normally can not get a decent weapon.

[Cog]

That way there's no wondering why the rest of the party gives the VoPer loot when they know he'll just give it away.
That just seems unfair to the VoPer. It's like you're telling him, "No, you're not mature enough to use your share wisely, so we aren't going to let you have any at all." That doesn't sound very much like a healthy team attitude to me, assuming the VoP guy is actually contributing to the party's efforts.

[Amphetryon]

VoP, ugh. Okay then...

Sir-Hits-a-Lot: Skarn Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Totemist 1/Totem Rager 10.

Our-Lady-of-Perpetual-Healing: Star Elf Favored Soul 6/Crusader 2/Knight of the Raven 2/Ruby Knight Vindicator 10.

Master-Caster: Kalashtar Shaper 20.

Sneaky McSkillmonkey: Human Binder 20.

[Boci]

That just seems unfair to the VoPer. It's like you're telling him, "No, you're not mature enough to use your share wisely, so we aren't going to let you have any at all." That doesn't sound very much like a healthy team attitude to me, assuming the VoP guy is actually contributing to the party's efforts.

Its more a case of "He's just going to give it to a charity, so whats 2,000 less gold pieces to buy gruel for the orhpenages. He can already feed a nation for a year with his share. Greedy orphens."

[Cog]

Which still does nothing to justify why everybody else in the party gets to decide what the VoPer can or cannot do with his share.

[Boci]

Which still does nothing to justify why everybody else in the party gets to decide what the VoPer can or cannot do with his share.

"I'm risking my life to slay vile creatures. With these gloves of dexterity, I can do so better, and my chances of dying are rediced. Why should I give them to the saint? He already has 1,000 gold pieces, that is more than enough to make a difference in the city amougst the poor, and if we die, we won't be able to do any good,"

Thats clearly not a lawful good character, but its not neccissarily evil either.

To be clear, if I was playing such a character and someone else had VoP, I would be straight with them OOC. Something along the lines of:
"My character doesn't believe the orphans deserve 5k. 1k sure, but anything else is overkill. He admires you for your cheritable nature, but believes your strong unnegotiable morals are jepodizing the whole party, so he will occassionally lift magical items for the rest of the party and not tell your character,"

[PollyOliver]

But it's not about what the orphans deserve. It's about what the VoP character deserves as his share of the adventure--which is an equal share, if he contributed equally (or whatever was agreed upon at outset). He risked his life to slay vile creatures just as much as you did, and if he chooses to use the spoils on something other than a new set of armor, it's his concern. What he does with his share is frankly none of your character's business whatsoever--otherwise he could make the argument that, sure, maybe these orphans over here only need 1000 gp, but there's another orphanage in this town, and this town, and this town, and this church does a lot of healing for the poor, and if you all gave me your shares it would help so many more people than just buying yourselves another pearl or power or set of gloves of DEX. But it's not about that. It's about each of you being members of a team or an adventuring party or a mercenary band or whatever, and each of you getting paid your share.

If you don't have enough baseline respect for each other to honor that sort of implicit or explicit agreement, then you probably have no business using BoED. Like it says, mature audiences only.

[Cog]

Let's try another example. If you had a wizard in your party who, without VoP, simply decided to spend his share of the wealth on getting drunk whenever you're in town, on having his gold pieces melted down and made into statues of himself, and maybe buying a few strictly necessary bits of gear here and there, would you also feel justified in stealing from him?

[PollyOliver]

Let's try another example. If you had a wizard in your party who, without VoP, simply decided to spend his share of the wealth on getting drunk whenever you're in town, on having his gold pieces melted down and made into statues of himself, and maybe buying a few strictly necessary bits of gear here and there, would you also feel justified in stealing from him?

Were I a lawful character, I would feel justified in lecturing him (making sure the player knew I was lecturing the character and not him), but not in stealing from him. If I were the kind of character who would be willing to steal from other party members (which frankly, I avoid playing, because they're flat-out bad for party cohesion), I wouldn't need a reason. I'd steal from the lecherous wizard and the VoP saint and everyone else equally. Maybe I'd justify it by saying that the VoP character was wasting the money on orphans or the wizard was wasting it on booze and prostitutes, but that wouldn't be the real reason, it would be the excuse. If you're willing to steal from other party members and risk damaging the group dynamic and others' trust for you to that extent (keeping in mind that your life frequently depends on these people being willing to help you), the reasoning that "the orphans don't need it that much" is a little beside the point.

[Boci]

But it's not about what the orphans deserve. It's about what the VoP character deserves as his share of the adventure--which is an equal share, if he contributed equally (or whatever was agreed upon at outset). He risked his life to slay vile creatures just as much as you did, and if he chooses to use the spoils on something other than a new set of armor, it's his concern. What he does with his share is frankly none of your character's business whatsoever

From aplayer's perspective sure, from a characters perspective? Not neccissarily.


otherwise he could make the argument that, sure, maybe these orphans over here only need 1000 gp, but there's another orphanage in this town, and this town, and this town, and this church does a lot of healing for the poor, and if you all gave me your shares it would help so many more people than just buying yourselves another pearl or power or set of gloves of DEX.

He can, the character in question would counter that with "If we die for lack of magical gear, we won't be able to do any good,"


If you don't have enough baseline respect for each other to honor that sort of implicit or explicit agreement, then you probably have no business using BoED. Like it says, mature audiences only.

Sorry, saying I'm not mature doesn't make your argument any stronger. A VoP's character's fun isn't ruined by my character shaving off some of his share.


Let's try another example. If you had a wizard in your party who, without VoP, simply decided to spend his share of the wealth on getting drunk whenever you're in town, on having his gold pieces melted down and made into statues of himself, and maybe buying a few strictly necessary bits of gear here and there, would you also feel justified in stealing from him?

For this character? Absolutly. More so than from the VoP character. He can get drunk on 1,000gp, he doesn't need another 2k, myself on the other hand am going to use the item that could potentially save me and/or the party.

[PollyOliver]

From aplayer's perspective sure, from a characters perspective? Not neccissarily.

He can, the character in question would counter that with "If we die for lack of magical gear, we won't be able to do any good,"

Sorry, saying I'm not mature doesn't make your argument any stronger. A VoP's character's fun isn't ruined by my character shaving off some of his share.

Your character's life depends less on those gloves of dex than it does on the rest of the party. Stealing from the people whose goodwill and aid your life depends on is frankly not a smart move, in character. And if you're so chaotic that you would be willing to steal from party members to potentially get ahead, it's not like you need the excuse--you'd steal from anyone. And your response to Cog's question makes that clear. The character you're talking about isn't stealing from the VoP character for any practical or just reason; he's stealing from him because he's a self-righteous thief who thinks he has the right to take other people's belongings if they're not using them the way he thinks is best.

And I'm pretty sure having your share of the spoils of an adventure skimmed off by another player who disrespects your personal autonomy and your life philosophy so much that he thinks he's entitled to steal from you to put your rightful share of the adventure to "better" use pretty much by definition contributes to ruining that character's fun. Stealing from a VoP character's share of the treasure in that fashion is tantamount to saying that you're so much smarter and practical and righteous than he is that you have the right to treat him like a child, take his things, and use them in the way that you see fit. It's immature and childish and insulting, if your character's goal is to make sure the rest of the party likes him sufficiently to keep on healing him after hard fights or distracting enemies when he's on his last legs or do anything to help him at all, it's pretty darn stupid.

And in an out of character sense, it's even more immature, because you're contributing to an environment that makes it really hard for the VoP character's player to justify his being in the party at all, and you're punishing the player for trying to make an interesting role playing choice by treating his character like a child.

[Coidzor]

That just seems unfair to the VoPer. It's like you're telling him, "No, you're not mature enough to use your share wisely, so we aren't going to let you have any at all." That doesn't sound very much like a healthy team attitude to me, assuming the VoP guy is actually contributing to the party's efforts.

Yeah, I've never really understood why this is viewed as short-shrifting the guy who already gave up on being able to use a share of the loot.

It just means you're taking away any potential headache about magic items being divvied up and getting dumped into a black hole as a result when the party actually needed one of them in a certain location.


Which still does nothing to justify why everybody else in the party gets to decide what the VoPer can or cannot do with his share.

Well, when you're in a life and death situation where suddenly the only way to survive is to get a raft or boat very quickly and there's no materials around with which to build one and the wizard is all out of fly spells for the day and the person with VoP is carrying the item that turns into a boat that they thought they'd never use that they stole from the temple of the Drowned God of Doom and Cranberry Pudding...

The person with VoP refusing to allow the party to make use of it because of their vow and the fact they're holding it is petty and suicidal as well as homicidal as he's condemning the party to die for beliefs they don't hold. Which is, frankly, bad team spirit.

[Pigkappa]

Cause you're getting knocked out under mysterious circumstances.

Admittedly, the better solution is to not divvy out loot formally until you hit a place where the VoP could actually donate things.

The best solution is to have a decent DM and not play every single crazy line of the VoP description by RAW. This is one of those things which are very nice fluff-wise but become really bad with players who want to optimize (spending all of your money in permanent buffs and then becoming an ascetic who can't even use a golden key? :smallmad:).

[Boci]

And in an out of character sense, it's even more immature, because you're contributing to an environment that makes it really hard for the VoP character's player to justify his being in the party at all, and you're punishing the player for trying to make an interesting role playing choice by treating his character like a child.

VoP player: Oh no, instead of the rightful 3,000gp, my character is only giving 1,000gp to charity. How can I gain any entertainment from this character? Its not as if anything else has changed, I can still opertate as normal, but the offscreen number is less.


Your character's life depends less on those gloves of dex than it does on the rest of the party. Stealing from the people whose goodwill and aid your life depends on is frankly not a smart move, in character. And if you're so chaotic that you would be willing to steal from party members to potentially get ahead, it's not like you need the excuse--you'd steal from anyone.

No he wouldn't. He will take items that he risked his life to get that would otherwise go to "waste" (character's mind, not the player). He won't steal items he did not directly earn.

[Cog]

@Boci: You don't see one character stealing from another to possibly become an issue in-character?


The person with VoP refusing to allow the party to make use of it because of their vow and the fact they're holding it is petty and suicidal as well as homicidal as he's condemning the party to die for beliefs they don't hold. Which is, frankly, bad team spirit.
Yes, the VoP character then has a decision to make. Making a decision and having the decision made on your behalf are two very different things.

Also, as has been pointed out, the divvying can be done when the option to donate is much nearer at hand.

[Coidzor]

You don't see one character stealing from another to possibly become an issue in-character?

I see the entire party drowning to death as a bigger issue in-character. Though, admittedly, it also ends the entire realm of in-character issues fairly quickly.

[Boci]

You don't see one character stealing from another to possibly become an issue in-character?

Yes, and it will lead to party tension and the realist vs idealist debate. I.E. good roleplaying. If the VoP player is mortaly against it then sure I'll refrain, but otherwise, fair game.

[PollyOliver]

VoP player: Oh no, instead of the rightful 3,000gp, my character is only giving 1,000gp to charity. How can I gain any entertainment from this character? Its not as if anything else has changed, I can still opertate as normal, but the offscreen number is less.

Umm...that's totally ignoring everything else I said before that one sentence. The VoP character doesn't just mysteriously happen to get 3000 gp less to give to charity. You're talking about stealing that amount from him because you think your way of using the money is better than his. Your character thinks he's so much smarter and more righteous than his character that he is justified in treating him like a child by taking his things because you don't agree with how he wants to use them. It's disrespectful not only of the VoP character's life philosophy, but also of the very idea that he's a sentient being with the right to choose what he gets to do with his share of the treasure.

Out of character, routinely treating other players' characters like children who don't deserve to make their own life decisions (and you've indicated that it is routine, by the way you responded to Cog's question), unless you've worked it out with the players in advance, is immature and diminishes the fun at everyone else at the table in favor of your own.

[Boci]

Umm...that's totally ignoring everything else I said before that one sentence. The VoP character doesn't just mysteriously happen to get 3000 gp less to give to charity. You're talking about stealing that amount from him because you think your way of using the money is better than his. Your character thinks he's so much smarter and more righteous than his character that he is justified in treating him like a child by taking his things because you don't agree with how he wants to use them. It's disrespectful not only of the VoP character's life philosophy, but also of the very idea that he's a sentient being with the right to choose what he gets to do with his share of the treasure.

Not all character views are compatible. Your point?


Out of character, routinely treating other players' characters like children who don't deserve to make their own life decisions (and you've indicated that it is routine, by the way you responded to Cog's question), unless you've worked it out with the players in advance, is immature and diminishes the fun at everyone else at the table in favor of your own.

I already covered this.

[stainboy]

That just seems unfair to the VoPer. It's like you're telling him, "No, you're not mature enough to use your share wisely, so we aren't going to let you have any at all." That doesn't sound very much like a healthy team attitude to me, assuming the VoP guy is actually contributing to the party's efforts.

Under this house rule, a Vow of Poverty carries no obligation to give to charity, simply an obligation not to accept wealth. The party isn't refusing to give him the money, he doesn't want it.

If the VoPer decided (for roleplaying reasons not related to keeping his feat) to give an equal share to charity, the DM could take note of this and hand out 4x WBL for awhile. With at least one share worth of actual gold, not conveniently useful magic items, so there's no argument over "we can't use the Winged Boots even though we're stuck in a pit because the VoPer wants to give them to the orphanage."



Let's try another example. If you had a wizard in your party who, without VoP, simply decided to spend his share of the wealth on getting drunk whenever you're in town, on having his gold pieces melted down and made into statues of himself, and maybe buying a few strictly necessary bits of gear here and there, would you also feel justified in stealing from him?

It seems like a valid roleplaying exercise to have a character be upset about this, yes. (OOC the money spent on booze won't be enough to matter, and it eventually comes back to the party anyway. That's how WBL works.)

Honestly I'm more concerned why the wizard paid someone to make a statue instead of just casting a spell. What does he think he is, a fighter?