Vow of Poverty [Archive] - Page 2 - Giant in the Playground Forums

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 10:09 AM

I still view VoP as a fluff feat with some very nice perks in return for some restrictions. Any feat is a tool for you and your character to use. Not all tools are for everyone.
While I disagree with you about Monks and VoP, I agree with this completely.
What irks me is that when some rule unexpectadly gives you more power than it was supposed to (like, say, DMM. Intended as a way for clerics to actually use metamagic, optimized it becomes a Persist machine using four or five different sources for more turning attempts) then it's just fine. But if some rule has a consequence or if it doesn't make you more powerful (or if it's not the be-all end-all of powerful, since VoP Druids are certainly powerful enough)... then it absolutely sucks, fails and must be fixed.
This mindset of 'the correct answer is the one that gets more plusses' is in no way practical optimization at all. It doesn't work in an actual game.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:31 AM

While I disagree with you about Monks and VoP, I agree with this completely.
What irks me is that when some rule unexpectadly gives you more power than it was supposed to (like, say, DMM. Intended as a way for clerics to actually use metamagic, optimized it becomes a Persist machine using four or five different sources for more turning attempts) then it's just fine. But if some rule has a consequence or if it doesn't make you more powerful (or if it's not the be-all end-all of powerful, since VoP Druids are certainly powerful enough)... then it absolutely sucks, fails and must be fixed.
This mindset of 'the correct answer is the one that gets more plusses' is in no way practical optimization at all. It doesn't work in an actual game.

I don't see how my argument became that. I want to be able to fight dragons and demons and devils. I want to actually be heroic. And now this is bad wrong stupid because it is not "practical.". Screw this for a lark.

Talya

2011-05-12, 10:35 AM

This mindset of 'the correct answer is the one that gets more plusses' is in no way practical optimization at all. It doesn't work in an actual game.
While I agree with your actual point, I just need to point out that VOP really gives "the most plusses," from a standpoint of static +number benefits to the things you are doing. VOP is a monster that far exceeds wealth by level when it comes to basic combat. It even provides a number of things that people consider essential in utility equipment. The complaints are in the things it lacks the ability to replicate; things which are obviously, in the campaigns they play in, essential.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-12, 10:39 AM

What irks me is that when some rule unexpectadly gives you more power than it was supposed to (like, say, DMM. Intended as a way for clerics to actually use metamagic, optimized it becomes a Persist machine using four or five different sources for more turning attempts) then it's just fine. But if some rule has a consequence or if it doesn't make you more powerful (or if it's not the be-all end-all of powerful, since VoP Druids are certainly powerful enough)... then it absolutely sucks, fails and must be fixed.

You've never seen a DMM Cleric played in an actual game before? :smallconfused:

I mean, it's cool if you play with low-op groups and all, but I wouldn't generalize and say that it doesn't work in actual games. Heck, 3/4 of the threads I've started in the last two months or so have been entirely about getting a DMM Cleric I'm currently playing up to speed. It's been working great.

This mindset of 'the correct answer is the one that gets more plusses' is in no way practical optimization at all. It doesn't work in an actual game.

This part confuses me. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this sounds almost like you're saying that 'optimization is not choosing the option with the most advantages'. That is the opposite of true. That's actually the definition of "practical optimization".

I just need to point out that VOP really gives "the most plusses," from a standpoint of static +number benefits to the things you are doing.

If by "plusses" you mean stats, generally useless feats, and AC bonuses, sure. But WBL gives more actual bonuses. Like variety. And the ability to buy magic pants.

VOP is a monster that far exceeds wealth by level when it comes to basic combat.

This isn't true. I'm sure somebody has done the math. I know I've seen it on this very forum.

Talya

2011-05-12, 10:56 AM

This isn't true. I'm sure somebody has done the math. I know I've seen it on this very forum.

For several classes, VOP bonuses require epic gear to replicate, which instantly sends it's WBL equivalent into the stratosphere. Most attempts to compare it unfavorably to WBL make a few mistaken assumptions, like counting inherent bonuses unevenly (which VOP characters can get almost as easily as anyone else). They also ignore the "always on" component of several of its features (permanent trueseeing is substantially more expensive and far more useful than an item that grants it once a day for x/rounds), and the fact that several of its bonuses would be in the same item slot and therefore either completely unavailable together, or if you have a generous DM who treats the world as Ye Olde Magick Emporium, cost substantially more to get the bonuses in a nonstandard item location.

And a lot of those feats are VERY good, for the right classes.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:57 AM

Grey, this has devolved to a thread where we are the "bad guys" and it is time to go. Talya, I enjoyed this discourse while it lasted.

ShriekingDrake

2011-05-12, 11:04 AM

Grey, this has devolved to a thread where we are the "bad guys" and it is time to go. Talya, I enjoyed this discourse while it lasted.

I, for one, don't think you're the bad guys. The rules (and styles of play) allow for wide ranging opinions and a broad colloquy is much better than everyone just nodding heads. I have appreciated this discussion.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 11:05 AM

I don't see how my argument became that. I want to be able to fight dragons and demons and devils. I want to actually be heroic. And now this is bad wrong stupid because it is not "practical.". Screw this for a lark.
Who said I was talking about you, Doc? I was making a reference to 10 commandments of practical optimization (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860738/The_Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization)!
And again with insults. Really, dude. Chill.

You've never seen a DMM Cleric played in an actual game before? :smallconfused:

That's not my point. The point is that a cleric that worships Planning and Undead, carries a lot of Nightsticks and wades into melee to kick ass with persisted spells is a rather narrow concept, but you see it thrown out like a standard. You end up as a DMM cleric, not a Cleric of X. This distinction between crunch and fluff is a really big stretch, I believe. It's OK that the best way to make a Cleric requires to you jump through hoops, but it's not OK that one of the options in a heavily fluff-based book is not optimla? I highly disagree with that.

Incanur

2011-05-12, 11:05 AM

Warblade? No ranged maneuver support whatsoever. Fine at level 3, but how much are you going to be doing with a crossbow against a dragon at level 10?

I'm well-aware that 3.x D&D makes ranged combat a suboptimal choice for most martial character. To my eyes, that's a design flaw. Requiring moderately superhuman warriors to fly and swing swords at aerial opponents seems a little silly. I guess it approximates wuxia wire fu, but those folks walk on the air under their own power and don't typically fight winged beasts. In superhero comics, flying character typically have a much greater overall power level than mid-level PCs.

The physical mechanics of flight make close combat problematic. Unless a flying foe wants to engage, shooting it down should be easier because projectiles typically travel faster than the person launching them. And without magical anti-gravity, losing momentum means falling out of the sky. Attacks could only be made in passing, as in jousts. Of course, this issue exists in D&D as well. It's not that easy to catch an aerial assailant that start out above you.

Starbuck_II

2011-05-12, 11:09 AM

If by "plusses" you mean stats, generally useless feats, and AC bonuses, sure. But WBL gives more actual bonuses. Like variety. And the ability to buy magic pants.

Wait, are there actual magic pants? If so, can someone find me the page numbers.

Talya

2011-05-12, 11:21 AM

Wait, are there actual magic pants? If so, can someone find me the page numbers.

Ah, but my Charisma based, lesser-aasimar VOP druidess is actually using the feat to go without any pants. I seriously think this wins.

Forbiddenwar

2011-05-12, 11:29 AM

And a lot of those feats are VERY good, for the right classes.

I think this is the key of the VoP discussion. It, like any other feat, works better for some classes than others. Just as there are some feats that are meant to be taken by a fighter and some feats that are meant for a druid. the VoP feat seems meant for a druid, a cleric, a monk, a ToB class, or a paladin.

Now, no feat can turn a single class monk or a single class paladin into a tier 1, nor can a feat turn a single class druid or cleric into tier 5. In the cleric, ToB class, and druid example, any necessary contingency needed in the gameplay is compensated by spell casting. In the paladin and monk example, as expressed earlier in this thread, VoP is the least of your problems.

This being the case, arguments on the weaknesses of VoP seem similar to arguing that stunning fist needs to be fixed so that fighters can use it with swords. Suggesting that a feat needs to be fixed so that it improves all classes equally is suggesting that all feats everywhere need to be fixed.

PollyOliver

2011-05-12, 11:30 AM

I'm well-aware that 3.x D&D makes ranged combat a suboptimal choice for most martial character. To my eyes, that's a design flaw. Requiring moderately superhuman warriors to fly and swing swords at aerial opponents seems a little silly. I guess it approximates wuxia wire fu, but those folks walk on the air under their own power and don't typically fight winged beasts. In superhero comics, flying character typically have a much greater overall power level than mid-level PCs.

The physical mechanics of flight make close combat problematic. Unless a flying foe wants to engage, shooting it down should be easier because projectiles typically travel faster than the person launching them. And without magical anti-gravity, losing momentum means falling out of the sky. Attacks could only be made in passing, as in jousts. Of course, this issue exists in D&D as well. It's not that easy to catch an aerial assailant that start out above you.

True on both counts. For the first, though, at least flying boots allow you to try to do something. (And by the level you can have them, they're pretty much necessary if your DM just grabs things out of monster manuals for you to fight. In a heavily humanoid campaign, it's much less of a problem except for with enemy casters). For the second, this is true for most enemies that use hit and run, tactics though. But at a certain point, they're either going to have to choose to engage or choose to leave if you're just as mobile as they are.

And, yeah, I'd agree that the biggest problems with putting VoP on a melee character ultimately stem from 3.5's problems with most melee characters. It's a feat that reduces versatility, while in some cases bumping up "power" (and in some cases, not). Noncasters, especially in core, have so little versatility to begin with that this is a big problem for them. But even solid tier 3's like the warblade and crusader (I like tier 3 a lot, by the way; I tend to optimize up when I'm below it and not pay much attention to optimization when I'm above it) are heavily gimped by it, and I think that's a pretty big problem, because those are very versatile classes usually. The core fighter isn't exactly a paragon of useful options anyway, so it probably was not the best argument to use, but causing a warblade to be useless at hitting things with a blade clearly indicates a serious balance issue.

It is campaign dependent, though. If your DM tends not to use creatures with alternate movement modes or very large all that often, it's less of a big deal. If the wizard has to waste his turn casting fly on you a few times throughout the whole campaign, he (and the rest of the party) probably doesn't mind. It's when the lack of versatility bites you a sizable fraction of encounters that it's really problematic.

Edit: I'm not sure that saying that thinking VoP should be viable for most character types is the same as saying all feats should be, first because VoP net harms most but not all character types (which I'm fine with as a sacrifice, if that harm is small) and second because VoP isn't your standard feat. It's not manyshot, which clearly you only take if you're an archer. It's not power attack, which clearly you only take if you plan on hitting things in melee, or quicken spell, which clearly you only take if you can cast spells. It purports to support mechanically the role playing choice of wanting to be an ascetic who forsakes wealth for the good of others, and I don't think that should be a more valid choice for a sorcerer than it should be for a fighter. Obviously just my opinion, though.

Karoht

2011-05-12, 11:34 AM

While I disagree with you about Monks and VoP, I agree with this completely.
What irks me is that when some rule unexpectadly gives you more power than it was supposed to (like, say, DMM. Intended as a way for clerics to actually use metamagic, optimized it becomes a Persist machine using four or five different sources for more turning attempts) then it's just fine. But if some rule has a consequence or if it doesn't make you more powerful (or if it's not the be-all end-all of powerful, since VoP Druids are certainly powerful enough)... then it absolutely sucks, fails and must be fixed.
This mindset of 'the correct answer is the one that gets more plusses' is in no way practical optimization at all. It doesn't work in an actual game.

Exactly my point. Sometimes not all the plusses are in fact numerical, or even the sort of thing you write on the character sheet.
And some times, it's just fluff.

PS-I was never of the opinion that VoP 'fixed' Monk in any way. It certainly makes them more interesting to play (if that is your thing), and it is a nice boost for them, but I think if you multiplied VoP's bonuses by 10 (slight hyperbole) you still probably wouldn't 'fix' the Monk class.

Mystic Muse

2011-05-12, 11:58 AM

This being the case, arguments on the weaknesses of VoP seem similar to arguing that stunning fist needs to be fixed so that fighters can use it with swords. Suggesting that a feat needs to be fixed so that it improves all classes equally is suggesting that all feats everywhere need to be fixed.

I don't think that's the case here. While some feats should of course benefit some classes more than others, I think VoP should be a feat that can work well with any class, rather than working with only a few specific ones. I think it should also be called something else and not be an exalted feat, and have the feat mention that the fluff is changeable. I can see non-exalted characters wanting to play without magic items too.

Talya

2011-05-12, 11:58 AM

In my experience, VOP hurts the monk slightly more than it helps him. Which is to say, it helps a LOT....it just hurts a LOT MORE. Monks are more reliant on gear that VOP doesn't replace than any other class. However, VOP goes a long way toward fixing MAD (not by consolidating it, but by giving them a frackton of higher ability scores), a monk's inability to hit effectively, the monk's durability, etc. However, all those things it doesn't give? Monks have NO way to get. Also, despite providing a method for a monk to raise wisdom and constitution together to acceptable levels (which equipment cannot do), it introduces a new MAD problem -- most exalted feats require high charisma. A VOP monk should have at least 15 so they can get that giant +2d6 exalted damage bonus on their unarmed strikes...

Karoht

2011-05-12, 12:12 PM

PollyOliver

2011-05-12, 12:17 PM

Odd VoP question.

You know the various Tomes one can find which, if read, give you a perminent + to some kind of stat.
If your holy order hands you one of these and orders you to read it, as part of your training, can you read it, and not violate VoP?

I think the most practical answer is "ask your DM".

Technically, I think you can. You can use consumables as long as they aren't yours. So if a party member took it as their loot and told you to read it, or if someone else who owned it told you to read it, you probably could. If it's in your share of the loot, you have to donate it, I think.

In terms of role-playing, I think your "charitable leader says you can use it, but specifically will not allow you to donate it instead" is the only way to do it without breaking the intent of your vow pretty darn hard.

Axinian

2011-05-12, 12:20 PM

Odd VoP question.

You know the various Tomes one can find which, if read, give you a perminent + to some kind of stat.
If your holy order hands you one of these and orders you to read it, as part of your training, can you read it, and not violate VoP?
Since your order is letting you use it without giving it to you, I think yes. You're not really taking possession of the book, you're just reading it for benefit. I don't think going to a library and reading a book off the shelf breaks your vow.

But, as above, seems sort of DM dependent.

Talya

2011-05-12, 12:29 PM

Odd VoP question.

You know the various Tomes one can find which, if read, give you a perminent + to some kind of stat.
If your holy order hands you one of these and orders you to read it, as part of your training, can you read it, and not violate VoP?

Probably not.

You could make a convoluted argument that someone else could hold the book and turn the pages for you while you read it and it wouldn't end up any different than if they'd poured a very expensive potion down your throat (legal by RAW), but...either way. I believe the vow makes specific exceptions for potions someone hands you, but there's no such exceptions for a scroll someone hands you.

Convince them to hire a wizard to do it instead. (You've built up enough goodwill with them by now that they'll do it.)

Veyr

2011-05-12, 12:34 PM

Taelas

2011-05-12, 12:40 PM

Probably not.

You could make a convoluted argument that someone else could hold the book and turn the pages for you while you read it and it wouldn't end up any different than if they'd poured a very expensive potion down your throat (legal by RAW), but...either way. I believe the vow makes specific exceptions for potions someone hands you, but there's no such exceptions for a scroll someone hands you.

Convince them to hire a wizard to do it instead. (You've built up enough goodwill with them by now that they'll do it.)

Nothing in the feat says they have to pour potions down your throat for you to drink them. It says, "you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you". It also says that you may not "cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

Regardless, whether or not you're allowed to use the book is somewhat controversial. I could argue for both, one argument likening it to the potion example, the other pointing at the text which specifies that "You may not use magic items of any sort".

Talya

2011-05-12, 12:41 PM

Because them spending a fortune on hiring a Wizard 20 with at least 28 Int to cast a series of 9th-level, XP-component spells on you is somehow different from them just paying you that much. I know that's valid by RAW, but let's be honest: on a fluff level, that should be as much of a violation of the Vow as direct payment.

They are not spending a fortune on you. They are spending a fortune on themselves. They know by improving you, you will continue to add more to their coffers than they have ever paid.

Anyway, this is nothing new to the VOP character. They've been bumming ale off their party members for 15 levels by the time this is an issue. We've already set the precedent that it is the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, that matters. This isn't unique to the Vow of Poverty, nor to D&D. We're talking religious rules here...since when do the fine details of religious law ever make any real sense?

Veyr

2011-05-12, 12:51 PM

And if they convinced you that this silly vow was pointless and was only harming your ability to be effective and by extension, harming your church/monastery/faith itself, they'd be doing even more good than they are by hiring the Wizard.

Karoht

2011-05-12, 01:10 PM

Since your order is letting you use it without giving it to you, I think yes. You're not really taking possession of the book, you're just reading it for benefit. I don't think going to a library and reading a book off the shelf breaks your vow.

But, as above, seems sort of DM dependent.

That is actually the reasoning. I have a player doing VoP, she works with an order of druids, and gives all her money to the order. The order looks after her pretty good though. I was considering giving her such a book to boost her stats, and the order was going to give it to her under the word of (manditory?) training.
On that note, I might give her a book to boost a specific skill, rather than a stat per se.

As you may know, it's very hard to reward a VoP player for their efforts and accomplishments. And this particular Druid has been going out of her way to really help people so I feel she deserves something. I figure that her order that she donates money regularly to can give her a bit of a helping hand.

Does that work?

PollyOliver

2011-05-12, 02:21 PM

That is actually the reasoning. I have a player doing VoP, she works with an order of druids, and gives all her money to the order. The order looks after her pretty good though. I was considering giving her such a book to boost her stats, and the order was going to give it to her under the word of (manditory?) training.
On that note, I might give her a book to boost a specific skill, rather than a stat per se.

As you may know, it's very hard to reward a VoP player for their efforts and accomplishments. And this particular Druid has been going out of her way to really help people so I feel she deserves something. I figure that her order that she donates money regularly to can give her a bit of a helping hand.

Does that work?

If you're the DM, then yes, it totally works. :smallwink:

Anyway, yeah, I think the scenario you described is pretty much the only one in which it does work (from both a rules and logic sense).

And it probably is challenging to keep thinking of tangible plot rewards that are not items after a while. Perhaps services would also be useful? Like the help of a high level caster for some service, or training from a master at some skill to give a bonus? I once got a couple extra low level spell slots for discreetly helping out the high priest of the god of magic and helping the church avoid embarrassment, and the party cleric got the magic domain as an untradeable bonus domain. My normal RL DM also sometimes gives custom (the DM customizes, not us) templates at high levels to make up for the fact that we're almost always seriously behind the curve in wealth by level, and they're usually bestowed in a plot-important way. One character (a crusader) got angel wings and a couple other cool things after singlehandedly taking out a major devil in a duel in the church courtyard.

MeeposFire

2011-05-12, 02:40 PM

That seems false as VoP is a supernatural feast: so you should lose all benefits when you lose benefit of feat.

Seems silly of FAQ to forget a feat grant the benefits: you shouldn't get 1/2 of a feat in a AMF (it should be all or nothing like every other feat).
Granted as you lose feat: you should be able to break vow in there since you don't have feat temporarily. :smallbiggrin:

Why do you think that some of the abilities granted by VoP have EX. and SU. next to them? It was their way of telling you these abilities wont go away in antimagic and these other abilities do go away. It was supposed to be seen as an exception to the general rule of all exalted feats are supernatural. They do admit it was not as clear as they thought though.

Also I do not think that the ability to not need equipment is not broken. For instance in 4e if you decide to use inherent bonuses you do not need to hand out the various items that are needed for the game (like magic weapons, armor, and neck slot items) you hand out items that are thematic since you don't have to worry about making a character suck by not having the correct level of magic items (such as getting a flaming sword at level 30. In a standard game it has to be a +6 flaming sword while with inherent bonuses it could be the +1 sword you found in your first adventure and that you have used since then since the inherent bonuses kept the weapon good from level 1-30). The only change in the rules is to give out slightly less treasure per level (in 4e terms you hand out one less treasure parcel). The last important rule to know is that inherent bonuses do not stack, they overlap, with the standard enhancement bonuses from an item.

You could try to do something similar in 3e it would just take a little more modification of VoP and the WBL.

Divide by Zero

2011-05-12, 02:55 PM

Why do you think that some of the abilities granted by VoP have EX. and SU. next to them? It was their way of telling you these abilities wont go away in antimagic and these other abilities do go away. It was supposed to be seen as an exception to the general rule of all exalted feats are supernatural. They do admit it was not as clear as they thought though.

Also I do not think that the ability to not need equipment is not broken. For instance in 4e if you decide to use inherent bonuses you do not need to hand out the various items that are needed for the game (like magic weapons, armor, and neck slot items) you hand out items that are thematic since you don't have to worry about making a character suck by not having the correct level of magic items (such as getting a flaming sword at level 30. In a standard game it has to be a +6 flaming sword while with inherent bonuses it could be the +1 sword you found in your first adventure and that you have used since then since the inherent bonuses kept the weapon good from level 1-30). The only change in the rules is to give out slightly less treasure per level (in 4e terms you hand out one less treasure parcel). The last important rule to know is that inherent bonuses do not stack, they overlap, with the standard enhancement bonuses from an item.

You could try to do something similar in 3e it would just take a little more modification of VoP and the WBL.

Maybe that was the intent, but by RAW, since the feat is supernatural, you lose its benefits - all of them - in an AMF.

4e combat is significantly different in my experience, so that really isn't going to be an accurate comparison.

Tvtyrant

2011-05-12, 04:52 PM

Veyr

2011-05-12, 04:52 PM

There is nothing wrong with liking the idea. The execution, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, indefensible.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 05:08 PM

There is nothing wrong with liking the idea. The execution, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, indefensible.
You seem to don't get that it wasn't meant to accomplish what you want it to.

Veyr

2011-05-12, 06:43 PM

You seem to don't get that it wasn't meant to accomplish what you want it to.
[Citation Needed]

Seriously, please link the quote where the author of the feat says "Oh yeah, we totally meant that to completely gimp your character and not in any way make the concept of an adventurer who shuns items work." Otherwise, stop claiming insight into the developer's intentions that you do not have.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-12, 07:52 PM

Otherwise, stop claiming insight into the developer's intentions that you do not have.

This really needs to be on a T-shirt for any discussion of power level, effectiveness, or RAW vs. RAI.

RAI stands for Rules As Interpreted, and not Rules As The Designers Intended, Which I Know As I Have Previously Untold Insight Into The Minds Of The Designers And Have Held In-Depth Discussions With Said Designers About The Intent Of The Feat, Skill, Spell, Ability, Maneuver, Power, Or Item In Question.

RATDIWIKAIHPUIITMOTDAHHIDDDWSDATIOTFSSAMPOIIQ doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and it doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion.

Thurbane

2011-05-12, 09:07 PM

You seem to don't get that it wasn't meant to accomplish what you want it to.
While I pretty much agree with you, as Veyr points out, we can only guess at the designers intent...

Having said that, from much of the fluff text in the section on voluntary poverty, I'd call it an educated guess at the designers intent. :smallwink:

RAI stands for Rules As Interpreted, and not Rules As The Designers Intended,
Actually, I believe the most common usage of RAI (on these forums*, anyway) is Rules as Intended (not Interpreted).

* Common Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6316313&postcount=257)

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 09:12 PM

While I pretty much agree with you, as Veyr points out, we can only guess at the designers intent...

Having said that, from much of the fluff text in the section on voluntary poverty, I'd call it an educated guess at the designers intent. :smallwink:

Actually, I believe the most common usage of RAI (on these forums, anyway) is Rules as Intended (not Interpreted).

Whereas I took away something quite different from that same fluff section, leading to a brief and tumultuous affair, followed by a long cold silence.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 09:55 PM

[Citation Needed]

Seriously, please link the quote where the author of the feat says "Oh yeah, we totally meant that to completely gimp your character and not in any way make the concept of an adventurer who shuns items work." Otherwise, stop claiming insight into the developer's intentions that you do not have.

You don't have to look far. It's in the description of the VoP benefits. Here, I quote it under fair use.

A character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate feats, Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, cannot own magic items, but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh the lack of those items.
Emphasis mine. It's not supposed to be as strong as gear.

This really needs to be on a T-shirt for any discussion of power level, effectiveness, or RAW vs. RAI.
Except when it's a simple case of actually reading the full text.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:01 PM

You don't have to look far it's in the description of the VoP benefits.

Emphasis mine. It's not supposed to be as strong as gear.

Um, I... um. Help outweigh means, generally... um it normally means be better than, or to assist in being better than... One would expect the... the end product to outweigh the metric.

outweigh : atone for, balance, best, better, cap, compensate for, counterbalance, counterpoise, countervail, exceed, excel, go one better, improve on, make up, make up for, offset, outbalance, outpoise, overbalance, overbear, overcome, overpass, overpoise, override, overtop, overweigh, overweight, perfect, predominate, preponderate, prevail, prevail over, redeem, set off, surpass, tip the scales, top, tower above, tower over, transcend, trump

At least half of those are strong indicators of superiority. A few are in fact superlatives. Preponderate, in particular, is a true bro.

Synonyms: outrank, overbalance, overshadow, overweigh
Related Words: count, import, matter, mean, signify, weigh; dwarf; exceed, outstrip, surpass, transcend

Again, strongly indicative of superiority. Look, I could definitely see your reading, help outweigh is a sort of colloquial phrase. But it's definitely not ironclad, or even a very solid argument from a linguistic standpoint. The intent isn't clear. Further, the book is about the champions of good, not the cripples of virtue. Net, I think your evidence is at best a wash, at worst a strong counter to your own argument.

Tl;Dr: I has beefs.
Tl;Dr(Tl;Dr): Beefs.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-12, 10:02 PM

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:12 PM

This. I'm done here.

It's a little less conclusive than that, but I think at least one could expect a strong approximation of parity? I'm still on the fence here, words are slippery critters.

Lhurgyof

2011-05-12, 10:18 PM

Considering you can't carry any wealth or ever own it, transporting loot to donate (The intended use) is really hard... The fluff and crunch just miss the target and needs to be re-written.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:18 PM

Considering you can't carry any wealth or ever own it, transporting loot to donate (The intended use) is really hard... The fluff and crunch just miss the target and needs to be re-written.

I believe there is special dispensation written in for that.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 10:32 PM

Um, I... um. Help outweigh means, generally... um it normally means be better than, or to assist in being better than... One would expect the... the end product to outweigh the metric.
And it is better than not having any gear. I can't believe you don't see that. You're also ignoring the 'help' there. If it only helps (and not outright outweights) it means you need something else to make it actually outweigh, doesn't it?

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:34 PM

And it is better than not having any gear. I can't believe you don't see that.

I do see it, but I just don't necessarily think it's the only valid interpretation, nor the most valid reading given the dictionary meaning and the synonyms for the words involved. Connotation, you may have. Denotation, you do not.

The lack of items is a weight, the benefits are a weight. Denotation of outweigh is to be better than, to surpass, to weigh more than. The benefits are supposed to weigh more than the lack of items. This isn't a partial thing, from the standpoint of denotation, this is a complete transcendence of the limitations (the weight) imposed by a lack of items. It does not say offset, it does not say assuage, it does not say ameliorate. It says outweigh. To be better than.

In response to your edit: Certainly a plausible reading, but not the only plausible reading. Further, what help are you getting? What other weight? There is none. If its purpose is to provide a balancing thumb on the scales, it still fails in its purpose.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 10:39 PM

Certainly a plausible reading, but not the only plausible reading.
I really can't see any other, but OK.

Further, what help are you getting? What other weight? There is none. If its purpose is to provide a balancing thumb on the scales, it still fails in its purpose.
Serious, Doc? There is no weight? Bonuses to armor class is nothing? Bonus feats are nothing? Bonuses to ability scores are nothing?
It might not be that much, but it is something. And the alternative is getting nothing.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:40 PM

It could see your point, if it was only outweigh. But it's help outweigh. Meaning it does not outweigh alone, it merely helps.

And the help is insufficient. Is this not a grave failing, even in your reading? You are chasing slivers, smoke. I am sorry, but I think you are wrong here, upon further reflection.

I really can't see any other, but OK.

Serious, Doc? There is no weight? Bonuses to armor class is nothing? Bonus feats are nothing? Bonuses to ability scores are nothing?
It might not be that much, but it is something. And the alternative is getting nothing.

In the use of the phrase "to help outweigh," we see that the intent is that the sum total of your character with VoP should outweigh the sum total of your character with items.

The alternative is to work with your GM so that you can play something much more like the Vows of Poverty that a mendicant monk or a monastery order might take, where property is fleeting or communal, not verboten.

You would tell me that your character, with VoP, is just as able to fight the hordes of hell? You would tell me that he or she is just as ready to brave the swamps and their ghostly lights? You would tell me that they are just as steady in the face of the terrible beholders, the great eye tyrants? Let us speak no more of this. We are done.

TOZ

2011-05-12, 10:44 PM

And I thought I was pedantic about wording. :smalltongue:

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:45 PM

And I thought I was pedantic about wording. :smalltongue:

I enjoyed reading Chomsky. He's crazy, but I enjoyed reading his work on grammar. Inarguably a beautiful if incredibly flawed model.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 10:47 PM

And the help is insufficient. Is this not a grave failing, even in your reading? You are chasing slivers, smoke. I am sorry, but I think you are wrong here, upon further reflection.
Well, if you thought I was right, we wouldn't be having a discussion, now, would we? :smallamused:
And the help being insufficient is irrelevant, here. All it says is that it helps. It does exactly what it's supposed to do - it helps somewhat. I don't think any option for a character to go without gear in such a gear-centric game as D&D 3.5 should be as powerful as the gear itself and not only because it breaks verossimilitude, but as a game design option, because it would make most gear obsolete. Gear takes time to choose, it can be lost, it can be expended, it can be destroyed, it can be stolen, it can be temporarily nullified. Magical bonuses that take gear's place... well, they could be nullified (or maybe stolen, somewhat, if they were spell effects).

You would tell me that your character, with VoP, is just as able to fight the hordes of hell? You would tell me that he or she is just as ready to brave the swamps and their ghostly lights? You would tell me that they are just as steady in the face of the terrible beholders, the great eye tyrants? Let us speak no more of this. We are done.
Oh, please. You know there are plenty of builds possible that can deal with plenty of harder threats with VoP. That's not even an argument.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:48 PM

Well, if you thought I was right, we wouldn't be having a discussion, now, would we? :smallamused:
And the help being insufficient is irrelevant, here. All it says is that it helps. It does exactly what it's supposed to do - it helps somewhat. I don't think any option for a character to go without gear in such a gear-centric game as D&D 3.5 should be as powerful as the gear itself and not only because it breaks verossimilitude, but as a game design option, because it would make most gear obsolete. Gear takes time to choose, it can be lost, it can be expended, it can be destroyed, it can be stolen, it can be temporarily nullified. Magical bonuses that take gear's place... well, they could be nullified (or maybe stolen, somewhat, if they were spell effects).

Actually, VoP is a (su) feat, and goes away in an AMF. This is the RAW. And given Exaltedness's horribly strict code, I do not think exactly that it is easy to keep these feats.

I understand your argument, but you have offered me a single poorly worded and deeply ambiguous line in salvation of a travesty.

true_shinken

2011-05-12, 10:50 PM

Actually, VoP is a (su) feat, and goes away in an AMF. This is the RAW.
And that's why I said it could be nullified. Your point?

I understand your argument, but you have offered me a single poorly worded and deeply ambiguous line in salvation of a travesty.
Oh, please. Many of your 3.5 builds were built on specific interpretations of poorly worded and deeply ambigous lines.

Doc Roc

2011-05-12, 10:51 PM

And that's why I said it could be nullified. Your point?

My point is that I am done. Your arguments are well-assembled and well made, but just not strong enough, I think.

Thurbane

2011-05-12, 11:16 PM

Kylarra

2011-05-12, 11:26 PM

That'd be kind of interesting. Making it a trait instead of a feat?.

RaginChangeling

2011-05-12, 11:29 PM

Let me just toss in a hypothetical here...the crux of some people's issue (or at least part of it) is that a feat shouldn't make you weaker.

How about if your DM allowed your character to have all the benefits and penalties of Voluntary Poverty, but didn't require the feat to do it? Still imposing all the fluff and crunch about losing the benefits if you break the letter of the vow, but not requiring the feat (or prereq feats) to take it?

It would be better.

Maybe expand the list of bonus feats to include things like Dragon Wings (refluffed) and Improved Dragon wings for characters who want to fly. Give more good melee feats like Martial Study and Martial Stance, or Shape Soulmeld.

Mabe Wild Cohort and Exalted Cohort.

Tvtyrant

2011-05-12, 11:32 PM

Talya

2011-05-12, 11:45 PM

Maybe if VoP did something truly unique then it would have a better time balancing; there isn't much that is terribly exciting mechanically about it. The ability to treat all terrains as ground at level 15 or so would actually be pretty cool; you get air walk, water walk and earth walk all the time.

Once again, as a druid, it does a lot of unique things for you. Apart from the standard WBL, count the wilding clasps needed for all those benefits while wildshaped! ;)

The feats are the main thing, though. Exalted companion, Exalted Wildshape, Sanctify Natural Attack, Animal Friend, Touch of Golden Ice, Nymph's Kiss, those are all actually pretty good boosts for druidic abilities. Nymbus of Light/Holy Radiance/Stigmata aren't bad, either. That's 9 of 11 granted feats. Your remaining two feats end up...lacking. Combine with Natural Spell, Natural Bond, Spell Focus/Augment Summoning, and I really don't think another druid's going to match your raw combat power with wealth. Versatility, yes, but you didn't even budge from your tier 1 place there...

I think we need more exalted feats to fill the niches of what VOP doesn't give you so that VOP can be worthwhile for any class. Right now, outside of lower magic games, druid's about the only viable one.

Forbiddenwar

2011-05-13, 12:41 AM

I think we need more exalted feats to fill the niches of what VOP doesn't give you so that VOP can be worthwhile for any class. Right now, outside of lower magic games, druid's about the only viable one.

Agreed. More exalted feats is the only thing lacking from VoP.

Oh and an unarmed swordsage is very viable as a VoP character as well. Since they get teleport at level 3.

Lord_Gareth

2011-05-13, 12:46 AM

Honestly Shinken, I hear your point, but I need to side with Doc Roc on this one; the spiritual fortitude and strength you gain should be directly reflected in the numbers, especially given the stakes for which D&D characters fight (which typically involve dozens, if not millions, of innocent lives).

lrellok

2011-05-13, 02:13 AM

I am not seeing it... I am currently in the process of designing a VoP monk/tattoed monk. With the right combination of tattoes i have pretty much everything any other party member might end up with. My GM is actually debating nixing the character because he feels VoP is to powerful.

Though I will admit some more Exalted feats would be nice.

Boci

2011-05-13, 02:47 AM

So possible quick and dirty fixes:

1. Make it a trait/free option. At least then you do not need to spend resources to nerf yourself
2. Allow the character to spend 10% of their WBL on magical items, requiering the remaining to be donated as per the origional
3. Forbid the use of magical items, but not mundane. Can make a pretty powerful combination if grafts are considered non-magical
4. Allow the character to use any items they themselves crafted. Biased towards casters, and will need some form of restrictions, but could work out for a high powered game where the only character who wants to take VoP is a spellcaster
5. More exalted feats, make sure they are powerful and cover a wider range

Forbiddenwar

2011-05-13, 10:10 AM

Taelas

2011-05-13, 10:51 AM

A VoP druid excels in spite of the Vow, not because of it.

Karoht

2011-05-13, 10:53 AM

So possible quick and dirty fixes:Neat idea.

1. Make it a trait/free option. At least then you do not need to spend resources to nerf yourselfThe loss of two feats in exhange for many benefits is a decent trade. Granted though, it hurts at low level.

2. Allow the character to spend 10% of their WBL on magical items, requiering the remaining to be donated as per the origionalEven 1% I would be leary about allowing them to spend on magical items. Even with a Vow of Poverty, acquiring gold isn't all that hard once you reach a certain point.

3. Forbid the use of magical items, but not mundane. Can make a pretty powerful combination if grafts are considered non-magicalAllowing mundane would actually make VoP an option for many other classes. A VoP Paladin has a world of problems, as all of their equipment is expensive and largely necessary.

4. Allow the character to use any items they themselves crafted. Biased towards casters, and will need some form of restrictions, but could work out for a high powered game where the only character who wants to take VoP is a spellcaster.I kind of like this, but I would include something else, such as a restriction on what kinds of items can be made. Certain spell schools restricted, increased XP requirements, requires a special material available, can only make magic items which are good aligned (or VS evil/chaotic), or something of that nature. It could be worked in with the fluff.
I should clarify, it could be done, that is not to say that I believe it should.

5. More exalted feats, make sure they are powerful and cover a wider rangeThis has been suggested to death. I'll second it anyway though.

Karoht

2011-05-13, 11:01 AM

Neat idea.

The loss of two feats in exhange for many benefits is a decent trade. Granted though, it hurts at low level.

Even 1% I would be leary about allowing them to spend on magical items. Even with a Vow of Poverty, acquiring gold isn't all that hard once you reach a certain point.
Allowing mundane would actually make VoP an option for many other classes. A VoP Paladin has a world of problems, as all of their equipment is expensive and largely necessary.
I kind of like this, but I would include something else, such as a restriction on what kinds of items can be made. Certain spell schools restricted, increased XP requirements, requires a special material available, can only make magic items which are good aligned (or VS evil/chaotic), or something of that nature. It could be worked in with the fluff.
I should clarify, it could be done, that is not to say that I believe it should.
This has been suggested to death. I'll second it anyway though.

========

A VoP druid excels in spite of the Vow, not because of it.In the right situation, they benefit nicely from it. In the non-ideal situation, they indeed excel despite the limitations.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 11:58 AM

Veyr

2011-05-13, 12:21 PM

And (almost) everyone else's point is that yes, it is supposed to do that.

There is nothing righteous about handicapping yourself before going on your quest to save the world. That can be described as nothing but hubris. Unless you are deriving so much conviction, inspiration, and blessings from this that it's actually helping you, you are, in fact, being unreasonably selfish and arrogant, are therefore not behaving in an Exalted manner, and therefore fail to qualify for Vow of Poverty.

There, now the feat, as written, disqualifies itself.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 12:49 PM

That is actually the reasoning. I have a player doing VoP, she works with an order of druids, and gives all her money to the order. The order looks after her pretty good though. I was considering giving her such a book to boost her stats, and the order was going to give it to her under the word of (manditory?) training.
On that note, I might give her a book to boost a specific skill, rather than a stat per se.

As you may know, it's very hard to reward a VoP player for their efforts and accomplishments. And this particular Druid has been going out of her way to really help people so I feel she deserves something. I figure that her order that she donates money regularly to can give her a bit of a helping hand.

Does that work?

it works, but you appear to have forgotten that the whole point of playing an exalted character (and, if you have VOP, you're clearly doing just that) is to try and achieve a higher level of "good" than normal, at which point knowing the world is a better place for your actions is the reward. if you take the vow and still expect any for of reward, no matter whether it's legal RAW or not, you're frankly doing it wrong. the feat is clearly underpowered, but to non powergamers it's a source of RP, not a plauge boil. it was written entirely to make forsaking material possessions possible, if not easy. but that's part of forsaking material benefits, it's harder on you. if you can't accept that, then pack your haversack get outta the book.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 01:00 PM

And (almost) everyone else's point is that yes, it is supposed to do that.

There is nothing righteous about handicapping yourself before going on your quest to save the world. That can be described as nothing but hubris.

I would say it is hubris, having taking a sacred vow to something that is by definition greater than yourself, to presume you get to decide when that vow is no longer important.

Moreover, a Vow of Poverty should be an act of sacrifice. If it makes your character as good or better at their primary goal, it's not a sacrifice but rather a strategic trade. Sacrifices, definitionally, have repercussions.

There is an argument that the sacrifice comes in terms of personal comfort, but personally, I do not find that to really sufficiently catch the idea of Asceticism when the people you are traveling with are wealthier than most nations and still likely camping every night.

A more important point might be that there are no Ascetic sects, to my admittedly limited knowledge, that consider Asceticism in itself to be holy. It's always a tool used for the furtherance of other holy goals.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 01:11 PM

I would say it is hubris, having taking a sacred vow to something that is by definition greater than yourself, to presume you get to decide when that vow is no longer important.

Moreover, a Vow of Poverty should be an act of sacrifice. If it makes your character as good or better at their primary goal, it's not a sacrifice but rather a strategic trade. Sacrifices, definitionally, have repercussions.

There is an argument that the sacrifice comes in terms of personal comfort, but personally, I do not find that to really sufficiently catch the idea of Asceticism when the people you are traveling with are wealthier than most nations and still likely camping every night.

A more important point might be that there are no Ascetic sects, to my admittedly limited knowledge, that consider Asceticism in itself to be holy. It's always a tool used for the furtherance of other holy goals.

Okay, I keep ending up back in here.

Actually, that's not true. At least three sects place asceticism as a function of being holy. Jainism in particular emphasizes an avoidance of attachment to objects. Interestingly, it doesn't directly forbid the ownership of objects, or tools, just the attachment to them.

Further, sacrificing someone else's comfort by failing them is not a good act. Most major religions include exigency clauses. Exalted does not. This is because exalted was written by people who are insane.

You literally cannot use a magic amulet if it will save the world without breaking your vow of poverty. If there is an amulet. Sitting on a pedestal. That will insta-gib the evil emperor of a thousand worlds. You cannot use it. Nice job, Hero, Nice job.

And you guys think this is okay? Or cool? This is good fluff? Okay crunch?

Taelas

2011-05-13, 01:22 PM

Ascetic sects can see asceticism as an end in and of itself. This is because they would see material possessions as an unnecessary burden, and that in relieving themselves of that burden, they are somehow spiritually stronger for it.

ShriekingDrake

2011-05-13, 01:25 PM

I may have mentioned this above, but I must underscore that I really like VoP as a mechanic (with its strengths and limitations) because it forces me to focus on different game elements than I typically might.

For instance, getting wealth and equipment is not of interest. I enjoy the atypicality of saying to the King "Thank you for your magnanimity your highness, but it was my pleasure to serve the cause of good and thwart the forces of evil. I could not accept payment for a service that it is my inherent duty to perform. Would you please consider donating something akin to what you offer me here today to the local orphanage?" I like being more interested in the adventure the lies beyond the next door rather than what loot I might scrounge. I like knowing that my character is not standing in the way of what another character might covet.

Moreover, I like dealing with the problems caused the limitations of the feat. Flying will be a challenge. How can I still contribute to most combat situations without flying? So, the quickest point between A. and B. might for me involve going to points J. Q. and V. It brings a new challenge to the game. I don't, as I once did, think of the benefits of VoP as a way to optimize my survival. Rather, I seem them as ways to enable me to survive many situations without the need of equipment. But I play a more creative game and also have some risks that other characters don't have.

I'm not saying that there aren't some infelicities with VoP, there are. But I think it is a vibrant game mechanic that creates another way to have a good time playing.

Karoht

2011-05-13, 01:36 PM

it works, but you appear to have forgotten that the whole point of playing an exalted character (and, if you have VOP, you're clearly doing just that) is to try and achieve a higher level of "good" than normal, at which point knowing the world is a better place for your actions is the reward. if you take the vow and still expect any for of reward, no matter whether it's legal RAW or not, you're frankly doing it wrong. the feat is clearly underpowered, but to non powergamers it's a source of RP, not a plauge boil. it was written entirely to make forsaking material possessions possible, if not easy. but that's part of forsaking material benefits, it's harder on you. if you can't accept that, then pack your haversack get outta the book.

Which is probably the best attitude I see towards it. As the DM I want to give her something for a change rather than not. She's not expecting it or asking for it. Hence the surprise, and a bit of fun factor for the reward. That, and it will be giving her some RP opportunities as well, and she's the kind of player who would gladly take RP as a reward.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 01:37 PM

Which is probably the best attitude I see towards it. As the DM I want to give her something for a change rather than not. She's not expecting it or asking for it. Hence the surprise, and a bit of fun factor for the reward. That, and it will be giving her some RP opportunities as well, and she's the kind of player who would gladly take RP as a reward.

I think you can technically get grafts put on you, if they aren't removable and they don't have a magical active.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 01:38 PM

And (almost) everyone else's point is that yes, it is supposed to do that.
Then prove it.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 01:38 PM

Okay, I keep ending up back in here.

Actually, that's not true. At least three sects place asceticism as a function of being holy. Jainism in particular emphasizes an avoidance of attachment to objects. Interestingly, it doesn't directly forbid the ownership of objects, or tools, just the attachment to them.

Further, sacrificing someone else's comfort by failing them is not a good act. Most major religions include exigency clauses. Exalted does not. This is because exalted was written by people who are insane.

You literally cannot use a magic amulet if it will save the world without breaking your vow of poverty. If there is an amulet. Sitting on a pedestal. That will insta-gib the evil emperor of a thousand worlds. You cannot use it. Nice job, Hero, Nice job.

And you guys think this is okay? Or cool? This is good fluff? Okay crunch?

Doc, i respect your points, especially those on functionality of the vow, but i have to admit most of your situations you put the ascetic in can be solved by kicking the DM in the balls and telling him to stop purposefully using your character's weaknesses against him.

let's look at your amulet of world saving.

case 1: you have a party. let them use the amulet. i see no problem presented.

case 2: you had a party, but you all almost TPKed in the last fight and you survved because you didn't have to breathe the poison or whatever. grab amulet, lose powers but save world. for an ascetic, that's an acceptable trade, one that an atonement spell might help with. if the player has a problem with this, i refer you to my previous post.

case 3: you never had a chance to have a party member grab the amulet, because of DM fiat of some sort. follow through with case 2, have private OOG talk with DM, possibly involving a ballkick.

case 4: the entire party is on an exalted, VoP campaign. i refer you to case 3, but the discussion need not be private.

but basically, if you find yourself useless in many encounters with a build that does not include a tier 5-6 class(of whom such things can be expected), you need to ask your DM why he's pressing relentlessly on your weak points.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-13, 01:39 PM

See, here's my problem with the feat as fluff: In 3.5, the good-aligned churches are earthly bastions of defense against the multitude of demons, devils, other evil outsiders, evil necromancers, etc. As are far, far outnumbered, they need all the help they can get.

If one of their warriors intentionally limited his ability to combat the forces of evil, why would the Good-aligned gods reward this kind of behavior? It actually hurts their cause.

There are some problems here:

but i have to admit most of your situations you put the ascetic in can be solved by kicking the DM in the balls and telling him to stop purposefully using your character's weaknesses against him.

... If the DM can't use the weakness against you, it isn't a weakness.

grab amulet, lose powers but save world. for an ascetic, that's an acceptable trade,

And that's the whole problem. The Vow allows you to simply break it at will. If you really took the Vow for RP reasons, you wouldn't just break it whenever it was convenient and then have somebody cast Atonement later. That sounds more like you took it for power reasons, which have already been debunked much, much earlier in the thread.

but basically, if you find yourself useless in many encounters with a build that does not include a tier 5-6 class(of whom such things can be expected), you need to ask your DM why he's pressing relentlessly on your weak points.

Because part of the DM's job is to challenge players to solve things in inventive ways. VoP cuts out one way entirely (items), and for the average character, cuts out almost a third of their feats! It's a weakness too obvious for the DM to ignore.

I prefer that. I like being challenged by my DM. If I tell him my character has a crippling fear of snakes, I expect to see a damn Naga. I wouldn't tell him, otherwise! If I make a character who can't use items, I expect to encounter a conundrum where an item is necessary! Finding a way around those problems is how the game is played. Just saying "Oh well, screw the Vow, I use the Amulet of World-Saving!" is ignoring the entire point of the Vow.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 01:42 PM

I think you can technically get grafts put on you, if they aren't removable and they don't have a magical active.

another way to subvert the limitations is to take the vow after the grafts/permanent spells/etc. are on. you only lose feats, but chances are you don't have the prereqs for most of them, and you'll have enough feats for the rest.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 01:42 PM

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 01:45 PM

Doc, i respect your points, especially those on functionality of the vow, but i have to admit most of your situations you put the ascetic in can be solved by kicking the DM in the balls and telling him to stop purposefully using your character's weaknesses against him.

let's look at your amulet of world saving.

case 1: you have a party. let them use the amulet. i see no problem presented.

case 2: you had a party, but you all almost TPKed in the last fight and you survved because you didn't have to breathe the poison or whatever. grab amulet, lose powers but save world. for an ascetic, that's an acceptable trade, one that an atonement spell might help with. if the player has a problem with this, i refer you to my previous post.

case 3: you never had a chance to have a party member grab the amulet, because of DM fiat of some sort. follow through with case 2, have private OOG talk with DM, possibly involving a ballkick.

case 4: the entire party is on an exalted, VoP campaign. i refer you to case 3, but the discussion need not be private.

but basically, if you find yourself useless in many encounters with a build that does not include a tier 5-6 class(of whom such things can be expected), you need to ask your DM why he's pressing relentlessly on your weak points.

1) It was a simplistic example, and your counter-arguments are pretty solid.
2) I'm mostly worried about Case 2. It's not clear that atonement works on VoP. What if there was more adventure?
3) VoP drops many classes a full tier, and raises none. In post ECL10, it may make certain classes entirely unplayable.
4) As written, Cleric is worse off with VoP than with no gear. You can't even whittle a holy symbol, because holy symbols have a written value.

5) I'm with Grey here. VoP makes no sense in any default setting that includes the blood war, which is almost all of them.

Who says he must be a warrior, for crying out loud? It's not a videogame! You have options other than smacking people really hard with weapons.

So he can't be a warrior? VoP doesn't work for half the game's classes? And this is okay?

Also, you don't play enough video games.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 01:46 PM

Who says he must be a warrior, for crying out loud? It's not a videogame! You have options other than smacking people really hard with weapons.

agreed. with the eschew materials feat, a VoP sorc could function quite well.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 01:46 PM

3) VoP drops many classes a full tier, and raises none. In post ECL10, it may make certain classes entirely unplayable.

Untrue. Not everyone plays optimized games.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 01:47 PM

agreed. with the eschew materials feat, a VoP sorc could function quite well.

Sure, sorcerer is playable. Yippee, one of the strongest classes in the game doesn't suck with VoP. The only class that VoP conditionally provides real improvements for is Druid.

It works properly on a single class, in certain conditions.

Untrue. Not everyone plays optimized games.

No, this is true. I am sorry, but I think you have no flipping clue how much power gear provides. Yes, sometimes it will be okay. Sometimes. Sometimes isn't good enough. I'm sorry, I don't want a game that only works when you line up a rube goldberg machine.

RaginChangeling

2011-05-13, 01:49 PM

Untrue. Not everyone plays optimized games.

Counterpoint, VoP meleers can't deal with anything that flies. Which includes half the character classes and increasing numbers of monsters as you go up in level. Almost half of MM1 above 9 CR has flight/burrow and most of the rest have some form of damage reduction or ability to go ethereal. Which you have no way to deal with.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 01:49 PM

Okay, I keep ending up back in here.

Actually, that's not true. At least three sects place asceticism as a function of being holy. Jainism in particular emphasizes an avoidance of attachment to objects. Interestingly, it doesn't directly forbid the ownership of objects, or tools, just the attachment to them.

As you said, Janism emphasizes avoiding attachment to objects, not ownership. I wouldn't generally qualify that as asceticism (because its expressly not focused on self-denial), but if you did, yes, it would be an obvious example to the contrary. I would be interested knowing what the other two you know of are, but PM's are probably better (since we're probably already skirting the religion ban).

But my point there actually seems to run in a similar direction to your complaints. Usually, it's not the asceticism itself that is considered the holy action. It's the fact that it helps others through donation, or the fact that it removes things that are distracting you from transcendence, or...

In such a context, it does not make sense for VoP to be removed for using an object for a holy cause.

Further, sacrificing someone else's comfort by failing them is not a good act. Most major religions include exigency clauses. Exalted does not. This is because exalted was written by people who are insane. You literally cannot use a magic amulet if it will save the world without breaking your vow of poverty.

If there is an amulet. Sitting on a pedestal. That will insta-gib the evil emperor of a thousand worlds. You cannot use it. Nice job, Hero, Nice job.

And you guys think this is okay? Or cool? This is good fluff? Okay crunch?

So you break it. And you loose VoP. Sacrifices have costs.

It is important to me that, as a result of their sacrifices, the character be less powerful than they would be if they had not made them. Also (while I'm not a huge fan of adventurer as a profession) I do think that if professional adventurers exist, VoP should not be a choice such a character would be likely to make.

Personally, if I were designing the voluntary poverty rules: yes, I think that they should be able to use the amulet. I'm not sure how I would do it though: it would get into nebulous ideas such as the difference between use, possession, and ownership.

I'm also not sure how to avoid it resulting in more powerful characters than those who don't take it: consider for example a one-off dungeon, where everything will be over before anything can be donated. A VoP character who could use the items they intended to donate would be at a significant advantage there.

Veyr

2011-05-13, 01:50 PM

Then prove it.
You first. The default assumption of a feat in D&D is that it improves your character. Vow of Poverty makes your character objectively worse, no matter what class you are. Prove that the designer wanted the feat to be a complete trap that only served to turn you into a not-adventurer.

Because that's what it does. A character with VoP is inappropriate in a game full of characters decked out like Christmas Trees with magical items, which is the default in D&D. That character should be an NPC, because he or she cannot keep up with PCs.

The quote you provided earlier states that it is intended to "outweigh" the penalties of the loss of items. It does not do that. Show me a quote saying that despite that language in the Book of Exalted Deeds, it's not actually supposed to be anything like a replacement for WBL.

And once you've done that, prove to me that this isn't just another one of the terribly designed ideas in BoED. Most of the book is, you know. Terribly designed. Show me how VoP can fit into a game of D&D 3.5 appropriately. Show me how a VoP character can pull his own weight. Show me that a VoP character can actually save the world.

Because a "sacrifice" that sacrifices the innocents you would have saved if you hadn't been so arrogant as to eschew the tools at your disposal just to prove a point is neither Lawful nor Good, and most definitely not Exalted.

Taelas

2011-05-13, 01:53 PM

I'm also not sure how to avoid it resulting in more powerful characters than those who don't take it: consider for example a one-off dungeon, where everything will be over before anything can be donated. A VoP character who could use the items they intended to donate would be at a significant advantage there.

They may not use them even if they intend to donate them. It provides exactly zero benefit.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 01:54 PM

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-13, 01:57 PM

Because a "sacrifice" that sacrifices the innocents you would have saved if you hadn't been so arrogant as to eschew the tools at your disposal just to prove a point is neither Lawful nor Good, and most definitely not Exalted.

QFT. Why would the Good-aligned higher beings reward intentionally giving the advantage to the forces of Evil? Because they have some convoluted sense of "honor"?

Tell me, does honor matter to the mindless, shrieking hordes of demons pouring out of the Abyss? Does it matter to the shambling hordes of undead streaming out of the Necromancer's tomb?

EDIT:
Who says he must be a warrior, for crying out loud? It's not a videogame! You have options other than smacking people really hard with weapons.

I meant "warrior" in the sense that he fights for a cause. In this instance, the forces of Good. "Warrior" can just as easily apply to a Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard who fights for a cause.

A spellcaster who takes the Vow is not gimped as bad, but again, saying that a Tier 1 or 2 character can function better with the Vow than a Fighter isn't saying anything useful. A Tier 1 or 2 character can function better with no legs than a Fighter, but is that really a point that needs arguing?

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 01:57 PM

1) It was a simplistic example, and your counter-arguments are pretty solid.
2) I'm mostly worried about Case 2. It's not clear that atonement works on VoP. What if there was more adventure?
3) VoP drops many classes a full tier, and raises none. In post ECL10, it may make certain classes entirely unplayable.
4) As written, Cleric is worse off with VoP than with no gear. You can't even whittle a holy symbol, because holy symbols have a written value.

5) I'm with Grey here. VoP makes no sense in any default setting that includes the blood war, which is almost all of them.

1)thanks, but let's move on then.

2) near TPKs tend to end adventures anyway. as for atonement, if it doesn't work, work with your DM. if all else fails (which, admittedly, would suck) i guess you gotta start collecting gear again. note that i didn't say this was a good result, it's just the only option left.

3) irrelevant. those classes that become unplayable wouldn't take the vow for the same reason fighters don't grab metamagic feats. i can think of maybe 4 feats that are universally good off the top of my head, and most of those are underpowered anyway.

4)also wizards, with their spellbooks. these classes belong in the category mentioned in response 3. the fluff fits monks, some sorc types, and druids best, and the mechanics actually fit that, though admittedly monk is pretty much beyond our power to help.

5) a reading of the vow speaks of nothing to the blood war, and suggests a more personal, do good to those in sight type of good rather than the stereotypical paladin's lead the charge against hell itself type of good. not all things must be epic and multiplanar, though such adventures are often more colorful to the players themselves.

Veyr

2011-05-13, 02:00 PM

Actually, I probably misspoke. VoP, as written, is not Good and certainly isn't Exalted, but it definitely qualifies as Lawf

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 02:02 PM

5) a reading of the vow speaks of nothing to the blood war, and suggests a more personal, do good to those in sight type of good rather than the stereotypical paladin's lead the charge against hell itself type of good. not all things must be epic and multiplanar, though such adventures are often more colorful to the players themselves.

Book of Exalted Deeds is not setting independent, as it does include the various races of celestials, and makes mention of their home planes and motivations. In the setting where this is usable, there are demons, devils, dragons, beholders, fallen angels, drow, monstrous abominations from the far realms, and terrible villains complete with waxed mustaches.

Being good means opposing evil, and Vow of Poverty deeply impedes your ability to do this. It's not clear that it was meant to. There's one sentence of very questionable evidence, being presented as Word From On High. This is worse than almost any RAW debate I've ever gotten tangled up in.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 02:02 PM

The quote you provided earlier states that it is intended to "outweigh" the penalties of the loss of items.

It's intended to "help outweigh" (emphasis mine). If it's helping to accomplish something, it definitionally isn't accomplishing it independently. It is, admittedly, unclear what other element it's supposed to be helping (since all elements other than VoP and WBL remain unchanged) and why we're trying to outweigh the loss rather than offset it.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:03 PM

QFT. Why would the Good-aligned higher beings reward intentionally giving the advantage to the forces of Evil? Because they have some convoluted sense of "honor"?

Tell me, does honor matter to the mindless, shrieking hordes of demons pouring out of the Abyss? Does it matter to the shambling hordes of undead streaming out of the Necromancer's tomb?

it only has to matter to the bestower and besowee. in other words, i think you're misreading something to the first, yes to the second, no to the third and fourth.

Veyr

2011-05-13, 02:03 PM

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 02:04 PM

It's intended to "help outweigh" (emphasis mine). If it's helping to accomplish something, it definitionally isn't accomplishing it independently. It is, admittedly, unclear what other element it's supposed to be helping (since all elements other than VoP and WBL remain unchanged) and why we're trying to outweigh the loss rather than offset it.

:: snaps ::
Help.
Outweigh.

Do you say that the feathers will help out weigh the bowling ball and then expect the sum to weigh considerably less than the bowling ball? Is that what outweigh means now? To help make slightly closer to the same weight, while still weighing much less?

Do you say that the earth will help the moon outweigh the sun?

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 02:04 PM

You first. The default assumption of a feat in D&D is that it improves your character. Vow of Poverty makes your character objectively worse, no matter what class you are. Prove that the designer wanted the feat to be a complete trap that only served to turn you into a not-adventurer.
That's not what the feat does. As has already been mentioned plenty of times, a VoP Sorcerer and a VoP Druid work perfectly well. They might have a harder time breaking the game, but they can still do it.

Because that's what it does. A character with VoP is inappropriate in a game full of characters decked out like Christmas Trees with magical items, which is the default in D&D. That character should be an NPC, because he or she cannot keep up with PCs.
So you're saying all classes tier 3 or under should be NPCs, because they can't keep up with an optimized tier 1? Interesting.
Again, not everyone plays optimized games. Most people don't. On those games, wealth by level does not matter that much. On those games, people play Fighters because they want to fight, they take Weapon Focus because they want to be swordmasters, they get their loot from what the DM drops on them. Wealth by level is not a rule. It's a guideline, just like community demographics.
And again, you might be surprised, but playing less powerful character appeals to some people. They like the challenge or they want to try a new concept or they want to, I don't know, roleplay because this is not a boardgame and your objective is not to win.
VoP does not make you weaker. Not using gear makes you weaker. Try to play without gear. Now try to play without gear, but using VoP. Which is more powerful? That's clearly what you don't seem to understand.

The quote you provided earlier states that it is intended to "outweigh" the penalties of the loss of items. It does not do that.
Of course it doesn't, because it's intended to help outweigh.
Haver you ever had someone help you in fixing your car? Did they fix your car? No, you did. All they did was help. VoP is not meant to outweigh anything, it's meant to help you somewhat. This is simple semantics.

Show me a quote saying that despite that language in the Book of Exalted Deeds, it's not actually supposed to be anything like a replacement for WBL.
This is ridiculous. It's like I asked you to show me quote saying you're not an anthropomorphic platypus. The language in the BoED is very clear about the intent of the whole book.

And once you've done that, prove to me that this isn't just another one of the terribly designed ideas in BoED. Most of the book is, you know. Terribly designed. Show me how VoP can fit into a game of D&D 3.5 appropriately. Show me how a VoP character can pull his own weight. Show me that a VoP character can actually save the world.
That depends nothing on a feat, on the Book of Exalted Deeds or even on the game system. It depends on the DM.
Heck, Rick Jones ended the Kree-Skrull War.

Because a "sacrifice" that sacrifices the innocents you would have saved if you hadn't been so arrogant as to eschew the tools at your disposal just to prove a point is neither Lawful nor Good, and most definitely not Exalted.
Yeah, the hundreds of thousands of gold you're given them are not helping at all. :smallsigh: They could even be used to, ya know, equip someone else to do that exact same thing.

And is there anything about that (assuming it is true, which I still don't buy) that is anything other than hideously poor game design?
No one is arguing if it's good game design or not. The fact is that the feat was not intended to be a perfect replacement for your WBL.

Do you say that the earth will help the moon outweigh the sun?
In fact, it does. In a way.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 02:06 PM

Of course it doesn't, because it's intended to help outweigh.
Haver you ever had someone help you in fixing your car? Did they fix your car? No, you did. All they did was help. VoP is not meant to outweigh anything, it's meant to help you somewhat. This is simple semantics.

No but the car did get fixed. My VoP character did not. I've made three and each one ended in tears. It was a considerable part of the impetus for me moving into the optimization community.

I wanted to know what had gone wrong.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 02:06 PM

Being good means opposing evil, and Vow of Poverty deeply impedes your ability to do this. It's not clear that it was meant to.

I don't know that I agree with this. I don't know that you must be fighting demons and Snidely Whiplash to be good, even if they are known to exist. You certainly must oppose their actions if you come into contact, but I don't know that going out on crusade is or should be required.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 02:07 PM

I don't know that I agree with this. I don't know that you must be fighting demons and Snidely Whiplash to be good, even if they are known to exist. You certainly must oppose their actions if you come into contact, but I don't know that going out on crusade is or should be required.

So VoP limits the games you can play, the stories you can tell, and sucks. Fantastic!

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:08 PM

Book of Exalted Deeds is not setting independent, as it does include the various races of celestials, and makes mention of their home planes and motivations. In the setting where this is usable, there are demons, devils, dragons, beholders, fallen angels, drow, monstrous abominations from the far realms, and terrible villains complete with waxed mustaches.

Being good means opposing evil, and Vow of Poverty deeply impedes your ability to do this. It's not clear that it was meant to. There's one sentence of very questionable evidence, being presented as Word From On High. This is worse than almost any RAW debate I've ever gotten tangled up in.

and thus we locate the source of our debate, a philosophical discussion on terms with that of the existence of god, the definition and nature of good itself. i submit that it does not necessitate any fighting at all, though it can. but this is something that will not be solved on an internet forum, so i suggest we not try.

oh, and VoP allows you to grow a better mustache of your own, so while they're scary you can be covered on that angle.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 02:09 PM

No but the car did get fixed. My VoP character did not. I've made three and each one ended in tears. It was a considerable part of the impetus for me moving into the optimization community.

I wanted to know what had gone wrong.
You see how many people pointed out that Sorcerers and Druids can be good while under VoP? That's a start.
After that, play an exalted character while getting in the exalted mindset. That should help.
To top it of, join a low optimization game.
It will work just fine.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 02:09 PM

Oh, and VoP allows you to grow a better mustache of your own, so while they're scary you can be covered on that angle.

Oh... Oh goodness. That does change things....
::strokes waxed mustache::

A new challenger... oh goodness.

After that, play an exalted character while getting in the exalted mindset. That should help.
I'd rather not go insane. The exalted mindset is pretty much horrible, and may be the worst thing about VoP. But I could use some help building my VoP artificer.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:12 PM

Again, not everyone plays optimized games. Most people don't.

agree on that not everyone plays them, but most people play all over the scale of optimization so you need clearer definition there.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-13, 02:12 PM

No one is arguing if it's good game design or not. The fact is that the feat was not intended to be a perfect replacement for your WBL.

You're doing that thing again. Show me the designer telling you that he didn't intend to match WBL, he instead intended to fall short of WBL and make a feat that harmed your character irreparably.

We are arguing that it is poor game design.

It's a poorly designed feat that accomplishes nothing in terms of making your character better at what they do (like most feats are intended to), or creating interesting fluff (it's whole purpose does nothing to help Good or Law).

VoP = poor game design.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 02:18 PM

Do you say that the earth will help the moon outweigh the sun?

If the moon had such a goal, I would say that the earth would help it in the pursuit of that goal. They would still be doomed to failure, but the earth's contribution would make the moon closer to success, not further from it.

No but the car did get fixed. My VoP character did not.

And if the car had remained broken, despite your friend's efforts to help, would he be still have been helping you? I would say yes.

So VoP limits the games you can play, the stories you can tell, and sucks. Fantastic!

I would say that it's limited by the ideas its intended to represent. I wouldn't take VoP unless I had already decided that the character wanted to forsake possessions.

If you had already decided that you wanted a character who going to give away all his/her possessions to the nearest appropriate charity or needy person, VoP would be a boon for many adventures where the time frame is large enough that you expect many opportunities for such donations.

And is there anything about that (assuming it is true, which I still don't buy) that is anything other than hideously poor game design?

That depends. If you goal is to make a feat that has wide application and is a valid customization choice for a wide range of characters, making VoP would be a clear failure.

If your intent was to make a game element that allowed players already interested in a character devoted to voluntary poverty still make some contribution, it fares better.

Forbiddenwar

2011-05-13, 02:20 PM

Wow, thread moving fast.

let's look at your amulet of world saving.

case 1: you have a party. let them use the amulet. i see no problem presented.

I like case 6, Can't pick up the amulet and smash it against the emperor? Pick up the emperor and smash him against the amulet.:smallbiggrin:

Counterpoint, VoP meleers can't deal with anything that flies.

Except ToB melee classes.

So VoP limits the games you can play, the stories you can tell, and sucks. Fantastic!

I know, isn't it fantastic? It sure is.
Unreasonable obstacles and limitations are what makes games challenging and fun.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:20 PM

You're doing that thing again. Show me the designer telling you that he didn't intend to match WBL, he instead intended to fall short of WBL and make a feat that harmed your character irreparably.

We are arguing that it is poor game design.

It's a poorly designed feat that accomplishes nothing in terms of making your character better at what they do (like most feats are intended to), or creating interesting fluff (it's whole purpose does nothing to help Good or Law).

VoP = poor game design.

from an intentions perspective i suspect the benefits were supposed to make up for basic gear and the feats make up for specialized gear, and was let down by the lack of worthy feats, or even just feats you qualify for. it's bad design either way, but the problem is probably not the vow itself so much as how it interacts with the rest of the book.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 02:22 PM

We are arguing that it is poor game design.

I couldn't care less about what you think is good game design or not. What I am arguing is that VoP is not supposed to do what you think it does.

I'd rather not go insane. The exalted mindset is pretty much horrible, and may be the worst thing about VoP. But I could use some help building my VoP artificer.
Well, that explains everything right here. You don't even like exalted characters and tried to play one (well, three) for some reason (I'm guessing the plusses). It's no wonder you didn't enjoy, the problem is not VoP, the problem is your dislike of exalted characters.
Also, surprisingly, a VoP artificer is possible. You just burn a lot of xp.

Taelas

2011-05-13, 02:28 PM

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 02:28 PM

Except ToB melee classes.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, or my sarcasm meter is switched off (sorry, if so), but how would a VoP crusader or warblade deal with a flying creature? Simple weapons (meaning, sling, crossbow, or thrown daggers, which have a terrible range increment) and no ranged maneuver support mean you're essentially going to be doing 1d8 or 1d4+STR damage. At level 10 (shoot, at level 5), this is pretty unacceptable.

Swordsages would be okay at very high levels (like, 17, which is way past when you need it), but they're also the ToB class with the most to do out of battle, meaning the ones who are least crippled by being nerfed in fights (still pretty crippled though).

Edit: I guess warblades have some jump support, if the creature is dumb enough to stay low to the ground, but that's only if you're a tiger claw specialist and the enemy is close enough for you to make the DC.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 02:29 PM

The point is, the existence of the feat implies that you can take VoP and it will be a decent choice. After all, if it's a trap, why put it in?

Sure, it helps if you were already willing to forgo any benefits whatsoever from gear. It's more than nothing. But if you were planning to play a viable character, Vow of Poverty is a trap. The feat should never have been made, period.
You might say the same about most D&D 3.5 feats.
Many are really really bad.

Karoht

2011-05-13, 02:29 PM

You literally cannot use a magic amulet if it will save the world without breaking your vow of poverty. If there is an amulet. Sitting on a pedestal. That will insta-gib the evil emperor of a thousand worlds. You cannot use it. Nice job, Hero, Nice job. The best heroes are defined by their choices, right or wrong.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 02:31 PM

You might say the same about most D&D 3.5 feats.
Many are really really bad.

Having a big pile does not make enbiggening the pile okay.

Well, that explains everything right here. You don't even like exalted characters and tried to play one (well, three) for some reason (I'm guessing the plusses). It's no wonder you didn't enjoy, the problem is not VoP, the problem is your dislike of exalted characters.
Also, surprisingly, a VoP artificer is possible. You just burn a lot of xp.

I liked them before I played them. I don't give two bits about making numbers go up. I've done that, and I'm done with that. I've dealt 15k damage, gotten save DCs into the high 100s, the works. I don't care about numbers, and I would never use VoP if I did.

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 02:35 PM

You might say the same about 70% of D&D 3.5 feats.
Most are really really bad.

And yet, most of them do not actively harm a character except by taking up a feat slot that could have been used on something better. If a fighter takes quicken spell, he's not worse afterward, just not better.

And I think saying that only certain character classes were meant to take VoP (specifically, the ones who are only slightly hurt, instead of crippled by it) and making a comparison to feats like metamagic is really silly, and is a kind of cheap way of redefining the scope of the question so that you can claim that there's less harm than there is. Clearly, metamagic is intended for people who have, you know, magic. Wanting to be an ascetic shouldn't logically be any less valid a choice for a monk than for a sorcerer. It should be a valid choice for most character classes, as long as their classes don't completely revolve around UMD (artificer) or an ancestral weapon.

Ashentears

2011-05-13, 02:35 PM

It seems odd to me that some people here are arguing that VOP making your character suck shouldn't matter because not all campaigns are optimized.

VOP explicitly prevents almost all character concepts from meaningfully functioning against CR appropriate encounters from about CR10 on; this means VOP is definitively borked at essentially all levels of optimization. Even the party Fighter who spent all his feats on Skill Focus: X can use his Ghost Touch bastard sword and wings of flying.

I think it's pretty clear that VOP is an example of poor game design. Either the designers intended it to be a functional replacement of WBL (which it clearly is not), or they intended it to be non-functional, which is akin to telling players they can play an NPC class. There's no point, and it's not fun for 99% of the player base.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 02:37 PM

The point is, the existence of the feat implies that you can take VoP and it will be a decent choice. After all, if it's a trap, why put it in?

Sure, it helps if you were already willing to forgo any benefits whatsoever from gear. It's more than nothing. But if you were planning to play a viable character, Vow of Poverty is a trap. The feat should never have been made, period.

If voluntary poverty isn't something you are already seriously toying with, why are you looking for a feat that's dependent on the variant rules for voluntary poverty?

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:37 PM

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, or my sarcasm meter is switched off (sorry, if so), but how would a VoP crusader or warblade deal with a flying creature? Simple weapons (meaning, sling, crossbow, or thrown daggers, which have a terrible range increment) and no ranged maneuver support mean you're essentially going to be doing 1d8 or 1d4+STR damage. At level 10 (shoot, at level 5), this is pretty unacceptable.

Swordsages would be okay at very high levels (like, 17, which is way past when you need it), but they're also the ToB class with the most to do out of battle, meaning the ones who are least crippled by being nerfed in fights (still pretty crippled though).

Edit: I guess warblades have some jump support, if the creature is dumb enough to stay low to the ground, but that's only if you're a tiger claw specialist and the enemy is close enough for you to make the DC.

bloostorm blades come to mind, though you have to have taken the class. a 3 or 4 level dip does it, i can't remember perfectly right now.

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 02:40 PM

bloostorm blades come to mind, though you have to have taken the class. a 3 or 4 level dip does it, i can't remember perfectly right now.

Yeah, but the range increment on most thrown weapons is pretty crappy. You might be able to get away with it though, again if the enemy gets close.

But if the enemy is 100 ft in the air, what exactly are you supposed to do? And what if you're not a bloodstorm blade? What if you're a single classed warblade, or a bloodclaw master, or a single classed crusader? These are solid tier 3's. It's not like we're talking about the core fighter here. They compare well to the factotum and the beguiler, and yet they can't even get to something on the order of 1/3 to 1/2 of level-appropriate enemies.

Divide by Zero

2011-05-13, 02:43 PM

You might say the same about most D&D 3.5 feats.
Many are really really bad.

There's a difference between being bad and being actively detrimental to the character. Having Toughness is always better than having no feat. Hell, even something like taking Quicken Spell on a fighter is no worse than having no feat.

Edit: ninja'd, and with the same example too.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:45 PM

And yet, most of them do not actively harm a character except by taking up a feat slot that could have been used on something better. If a fighter takes quicken spell, he's not worse afterward, just not better.

And I think saying that only certain character classes were meant to take VoP (specifically, the ones who are only slightly hurt, instead of crippled by it) and making a comparison to feats like metamagic is really silly, and is a kind of cheap way of redefining the scope of the question so that you can claim that there's less harm than there is. Clearly, metamagic is intended for people who have, you know, magic. Wanting to be an ascetic shouldn't logically be any less valid a choice for a monk than for a sorcerer. It should be a valid choice for most character classes, as long as their classes don't completely revolve around UMD (artificer) or an ancestral weapon.

i believe i need to clarify. i did not compare the vow to the metamagic feats, but rather most of the other exalted feats you get as bonus feats. let's assume, for argument, there were good feats in there with prereqs based on other exalted feats, not class features, that replicated item benefits like flying and drain immunity. the only way to get enough exalted feats to use this stuff while having normal feats as well would be through taking the vow, thus making you have an equivalent item set that you get to choose. this seems to be what they wanted to do. however, they fell down when the feats were written, because most characters don't even qualify for 11 exalted feats without taking extra vows.

Divide by Zero

2011-05-13, 02:46 PM

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 02:49 PM

i believe i need to clarify. i did not compare the vow to the metamagic feats, but rather most of the other exalted feats you get as bonus feats. let's assume, for argument, there were good feats in there with prereqs based on other exalted feats, not class features, that replicated item benefits like flying and drain immunity. the only way to get enough exalted feats to use this stuff while having normal feats as well would be through taking the vow, thus making you have an equivalent item set that you get to choose. this seems to be what they wanted to do. however, they fell down when the feats were written, because most characters don't even qualify for 11 exalted feats without taking extra vows.

Sorry, I wasn't directing that at you. I was directing it at people who have been saying that VoP isn't that bad, because clearly the characters it cripples (say, half of core alone) just weren't meant to take it any more than fighters were meant to take quicken spell.

I agree with most of what you've said above, I think, though sorry I am skimming as I am at work. :smallredface:

I think making some good exalted feats with either VoP or a minimum number of exalted feats as pre-reqs (like Talya and others have done or started to do) would go a long way toward, if not completely fixing VoP, preventing it from crippling people.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:51 PM

Yeah, but the range increment on most thrown weapons is pretty crappy. You might be able to get away with it though, again if the enemy gets close.

But if the enemy is 100 ft in the air, what exactly are you supposed to do? And what if you're not a bloodstorm blade? What if you're a single classed warblade, or a bloodclaw master, or a single classed crusader? These are solid tier 3's. It's not like we're talking about the core fighter here. They compare well to the factotum and the beguiler, and yet they can't even get to something on the order of 1/3 to 1/2 of level-appropriate enemies.

far shot would help. but you asked what a warblade could do, and dipping that class is an option. having the caster cast wingbind could bring it to the ground would work too. maybe you just go david an goliath on it. but seriously, it's not about how many enemies have flying, it's about how many enemies you meet that fly. you're dealing in a circumstancial vacuum, so there's little point arguing anything as your theoretical enemy will always have the next countermeasure.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 02:54 PM

i believe i need to clarify. i did not compare the vow to the metamagic feats, but rather most of the other exalted feats you get as bonus feats. let's assume, for argument, there were good feats in there with prereqs based on other exalted feats, not class features, that replicated item benefits like flying and drain immunity. the only way to get enough exalted feats to use this stuff while having normal feats as well would be through taking the vow, thus making you have an equivalent item set that you get to choose. this seems to be what they wanted to do. however, they fell down when the feats were written, because most characters don't even qualify for 11 exalted feats without taking extra vows.

And that's the problem. Those feats don't exist. Non-casters simply have no way of obtaining those options, short of specific race/prestige class choices.

reread my bolded parts. they meant it to work that way(or so i like to think, cause otherwise they're just idiots) but they failed, rather spectacularly, by failing to add the relevant feats.

Ashentears

2011-05-13, 02:55 PM

If voluntary poverty isn't something you are already seriously toying with, why are you looking for a feat that's dependent on the variant rules for voluntary poverty?

From the first paragraph, his point appears that if the option was going to be presented, it should have been presented in a viable fashion.

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 02:56 PM

far shot would help. but you asked what a warblade could do, and dipping that class is an option. having the caster cast wingbind could bring it to the ground would work too. maybe you just go david an goliath on it. but seriously, it's not about how many enemies have flying, it's about how many enemies you meet that fly. you're dealing in a circumstancial vacuum, so there's little point arguing anything as your theoretical enemy will always have the next countermeasure.

But unless you're in a seriously focused campaign with mostly one type of enemy how many enemies you meet that fly is probably related to the number of enemies that have flight. And once you're around level 5-10 and above, that number is "a freaking lot". And what countermeasures have I mentioned besides 1) having flight and 2) using that flight to not hang right next to your enemies, which even animals are probably bright enough to do much of the time?

But yes, far shot helps. You can build a warblade-based ranged build. But what's a single-classed warblade or crusader with feats that focus on melee, solid tier 3 builds both, supposed to do?

Edit: casters bringing it down (downdraft, earthbind, etc.) is a very good tactic, but just like the caster casting fly, it basically means that you are utterly dependent on the caster in order to fulfill your class's basic function in a huge percentage of cases. It's a better tactic than casting fly, because it also limits the creature's mobility, but my point was more that a class should be able to attempt to fulfill its most basic combat function in a large majority of encounters without being completely dependent on other classes' goodwill. It's nice to have a party around, and of course you all want to work together, and there will be the occasional encounter where one party member has a trick that is necessary to let everyone else work. But if your basic function is to stab things, the vast majority of the time you should be able to do that without waiting for the wizard to enable you.

Divide by Zero

2011-05-13, 02:58 PM

reread my bolded parts. they meant it to work that way(or so i like to think, cause otherwise they're just idiots) but they failed, rather spectacularly, by failing to add the relevant feats.

I know. I was agreeing with you on that point.

Taelas

2011-05-13, 03:01 PM

If voluntary poverty isn't something you are already seriously toying with, why are you looking for a feat that's dependent on the variant rules for voluntary poverty?

Because the existence of the feat implies it is a viable choice. It can make people interested in creating a character that chooses voluntary poverty, because they think it is an interesting concept.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 03:06 PM

But unless you're in a seriously focused campaign with mostly one type of enemy how many enemies you meet that fly is probably related to the number of enemies that have flight. And once you're around level 5-10 and above, that number is "a freaking lot". And what countermeasures have I mentioned besides 1) having flight and 2) using that flight to not hang right next to your enemies, which even animals are probably bright enough to do much of the time?

But yes, far shot helps. You can build a warblade-based ranged build. But what's a single-classed warblade or crusader with feats that focus on melee, solid tier 3 builds both, supposed to do?

let's face it, if they've taken VoP, they aren't T3 anymore. i would compare crusader to paladin in this case, as he should be using equipment, particularly a good weapon. the same goes for a warblade, but if he must take VoP, i'd put the bloodstorm dip in the "necessary" section at that point. in fact, i'd say the stright up melee classes(fighters, barbarians, warblades, etc) are hit harder by this feat more so than any other class that is not actually disabled(wizard, cleric).

so, in summary, your answer is to not take vow of poverty. unless you have a very specific idea that you aren't going to compromise that involves ascetcism, in which case you might as well get something for it anyway, it is a questionable feat in the best of situations.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 03:07 PM

I know. I was agreeing with you on that point.

in that case, I apologize. it's difficult to sense tone through a computer screen and apparently i misjudged yours.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 03:07 PM

From the first paragraph, his point appears that if the option was going to be presented, it should have been presented in a viable fashion.

To me that implies that he and people he plays with wouldn't have considered voluntary poverty before seeing the system in BoED. That runs so significantly counter to my experiences as to confound me.

I've had it come up at least a few times a year since I started playing in the mid 90s. To me, voluntary poverty is a choice that I already had players seriously considering, but discarding because (or more occasionally, taking despite) of the game play repercussions. Now, because BoED provided some compensation, they are less incentivized to discard a concept they liked.

The first game I DMed for in 2nd had, for a cleric, a nun who ran an orphanage before being pulled into the adventure. She had 2 habits, a bed roll, a small holy symbol*, and a mundane rosary. Every red cent she got on that campaign went to those orphans.

The player, Josh, was well aware that he was sacrificing significant power by forgoing all valuable items entirely. When I read VoP, I think of it as designed to meet needs like his. I'm glad that there is now a alternate system to help support such a character should Josh want to play one again.

*Incidentally, I think that a small holy symbol should be explicitly allowed by VoP.

Forbiddenwar

2011-05-13, 03:12 PM

Swordsages would be okay at very high levels (like, 17, which is way past when you need it)

swordsages get teleport at level 3, not 17.

And lack of flight is not a deal breaker. It's only necessary in some settings.

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 03:24 PM

let's face it, if they've taken VoP, they aren't T3 anymore. i would compare crusader to paladin in this case, as he should be using equipment, particularly a good weapon. the same goes for a warblade, but if he must take VoP, i'd put the bloodstorm dip in the "necessary" section at that point. in fact, i'd say the stright up melee classes(fighters, barbarians, warblades, etc) are hit harder by this feat more so than any other class that is not actually disabled(wizard, cleric).

so, in summary, your answer is to not take vow of poverty. unless you have a very specific idea that you aren't going to compromise that involves ascetcism, in which case you might as well get something for it anyway, it is a questionable feat in the best of situations.

Well, I think that's the point. If the reasonable solution for most melee builds is "don't take vow of poverty", it's broken, and not in an overpowered way.

Ashentears

2011-05-13, 03:28 PM

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 03:28 PM

swordsages get teleport at level 3, not 17.

And lack of flight is not a deal breaker. It's only necessary in some settings.

Frankly, lack of flight is a dealbreaker in most settings, because of the sheer weight of numbers of enemies that have flight. (Plus, enemy casters). Because of this weight of numbers, the DM would have to purposely avoid putting you up against a large fraction of flying enemies. Which he might do, but that's the special case.

Taelas

2011-05-13, 03:30 PM

To me that implies that he and people he plays with wouldn't have considered voluntary poverty before seeing the system in BoED. That runs so significantly counter to my experiences as to confound me.

It confounds you that people look through sourcebooks for inspiration for characters?

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 03:34 PM

Hecuba,

That's a wonderful example of how voluntary poverty can work both for roleplaying purposes, and mechanically. I'm glad your player was able to do that and enjoy being such a generous hero!

Unfortunately, if the same player tried the same thing with a Monk instead of a Cleric, they would have a very different (and much more painful) experience. Full casters can get away with giving away their magic toys, weapons, and armor because they have options to replace those with class abilities.

Non-casters do not have such options.

VoP was either meant to make the concept viable for play - not just for full casters! - or it was not. In the former case, it failed. In the latter case... why write it?

1. They had a painful experience as it was. And that was with 2nd edition, which was at least somewhat less gear-dependent than 3rd. The mechanical repercussions were still present and notable.
2. Their painful experience would have been significantly less so with a VoP variant rule.
3. Almost everything is worse with monk. That's just the way it works.

In my eyes, VoP is meant to help prop up a concept that was (in my experience, at least) already seeing regular play, viable or not.

It confounds you that people look through sourcebooks for inspiration for characters?
No, it confounds me that that particular idea would be so far off someone's radar that they wouldn't have seen it come up until it was published. As I said, this is an idea I've seen at least somewhat regularly for a long time.

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 03:38 PM

Frankly, lack of flight is a dealbreaker in most settings, because of the sheer weight of numbers of enemies that have flight. (Plus, enemy casters). Because of this weight of numbers, the DM would have to purposely avoid putting you up against a large fraction of flying enemies. Which he might do, but that's the special case.

what if, y'know, theoretically, you didn't have a dm that has all random encounters all the time? what if you spend time cleaning out dungeons, not running free on treeless plains looking for birds to kill? what if the enemy wizard has banned that school in favor of summoning everything he needs? aquatic campaigns? flight is all important in the theory vacuum, but that doesn't make it all important.

Divide by Zero

2011-05-13, 03:40 PM

No, it confounds me that that particular idea would be so far off someone's radar that they wouldn't have seen it come up until it was published.

But with something like voluntary poverty, it isn't something that most players would want to play because it's totally impractical in most settings. So they'd never seriously consider it until they saw a feat that ostensibly makes it good.

Veyr

2011-05-13, 03:41 PM

No one is arguing if it's good game design or not.
I am. I believe DocRoc is, too. I believe most of us are, actually. In fact, I think that whether or not it's good game design is just about the only relevant thing to talk about.

The fact is that the feat was not intended to be a perfect replacement for your WBL.
No, that is your opinion. An opinion that you have not backed nor have defended against counter-arguments. It is no more fact than my preference in Mexican dishes. Less so, even, since you really can't dispute that I prefer chicken fajitas (I do), but I can dispute what you claim about the BoED.

If nothing else, please stop stating opinions as facts. The implication, every time you do so, is that your opinions "count more" than everyone else's, and that is heavily insulting. If you cannot defend your opinions as opinions, and must pretend they are fact in order to make them beyond questioning, then that really ought to tell you something about how well backed your opinions are.

Taelas

2011-05-13, 03:43 PM

No, it confounds me that that particular idea would be so far off someone's radar that they wouldn't have seen it come up until it was published. As I said, this is an idea I've seen at least somewhat regularly for a long time.

Subjective experience is just that. I have played D&D for the past fifteen years, and not once has the subject ever come up in my groups.

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 03:49 PM

what if, y'know, theoretically, you didn't have a dm that has all random encounters all the time? what if you spend time cleaning out dungeons, not running free on treeless plains looking for birds to kill? what if the enemy wizard has banned that school in favor of summoning everything he needs? aquatic campaigns? flight is all important in the theory vacuum, but that doesn't make it all important.

I'm not just talking about random encounters. My normal RL DM almost never uses random encounters, and we fight tons of flying enemies.

Okay, if you spend every encounter in a corridor with a 10 ft ceiling, or if every single wizard you fight has banned transmutation (which is one of the best schools), and you never fight enemy sorcerers, clerics, or druids, and there are no monsters or animals in your campaigns, sure, maybe. If you're underwater, okay. But frankly, those are special cases. If you have a moderate percentage of fights outside, if you occasionally fight casters, if you occasionally fight monsters, odds are you will fight a lot of flying enemies. It's absolutely campaign dependent, but an accurate cross section of the monster manual and the players handbook is not a special case--the situations you're describing are.

only1doug

2011-05-13, 03:50 PM

The first game I DMed for in 2nd had, for a cleric, a nun who ran an orphanage before being pulled into the adventure. She had 2 habits, a bed roll, a small holy symbol*, and a mundane rosary. Every red cent she got on that campaign went to those orphans.

The player, Josh, was well aware that he was sacrificing significant power by forgoing all valuable items entirely. When I read VoP, I think of it as designed to meet needs like his. I'm glad that there is now a alternate system to help support such a character should Josh want to play one again.

*Incidentally, I think that a small holy symbol should be explicitly allowed by VoP.

But as owning a Holy Symbol is not allowed by VoP you have picked an example of why VoP needs to be changed, welcome to the Pro Re-write team...

No one is arguing if it's good game design or not.

This thread is for myself and true_shinken to discuss whether or not Vow of Poverty should be fixed.

Personally, I think that fluff and crunch are moderately separated, therefore, one doesn't need to suck to play the concept.

In fact, most VoP fixes aren't based on the idea of, "I don't need the gear," but instead on the idea of, "I don't need/want gear, and don't suck because of that." That is, VoP as written does make you suck, and the fixes get rid of that.

I think Jallorn was arguing that VoP isn't good game design... In the first Post which is therefore the basis of this entire thread.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 03:50 PM

Subjective experience is just that. I have played D&D for the past fifteen years, and not once has the subject ever come up in my groups.

Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that subjective experiences can be so radically different as to confound someone, such as me.

As a result, it is difficult for me to envision VoP in something that I believe would approximate how you would view it. To me, it's a significant improvement over how things were: I'm glad its here, because when I see it in play its because the characters would have done the downside anyways.

From your point of view, yes, I can see (with effort) how you would prefer it were not published. But I cannot agree with that view: I am very glad that it was published, and will continue to be so because most of the times when I see people take it they benefit immensely over the other available options.

MeeposFire

2011-05-13, 03:57 PM

But as owning a Holy Symbol is not allowed by VoP you have picked an example of why VoP needs to be changed, welcome to the Pro Re-write team...

I think Jallorn was arguing that VoP isn't good game design... In the first Post which is therefore the basis of this entire thread.

Well there are ways around that such as feats but yes that is something that should have been considered in the first place as clerics should be able to use a standard (wooden) holy symbol by default.

only1doug

2011-05-13, 04:06 PM

Well there are ways around that such as feats but yes that is something that should have been considered in the first place as clerics should be able to use a standard (wooden) holy symbol by default.

Really? what feat bypasses the need for a divine focus? Hint: Eschew Materials won't, Focus =/= Material Component

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 04:10 PM

MeeposFire

2011-05-13, 04:10 PM

Really? what feat bypasses the need for a divine focus? Hint: Eschew Materials won't, Focus =/= Material Component

Well I could be wrong on the name so later I will check it but I believe it is called worldly focus from Faiths of Eberron. Like I said it is more obscure than I like but it exists.

EDIT: It does require that you worship the Sovereign Host but that sort of feat does exist and can be easily reflavored for your average cleric.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 04:10 PM

But as owning a Holy Symbol is not allowed by VoP you have picked an example of why VoP needs to be changed, welcome to the Pro Re-write team...

I've never said it didn't need editing: most of 3ed could use some editing. But I fundamentally disagree with several ideas that people have thrown around in the thread, most importantly:

I don't think VOP needs to be or should be fully equivalent to WBL. That significantly curtails the idea of sacrifice that the feat is supposed to help the character convey.
I don't think that VoP shouldn't have been published: I run into players that are going to give away all their character's stuff either way. VoP makes that situation better.

My fix for VoP is the same one the sage suggested*: if a player wants to take it, tailor it to the needs of the character and the setting.

PostScriptum: Also I seem to recall that someone mentioned that it would be better if VoP were simply a character generation option rather than having to burn a feat on it. The VoP feat requires and references the voluntary poverty variant rules, but the voluntary poverty variant rules (while citing VoP) don't actually need it for any mechanical function. You might talk to your DM about the possibility of doing exactly what you suggested there.

*or was it custserv? Oh well, who can keep track.

Starbuck_II

2011-05-13, 04:17 PM

Because a "sacrifice" that sacrifices the innocents you would have saved if you hadn't been so arrogant as to eschew the tools at your disposal just to prove a point is neither Lawful nor Good, and most definitely not Exalted.

Exalted does not equal LG. It can be CG or NG. It is just a extreme G. Nothing Choatic or Lawful about it
(neither word has any actual meaning in D&D, seriously. A Personal code is Chaotic but a set of rules you follow is Lawful. That is the same thing!).

Oh, and there is a cantrip that summons a holy symbol so Clerics don't need to own one allowing them to be vop.

Divide by Zero

2011-05-13, 04:17 PM

I don't think VOP needs to be or should be fully equivalent to WBL. That significantly curtails the idea of sacrifice that the feat is supposed to help the character convey..

I can agree with this. But what it should do is compensate better for the things you can get with items that aren't just more plusses.

PollyOliver

2011-05-13, 04:19 PM

I can agree with this. But what it should do is compensate better for the things you can get with items that aren't just more plusses.

I'd agree with both of those things.

Also, Provengreil, you can make a thread if you'd like, but maybe we should just agree to disagree on this one, since it's so DM and playstyle dependent. :smallsmile:

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 04:28 PM

Well I could be wrong on the name so later I will check it but I believe it is called worldly focus from Faiths of Eberron. Like I said it is more obscure than I like but it exists.

EDIT: It does require that you worship the Sovereign Host but that sort of feat does exist and can be easily reflavored for your average cleric.

Great, so I need three feats to suck at my class now?

Why, I think i'll go roll Derplord van der Herpderp right now.

only1doug

2011-05-13, 04:29 PM

Well I could be wrong on the name so later I will check it but I believe it is called worldly focus from Faiths of Eberron. Like I said it is more obscure than I like but it exists.

EDIT: It does require that you worship the Sovereign Host but that sort of feat does exist and can be easily reflavored for your average cleric.

Or we could just fix VoP to allow a wooden holy symbol... (and while we are at it we could make a few more changes)

Provengreil

2011-05-13, 04:30 PM

Great, so I need three feats to suck at my class now?

Why, I think i'll go roll Derplord van der Herpderp right now.

idunno, you're still a cleric when it's said and done

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 04:32 PM

idunno, you're still a cleric when it's said and done

A cleric with three fewer feats to build towards DMM, or similar.

MeeposFire

2011-05-13, 04:36 PM

I wasn't saying it was good just that it was possible.

Veyr

2011-05-13, 04:42 PM

I don't think VOP needs to be or should be fully equivalent to WBL. That significantly curtails the idea of sacrifice that the feat is supposed to help the character convey.
It would be far less egregious if it came even remotely close. All told, currently, it does not.

I don't think that VoP shouldn't have been published: I run into players that are going to give away all their character's stuff either way. VoP makes that situation better.
No one's said that the concept is wrong or impossible or whatever. Only that the actual VoP as printed is awful and should never, ever be used without heavy modification.

Working with a player to come up with something equitable and appropriate: Great!

Running off the bizarre, poorly worded, poorly supported, and terribly designed Vow of Poverty feat presented in the Book of Exalted Deeds? Terrible.

At best, Vow of Poverty is a basis and an instruction on what not to do, and discussions such as this illuminate the pitfalls that you can fix in your houseruled/homebrewed version. But it should not be used as-is in a game of D&D 3.5; it's just not appropriate for the setting or the characters as described by the class features they receive and the enemies they face at a give level.

Exalted does not equal LG. It can be CG or NG. It is just a extreme G. Nothing Choatic or Lawful about it
(neither word has any actual meaning in D&D, seriously. A Personal code is Chaotic but a set of rules you follow is Lawful. That is the same thing!).
OK, you're right; I always get that mixed up because the writers of the Book of Exalted Deeds fell into the trap of treating Lawful things as Good (see Poisons vs. Ravages) all the freaking time. Barring a few token mentions, most of the book seems to suggest that LG is the "Best Good".

So yeah, my mistake but really, I'm blaming this one on the BoED. The book is guilty of making this kind of mistake constantly.

true_shinken

2011-05-13, 04:50 PM

VOP explicitly prevents almost all character concepts from meaningfully functioning against CR appropriate encounters from about CR10 on; this means VOP is definitively borked at essentially all levels of optimization. Even the party Fighter who spent all his feats on Skill Focus: X can use his Ghost Touch bastard sword and wings of flying.

Except it's ridiculous to think that someone who takes Weapon Focus and Specialization as their feats will know he has to buy wings of flying and ghost touch weapon. That's really counterintuitive, because that's not how it works on fantasy novels (they just use bows or flying mounts).

No, that is your opinion.
No, it's not. It's a basic understanding of semantics.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 04:56 PM

No, it's not. It's a basic understanding of semantics.

I... thank you for denigrating my intelligence. Small note: I am probably a good bit smarter than you suspect. Not that it sounds like you have very high esteem for my intellect. Four out of six people seem to think it ambiguous, and you think it's obvious. These people are smart, fluent, and eloquent.

So clearly, your way is the only way. We have a word for this. It's dogmatic.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 04:58 PM

It would be far less egregious if it came even remotely close. All told, currently, it does not.

[...]

No one's said that the concept is wrong or impossible or whatever. Only that the actual VoP as printed is awful and should never, ever be used without heavy modification.

That depends on how high-powered things tend to run at your table.

I still run the occasional group for people new to D&D. Most tend to be 4th, which I shove off on another employee at the comic store when I can, but occasionally a customer will pick up a pathfinder book or an old 3.5 book. For those groups, flight probably won't be used and weapons will probably be the ones with the plusses. If one of wanted to try out VoP for some reason, I would probably just make sure to allow the basic equipment then needed to allow their class features to function and call it good.

If I were, say, subbing as DM for the group that plays in the store on Wednesday nights, well they have a level of system mastery you have to come to this forum regularly to see outclassed. For them, yeah it probably needs to be powerful. But I'm also more comfortable with the idea that they and I will have a concept of what things will be "necessities" for such a group and come to an agreement.

TL;DR? Use of gear is a huge part of system mastery. If you balance VoP against what an experienced optimizer on this forum considers "necessary," it stands a good chance of being overpowered in an unoptimized environment.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 05:00 PM

That depends on how high-powered things tend to run at your table.

I still run the occasional group for people new to D&D. Most tend to be 4th, which I shove off on another employee at the comic store when I can, but occasionally a customer will pick up a pathfinder book or an old 3.5 book. For those groups, flight probably won't be used and weapons will probably be the ones with the plusses. If one of wanted to try out VoP for some reason, I would probably just make sure to allow the basic equipment then needed to allow their class features to function and call it good.

If I were, say, subbing as DM for the group that plays in the store on Wednesday nights, well they have a level of system mastery you have to come to this forum regularly to see outclassed. For them, yeah it probably needs to be powerful. But I'm also more comfortable with the idea that they and I will have a concept of what things will be "necessities" for such a group and come to an agreement.

TL;DR? Use of gear is a huge part of system mastery. If you balance VoP against what an experienced optimizer on this forum considers "necessary," it stands a good chance of being overpowered in an unoptimized environment.

How do they deal with the fact that half the freaking monster manual flies or teleports, and a significant portion flies and teleports? Do you just ignore CR and operate on deep system knowledge to customize every encounter carefully?

Talya

2011-05-13, 05:04 PM

I'm not just talking about random encounters. My normal RL DM almost never uses random encounters, and we fight tons of flying enemies.

Okay, if you spend every encounter in a corridor with a 10 ft ceiling, or if every single wizard you fight has banned transmutation (which is one of the best schools), and you never fight enemy sorcerers, clerics, or druids, and there are no monsters or animals in your campaigns, sure, maybe. If you're underwater, okay. But frankly, those are special cases. If you have a moderate percentage of fights outside, if you occasionally fight casters, if you occasionally fight monsters, odds are you will fight a lot of flying enemies. It's absolutely campaign dependent, but an accurate cross section of the monster manual and the players handbook is not a special case--the situations you're describing are.

There's a fair amount of truth to this.

I've tried playing a VOP character now three times. First time the campaign only got to level 2 (:smallconfused:) which left me unhappy. It was an aquatic campaign and I was playing a mermaid druid. Was there ever a better situation for VOP? I don't know.

Second time I'm still playing. I'm a barbarian 1/ranger 2 with improved unarmed strike going for Fist of the Forest. The thing that makes this one workable is it's intentionally a lower magic campaign. Not low, but lower. Magic items are extremely rare. Wizard/Cleric/Druid were all banned for PCs from the start. Sorcerers/Favored Souls/Bards were allowed, but nobody has any item crafting feats either. The setting has primitive firearms, which ignore a certain amount of armor bonus and natural armor bonus. The VOP bonus that doesn't stack with armor is not an armor bonus, but an exalted or sacred bonus or something, so the DM said it works fine against guns. Special situation has made VOP far more appealling. But that's not why I took it...i took it because i'm going fist of the forest. I'm playing a character who has abandoned civilization and all its trappings and dresses in a loincloth and carries a spear as her only weapon (which she often doesn't use), so it fits.

Third time is another druid, this time on land. I needed to retry my VOP druid, though aquatic was likely a better setting for it.

Note I'd never consider VOP in most campaigns with most characters -- it's specific to certain situations or builds that make it viable (or even a good idea) -- and that means that it really should be adjusted to be viable in more situations. I agree with True Shinken that it should not be "optimal." IF we always picked the absolute most optimal choices for every character we played, we'd only play Tier 1 classes, and then only 2-3 different builds for each of them. VOP doesn't need to be the best possible choice. It simply needs to make it viable to play a character without any gear. Right now, it doesn't always do this, which is why it fails.

Taelas

2011-05-13, 05:06 PM

Except it's ridiculous to think that someone who takes Weapon Focus and Specialization as their feats will know he has to buy wings of flying and ghost touch weapon. That's really counterintuitive, because that's not how it works on fantasy novels (they just use bows or flying mounts).
... which matters how, precisely? He is still ABLE to do this. It is not uncommon for people to learn the rules far more intimately than they do when they first begin as they level their first character towards max level.

No, it's not. It's a basic understanding of semantics.
While I agree that the feat is not supposed to replace WBL entirely, I do not agree that it is a "fact". It is still opinion.

Hecuba

2011-05-13, 09:28 PM

How do they deal with the fact that half the freaking monster manual flies or teleports, and a significant portion flies and teleports? Do you just ignore CR and operate on deep system knowledge to customize every encounter carefully?

How does who deal with it? The answers are different for the two groups in the example.

For the Wednesday night group with significant system mastery, I do not tailor encounters. I presume that they tailor their characters. And if they want to play VoP, I do exactly what I said above; I work with them to tailor it to the expectations of the players and the setting. If they're playing at a high enough level that flight is a necessity, then flight is a necessity. Thus we do a little homebrew and cook flight into VoP in some manner.

For new people with no prior exposure, I pull my punches when DMing. Blatently. These are people with 0 system mastery: folks who are considering trying D&D and want to play a game. I have them read the class section of the PHB and spend 10-20 minutes going over basic combat. Yeah, I tailor the encounters. And if I continue to DM for them, I will continue to pull my punches for them till they are at least basically comfortable with the system.

Think back: were you thinking in terms of optimized weapon bonuses and tactical flight when you were on your first couple characters? I wasn't, and I don't expect them to be.

If one of them wanted to do the voluntary poverty gig, I'll ask them if they're sure: wealth is power in D&D, and power can be important. If they really want to go for that, I'll pull out VoP. But if I pulled out a VoP fix and it had flying baked in, then I would also have to encourage (subtlety or not) the other players to start thinking in terms of including flight. Essentially, I would have to force the group's optimization up to levels they might not be comfortable with.

Doc Roc

2011-05-13, 09:54 PM

How does who deal with it? The answers are different for the two groups in the example.

For the Wednesday night group with significant system mastery, I do not tailor encounters. I presume that they tailor their characters. And if they want to play VoP, I do exactly what I said above; I work with them to tailor it to the expectations of the players and the setting. If they're playing at a high enough level that flight is a necessity, then flight is a necessity. Thus we do a little homebrew and cook flight into VoP in some manner.

For new people with no prior exposure, I pull my punches when DMing. Blatently. These are people with 0 system mastery: folks who are considering trying D&D and want to play a game. I have them read the class section of the PHB and spend 10-20 minutes going over basic combat. Yeah, I tailor the encounters. And if I continue to DM for them, I will continue to pull my punches for them till they are at least basically comfortable with the system.

Think back: were you thinking in terms of optimized weapon bonuses and tactical flight when you were on your first couple characters? I wasn't, and I don't expect them to be.

If one of them wanted to do the voluntary poverty gig, I'll ask them if they're sure: wealth is power in D&D, and power can be important. If they really want to go for that, I'll pull out VoP. But if I pulled out a VoP fix and it had flying baked in, then I would also have to encourage (subtlety or not) the other players to start thinking in terms of including flight. Essentially, I would have to force the group's optimization up to levels they might not be comfortable with.

Flying is awesome. Flying is always awesome. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF yes I was trying to find a way to fly.

Lord_Gareth

2011-05-16, 09:56 AM

Karoht

2011-05-16, 10:51 AM

Reducing the character's power level is asking the player to make a sacrifice, which they already are - their versatility. Expecting it to remain vastly behind the capabilities of wealth by level, though, fails to make sense from both a game design standpoint and a standpoint with regards to good vs. evil in the D&D context. And honestly, the forces of Good already have a boatload of Required Stupidity (patent pending), why add another log to the pile?

Power doesn't come for free exactly. There are always some sacrifices. Some are reasonable, some are fair, some are less fair, some are unreasonable, some are plain stupid. I think VoP fall into the catagory of either fair or less than fair. Though again, depending on setting and situation, sometimes it falls into reasonable.

IE-Giving up 2 feats for more than 2 other feats is considered fair or reasonable by most standards. Giving up 2 feats for more than 2 other feats which are limited in their application, will be fair (setting/DM dependant) or less than fair. Now add in the limitation on wealth and item use by VoP. In both examples it shifts a category.

========
My theory for VoP was that it was intended as a fluff piece, and they tried to make it worth taking with some special benefits. Sadly, those benefits do not offset in every situation or setting, but it does in some others. IE-VoP + Monk = Less Broken and more functional Monk than just Monk. But, in the wrong setting where the exalted feats do them no good, it might as well just be a Monk with items rather than a special Monk with no items. Mind you I'm sure this point has been flogged to death by now, but here it is.

I hate to suggest this, but maybe VoP was intended that the DM really tailor the campaign around the VoP character/s. Personally, I'd love to see an Exalted campaign that revolved around a party of 5, with a minimum of 3 with VoP, with a limit on 1 Druid only.

Hecuba

2011-05-16, 02:19 PM

Shinken, I think you're getting something confused here; the character is making a spiritual sacrifice, not the player. The player might not care (or even find the idea attractive) that the character doesn't have gear or tools, but the character is giving away quite a bit to accept the lifestyle of poverty. They don't have any wealth or the prestige it brings; they can't move up in most social structures, can't reasonably get involved in politics (takes lots of cash), can't own a home, and a host of other things that normal people take for granted every single day. In exchange, the blessings of the Upper Planes provide for their physical needs and enable them to resist evil, bring hope to the hopeless, and crusade on the behalf of the weak and helpless.

Reducing the character's power level is asking the player to make a sacrifice, which they already are - their versatility. Expecting it to remain vastly behind the capabilities of wealth by level, though, fails to make sense from both a game design standpoint and a standpoint with regards to good vs. evil in the D&D context. And honestly, the forces of Good already have a boatload of Required Stupidity (patent pending), why add another log to the pile?

1) The loss of conventional comforts and uses of money represents a far less compelling case for being sacrifice when everyone else around the character is fabulously wealthy and still regularly lacking those comforts and options because they chose a profession of violent hobo.

2) You're assuming that the magical poverty superpowers cannot themselves be something of value to the character. In my opinion, it's important that you shouldn't be able to find a character who (not being particularly interested in voluntary poverty) would consider the buying the VoP package for their full WBL.

This means, unless you can really highlight the conventional uses for money, that VoP should be at least nominally behind WBL (after you take into account the lack of need and the lack of versatility).

Specifically, what I see as the biggest issue is that Exalted Violent Hobos shouldn't reasonably be expected to consider VoP for it's furtherance of their Violent Hobo profession. (I will gladly admit that, for even moderate system mastery, we're generally not even close).

Veyr

2011-05-16, 02:21 PM

Doc Roc

2011-05-16, 02:36 PM

My opinion is that this is terrible game design. I think Vow of Poverty, as a concept can fit into the game, but only if it is worth its opportunity cost. An option that intentionally underpowers you has no appropriate place in the game.

I would agree with this after a small qualification. If something very obviously, very blatantly, admits that it's basically Nintendo Hard Mode, then that could be okay too. Despite what you seem to think, Vow Of Poverty doesn't for most people.

Karoht

2011-05-16, 03:17 PM

My opinion is that this is terrible game design. I think Vow of Poverty, as a concept can fit into the game, but only if it is worth its opportunity cost. An option that intentionally underpowers you has no appropriate place in the game.

Okay, you're playing a strength based fighter. The feat exists for you to take, which would use your INT to hit or damage instead of your STR. Your INT is 8, your STR is 18. Yes, taking it "intentionally underpowers you". Yet it has a place in the game.

VoP is also a challenge (see nintendo hard mode), not just a feat for giving you more awesome. It gives you perks, but it gives you a challenge in exchange for those perks. Hence the word sacrifice.

Sacrifice doesn't mean give up one thing in exchange for 10 awesome things. Sacrifice tends to be a relatively equal balance especially in game design. Or, it's an unfair exchange with someone getting screwed.
Yes, not having items weakens you. On the other hand, it also makes it hard to gimp you further. No items to remove if your captured, you're still at full capacity for awesomeness. No dropping your AC, no removing your main hand weapon, no crippling of any of your stats by removing your Belt of Giant Strength. This is just pretending that you aren't a spellcaster, let alone if you are.

And at least VoP comes with some perks in the game. VoP in real life comes with scant few.

Veyr

2011-05-16, 03:31 PM

Okay, you're playing a strength based fighter. The feat exists for you to take, which would use your INT to hit or damage instead of your STR. Your INT is 8, your STR is 18. Yes, taking it "intentionally underpowers you". Yet it has a place in the game.
That underpowers that particular character. VoP underpowers every class the game. The former is appropriate. The latter is not, ever.

VoP is also a challenge (see nintendo hard mode), not just a feat for giving you more awesome. It gives you perks, but it gives you a challenge in exchange for those perks. Hence the word sacrifice.
No.

"Nintendo hard mode" should be a game option, not a character option. Selecting VoP, ceteris paribus, forces your teammates and your DM to work harder to overcome your self-imposed short-comings. You aren't the one sacrificing, they are. For the most part, VoP is more likely to affect your party more than it affects you, because now they have to somehow justify your presence in a group where you absolutely do not belong. Your character can and should make sacrifices. You and your friends should not have to. This is a game, it is meant to be fun, and detracting from anyone's fun is the antithesis of good game design.

Sacrifice doesn't mean give up one thing in exchange for 10 awesome things.
Nor did I suggest that is should. But in this case, the situation is far more inverted.

Yes, not having items weakens you. On the other hand, it also makes it hard to gimp you further. No items to remove if your captured, you're still at full capacity for awesomeness. No dropping your AC, no removing your main hand weapon, no crippling of any of your stats by removing your Belt of Giant Strength. This is just pretending that you aren't a spellcaster, let alone if you are.
None of which overcomes the general fact that you are performing in general far below the expected level of power in 3.5.

And at least VoP comes with some perks in the game. VoP in real life comes with scant few.
That just makes it a trap for unsuspecting players, nothing more.

Hecuba

2011-05-17, 01:35 AM

I would agree with this after a small qualification. If something very obviously, very blatantly, admits that it's basically Nintendo Hard Mode, then that could be okay too. Despite what you seem to think, Vow Of Poverty doesn't for most people.

After the discussion in this thread, I'll gladly admit that if their goals were what I took them to be, they should have presented it differently.

Something as simple as putting the relevant feat in a subheading of the alternate rules for voluntary poverty might change expectations significantly (there is less expectation of parity, in my experience, for variant rules than for things like feats).

Karoht

2011-05-17, 07:25 AM

None of which overcomes the general fact that you are performing in general far below the expected level of power in 3.5.Right, because the only relevance a feat has in a role playing game is power, nothing more.
On that note, I've yet to meet a VoP'er who didn't at least keep up, never mind the odd instance where they would outshine everyone.

That just makes it a trap for unsuspecting players, nothing more.Voluntary Poverty comes with downsides NOT obvious to everyone? You lost me. It's not like the feat hides it's flaws somewhere, or has tricky wording. If someone falls into this 'trap' it's a reading fail on the part of the player or DM. Much like selecting that +hit from INT feat if you're a strength based fighter.

Eldan

2011-05-17, 07:33 AM

Karoht

2011-05-17, 07:43 AM

He said, new players. The shortcomings are these:

I've seen new players read this feat and think: "Awesome! This feat gives me stat bonuses! I'll be soooo strong!" And, looking at how many threads this feat generates, that doesn't seem to be a unique case.

It's bad because it doesn't say that it makes you weaker. To a new player, who doesn't know the reality of higher-level play, and who can't judge the potential power of money in this game, it might seem like a strong and worthwhile option. Which is a problem with many things in D&D: things that look strong can leave you open to disappointment.Poverty? The word POVERTY in the title doesn't tell you that it makes you weaker? The restrictions associated doesn't tell you that it makes you weaker? The lack of ability to accumulate any kind of wealth doesn't tell you that it makes you weaker?

Reading is hard amirite?
The feat isn't a trap. It tells you upfront, there are no hidden charges like your bank account. But, reading is hard. So maybe they should have someone they could ask, maybe someone experienced, or whom is expected to have read the books at least somewhat. Like, maybe some kind of guideperson or 'master' of somesort. Oh wait, like a DM?
(And if the DM isn't up front with them, then the DM is a jerk)

Sucrose

2011-05-17, 07:49 AM

Poverty? The word POVERTY in the title doesn't tell you that it makes you weaker? The restrictions associated doesn't tell you that it makes you weaker? The lack of ability to accumulate any kind of wealth doesn't tell you that it makes you weaker?
Reading is hard amirite?

The feat isn't a trap. It tells you upfront, there are no hidden charges like your bank account.

It tells you that you won't get money. It does not fully explain how important money is in Dungeons and Dragons. Thus, it does not fully explain the costs associated with it. If it did, then there wouldn't be newbies convinced that a VoP monk is overpowered. Since there are such newbies, and they crop up with a fair degree of regularity, it's fairly clear that it is not clear about just how costly the feat is.

It is a trap, just one that people with systems mastery know enough to avoid.

And a DM does not have to have any particular degree of rules mastery. In fact, in my RL games, I'm pretty much always better about rules than the DM. He DMs because he is willing to put forth the effort to build a world for us.

Eldan

2011-05-17, 07:50 AM

You tell someone that they get +8 to their main stat for just two feats, they will love the idea.

When I first saw this feat, it didn't say "You give up all equipment, and get some minor boni in turn." It said "You won't be dependent on equipment that you could lose or something, and you'll get tons of nice goodies as well!"

It was our groups first game. We were all around level 3 or so. This feat looked so awesome and powerful.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-17, 07:50 AM

Eldan

2011-05-17, 07:52 AM

It's been some time, but doesn't the flavour basically tell you "You don't get to live in luxury, but you get Awesome Cosmic Power!" or something like that? At first, it seems like getting a fluff restriction for what actually seems like a power upgrade.

ShriekingDrake

2011-05-17, 07:55 AM

It's bad because it doesn't say that it makes you weaker. To a new player, who doesn't know the reality of higher-level play, and who can't judge the potential power of money in this game, it might seem like a strong and worthwhile option. Which is a problem with many things in D&D: things that look strong can leave you open to disappointment.

This is true. But it's also true for many character classes. Monk, Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue . . . Choosing one of these classes can not only affect your quality but the quality of the experience of others.

Nonetheless, people who do know what they are doing occasionally select one of these classes for the fun of it. It's a game and it is supposed to be fun. Many times, optimization is fun. Sometimes its fun not to optimize and to select mechanics that are iconic, appealing, or just interesting. As I've mentioned earlier on this thread, I like VoP because it forces me to change my objectives for a particular campaign.

I'm not sure the rules need to say "this feat will make you weaker," which is true for any feat not optimized for your character.

I would agree, however, that VoP might be more seductive than other feats and that some players won't recognize its shortcomings until they've had a chance to play with the feat. This, of course, is true of any game mechanic.

And even selecting good game mechanics doesn't mean they'll be played well by newer players. I've even seen plenty of players play Druids, Wizards, and Clerics poorly until they figured out how to do so with more optimization.

But sometimes it's just fun to play the character the way you want to, even if it means you die unceremoniously and roll up another character.

VoP is clearly not broken; it is not the most well-written mechanic, but it is not broken. It is highly flavorful and if you don't like the flavor don't take it. If you think it adversely affects your campaign, take it up with the DM or--if you are the DM--don't include it in your world.

VoP is an interesting concept that clearly could have been written and designed better. Frankly, however, there are many broken aspects of the game, many more egregious editing jobs, and many more poorly written mechanics than Vow of Poverty.

Eldan

2011-05-17, 08:02 AM

The primary problem I see is that there's a new player, in a group of new players, building a character he thinks is strong, and then being gradually more and more disappointed when there are entire scenes where he can't participate at all.

Now, for our first game mentioned there, the group consisted of a human sorcerer, elf wizard and human monk. All of us were, for the first few levels absolutely convinced that the monk was by far the strongest character. Whenever we got in a fight, he killed goblins and orcs left and right while we were shooting our magic missiles once per fight and perhaps using charm once out of combat. Then we got to higher levels and it gradually became clear that for more and more situations, the first response was "Ask the wizard". Luckily, we did rotating DMing, and we were all inexperienced enough that we basically played low-level adventures at higher levels. So:
"Oh no! There's a chasm without a bridge! The monk can jump over it without needing a spell! He's so awesome!"

Still. Half the fights, the monk just kinda stood there. The player more or less refused to play anything else, as he wanted to be a martial artist, and we only had the core books. So, he came frustrated enough that eventually, he didn't want to play anymore and our game collapsed.

Vow of Poverty can be similar. That same player thought he shouldn't take it because it would make his monk too strong, and we all agreed.

Sucrose

2011-05-17, 08:03 AM

This is true. But it's also true for many character classes. Monk, Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue . . . Choosing one of these classes can not only affect your quality but the quality of the experience of others.

Nonetheless, people who do know what they are doing occasionally select one of these classes for the fun of it. It's a game and it is supposed to be fun. Many times, optimization is fun. Sometimes its fun not to optimize and to select mechanics that are iconic, appealing, or just interesting. As I've mentioned earlier on this thread, I like VoP because it forces me to change my objectives for a particular campaign.

I'm not sure the rules need to say "this feat will make you weaker," which is true for any feat not optimized for your character.

I would agree, however, that VoP might be more seductive than other feats and that some players won't recognize its shortcomings until they've had a chance to play with the feat. This, of course, is true of any game mechanic.

And even selecting good game mechanics doesn't mean they'll be played well by newer players. I've even seen plenty of players play Druids, Wizards, and Clerics poorly until they figured out how to do so with more optimization.

But sometimes it's just fun to play the character the way you want to, even if it means you die unceremoniously and roll up another character.

VoP is clearly not broken; it is not the most well-written mechanic, but it is not broken. It is highly flavorful and if you don't like the flavor don't take it. If you think it adversely affects your campaign, take it up with the DM or--if you are the DM--don't include it in your world.

VoP is an interesting concept that clearly could have been written and designed better. Frankly, however, there are many broken aspects of the game, many more egregious editing jobs, and many more poorly written mechanics than Vow of Poverty.

It is not necessary for other feats to explain that they will make you weaker, because, by and large, they don't. At worst, they provide you with no relevant bonuses (the infamous metamagic Fighter example). Vow of Poverty doesn't just fail to provide a relevant bonus: it cripples the vast majority of PC classes, by preventing them from being able to acquire the means to defeat a fairly large proportion of the enemies that they need to face.

All the classes that you listed can still fight effectively with adequate rules mastery. The only class that's truly comparable to Vow of Poverty in how much selecting it weakens your character is Truenamer. And even it wasn't built intentionally not to work, as those who argue in favor of the Vow of Poverty claim said feat was designed for.

Karoht

2011-05-17, 08:06 AM

It seems clear to me what Eldan meant; nowhere in the feat's description does it explicitly spell out that the feat makes your character weaker.I'm behind a firewall, someone want to quote the entry please? I'm now rather curious what it actually says, as it has been a while since I read it. I recall a rather lengthy description in which the words "no magic items" was used.

And again, you are implying that the DM would sit back and say absolutely nothing, or intentionally withhold information from the player, much like the greedy banker who doesn't tell you about your bank fees.

Just because the name has the word "Poverty" in it in no way implies that the feat has as negative of an effect as it does.Feel free to tell me any way one could interpret the word Poverty to be positive rather than negative in the english language, let alone in DnD terms. Because usually, being poor tends to be looked on rather grimly.

Let alone in a game where collecting expensive magical items and large piles of gold is one of the goals and means of empowering yourself.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-17, 08:07 AM

Vow of Poverty doesn't just fail to provide a relevant bonus: it cripples the vast majority of PC classes, by preventing them from being able to acquire the means to defeat a fairly large proportion of the enemies that they need to face.

It would be hard to overstate this point.

Those PC classes that aren't actively crippled by the feat don't find themselves improved in any capacity, either; they simply aren't as negatively affected by it.

Doc Roc

2011-05-17, 08:31 AM

Feel free to tell me any way one could interpret the word Poverty to be positive rather than negative in the english language, let alone in DnD terms. Because usually, being poor tends to be looked on rather grimly.

Let alone in a game where collecting expensive magical items and large piles of gold is one of the goals and means of empowering yourself.

Sure! Poverty is a virtue in a couple Buddhist sects, for most Christian mendicant monks, and in the monasteries where vows of poverty are actually practiced. You know, the original source that they shamelessly lifted almost the entire set of vows from? As well as a lot of the black and white morality behind them? This is a world where virtue gives you wings, where faith places holy fire in your hands, where right action is the realm of actual angels and actual gods. You know, a game with Clerics? Who can worship ideas? And get game-cracking power?

So I would say that getting MOAR HOLYIES is probably supposed to make you MOAR BIG && STROANG.

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-17, 08:34 AM

So I would say that getting MOAR HOLYIES is probably supposed to make you MOAR STROANGER AND BIGGAR.

And instead, it makes you Derplord van der Herpderp, the most Useless Character Evar!

Who I am totally building to 20 right now.

VoP at first level, moving into Fortune's Friend, but I'm stuck here: How do I get a guy to be able to cast a single, solitary 0th level spell per day? It's quite a conundrum, I'll tell you.

Using 28 point buy, he has 8's in everything. Except Cha.

He's impossible to dislike.

Veyr

2011-05-17, 08:46 AM

This is true. But it's also true for many character classes. Monk, Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue . . . Choosing one of these classes can not only affect your quality but the quality of the experience of others.
Absolutely agreed — those are also terribly designed. Though I'd also state that, say, Barbarian and Rogue are much better designed than, say, Cleric and Wizard. One can argue for almost any balance point, though the CR system might have something to say about it.

Nonetheless, people who do know what they are doing occasionally select one of these classes for the fun of it. It's a game and it is supposed to be fun. Many times, optimization is fun. Sometimes its fun not to optimize and to select mechanics that are iconic, appealing, or just interesting. As I've mentioned earlier on this thread, I like VoP because it forces me to change my objectives for a particular campaign.

I'm not sure the rules need to say "this feat will make you weaker," which is true for any feat not optimized for your character.
We're not talking about optimization, so much, though. We're talking about completely crippling your character.

I would agree, however, that VoP might be more seductive than other feats and that some players won't recognize its shortcomings until they've had a chance to play with the feat. This, of course, is true of any game mechanic.
Interestingly, it's very much like the Monk itself in that regard.

But sometimes it's just fun to play the character the way you want to, even if it means you die unceremoniously and roll up another character.
I wonder how your DM and teammates feel about that. I'd feel somewhat like I'm wasting my time if a character is expected not to last.

VoP is clearly not broken; it is not the most well-written mechanic, but it is not broken. It is highly flavorful and if you don't like the flavor don't take it. If you think it adversely affects your campaign, take it up with the DM or--if you are the DM--don't include it in your world.
I disagree — it is most definitely broken. Aside from the most overpowered classes and maybe Incarnates and Totemists, Vow of Poverty is absolutely crippling. This isn't Weapon Focus where you just get not very much from your feat. This is spending two feats to destroy a massive subset of your character's ability, in exchange for power not even remotely close to what was lost.

VoP is an interesting concept that clearly could have been written and designed better.
Agreed, but I think you're very much understating those last two points.

Frankly, however, there are many broken aspects of the game, many more egregious editing jobs, and many more poorly written mechanics than Vow of Poverty.
Considering the size and general poor editing of 3.5 across the board, I have little choice but to agree — there are a fair number of other, worse candidates. But VoP is definitely one of the worst out there. It's not the Sarrukh or Pazuzu, and it's not the Planar Shepherd or Cancer Mage, but I'd argue it's about as bad as, say, the Truenamer.

Karoht

2011-05-17, 09:10 AM

Sure! Poverty is a virtue in a couple Buddhist sects, for most Christian mendicant monks, and in the monasteries where vows of poverty are actually practiced. You know, the original source that they shamelessly lifted almost the entire set of vows from? As well as a lot of the black and white morality behind them? This is a world where virtue gives you wings, where faith places holy fire in your hands, where right action is the realm of actual angels and actual gods. You know, a game with Clerics? Who can worship ideas? And get game-cracking power?

So I would say that getting MOAR HOLYIES is probably supposed to make you MOAR BIG && STROANG.

Sure. If thats what you think when you read the feat title and not the description or restrictions, moar powahr to you.

Doc Roc

2011-05-17, 09:13 AM

Sure. If thats what you think when you read the feat title and not the description or restrictions, moar powahr to you.

I read both. I read all your posts. I disagree with you. Treating me like I'm illiterate isn't going to make your arguments more compelling, and man but could they use that buff.

Taelas

2011-05-17, 10:23 AM

Voluntary Poverty comes with downsides NOT obvious to everyone? You lost me. It's not like the feat hides it's flaws somewhere, or has tricky wording. If someone falls into this 'trap' it's a reading fail on the part of the player or DM. Much like selecting that +hit from INT feat if you're a strength based fighter.

It has been expounded upon repeatedly. The feat gives you many bonuses and a lot of extra feats. Many new players would think "That's great! Look at all the free stuff I get! And I don't even need gear!"

Then they play with it and realize that it completely cripples their character the first time they encounter an obstacle which does not have a direct answer in the feat's bonuses (such as flying encounters). This is not mentioned anywhere in the feat, and it is not at all obvious simply because of the word 'poverty'.

It is a trap.

Doc Roc

2011-05-17, 10:35 AM

It is a trap.

It's a trap. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4) Thank you, Szar, and Admiral, for being more eloquent than I could.

Lord_Gareth

2011-05-17, 10:38 AM

To add another point to this, why should Vow of Poverty be worth less than the other Vows, which don't provide half-bad benefits for what you give up (mind, most of 'em still suck, but that's as feats, not as trades)?

Eldan

2011-05-17, 12:47 PM

Plus, the other Vows include mostly roleplay restrictions.

Talya

2011-05-17, 12:49 PM

Plus, the other Vows include mostly roleplay restrictions.

Chastity and such, Sure.

Peace and Nonviolence, not so much.

PollyOliver

2011-05-17, 12:54 PM

Chastity and such, Sure.

Peace and Nonviolence, not so much.

Ugh, do not even get me started on vow of chastity. It is, in fact, my single most hated thing in all of BoED, even above the ridiculous ravages section, and probably my most hated thing in all of 3.5. Note that if a character "breaks" the vow by being raped via magical compulsion, they have to atone. Ugh.

Talya

2011-05-17, 01:08 PM

Ugh, do not even get me started on vow of chastity. It is, in fact, my single most hated thing in all of BoED, even above the ridiculous ravages section, and probably my most hated thing in all of 3.5. Note that if a character "breaks" the vow by being raped via magical compulsion, they have to atone. Ugh.

In addition, I take issue to Chastity being considered virtuous, but at least it comes by that honestly.

ShriekingDrake

2011-05-17, 01:18 PM

Chastity and such, Sure.

Peace and Nonviolence, not so much.

(Bolding mine.) That's the truth. These have a MUCH greater effect on the rest of the party then Vow of Poverty. They can be much harder to fit into a typical campaign. They offer fewer benefits, but the drawbacks are also clearer than those in Vow of Poverty.

PollyOliver

2011-05-17, 01:19 PM

In addition, I take issue to Chastity being considered virtuous, but at least it comes by that honestly.

Yeah, I'm not sure that the vows of chastity and abstinence are really all that virtuous. Peace and nonviolence? Sure. Stigmata--i.e., accepting pain unto yourself to heal the wounds of other? A little masochistic given the imbalance of the damage you take in return, but sure, also virtuous. Poverty--yeah, because that self-deprivation leads to other having more.

But what's really virtuous about denying yourself sex and beer? I don't think a sheer demonstration of willpower in the name of virtuousness really means all that much, personally (I'm sure some people do). Unless it means leaving more for the rest of us.... :smallwink:

(Though honestly, I understand that this is also a real world thing. But I also think the idea, especially in the case of chastity, stems from an unhealthy and attitude about sex in the first place, especially when it comes to women.)

Talya

2011-05-17, 01:29 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure that the vows of chastity and abstinence are really all that virtuous. Peace and nonviolence? Sure. Stigmata--i.e., accepting pain unto yourself to heal the wounds of other? A little masochistic given the imbalance of the damage you take in return, but sure, also virtuous. Poverty--yeah, because that self-deprivation leads to other having more.

But what's really virtuous about denying yourself sex and beer? I don't think a sheer demonstration of willpower in the name of virtuousness really means all that much, personally (I'm sure some people do). Unless it means leaving more for the rest of us.... :smallwink:

(Though honestly, I understand that this is also a real world thing. But I also think the idea, especially in the case of chastity, stems from an unhealthy and attitude about sex in the first place, especially when it comes to women.)

Agreed, on all counts.

Fluffwise, I prefer VOP on a nature-focused character. (Druid or Fist of the Forest or similar). It ...fits better. Those same characters would be baffled by a vow of Chastity. There's nothing unnatural about sex, by any stretch of the imagination.

Doc Roc

2011-05-17, 01:57 PM

Agreed, on all counts.

Fluffwise, I prefer VOP on a nature-focused character. (Druid or Fist of the Forest or similar). It ...fits better. Those same characters would be baffled by a vow of Chastity. There's nothing unnatural about sex, by any stretch of the imagination.

I think it all devolves from the idea that devotion is demonstrated by the abrasion or annihilation of anything that represents an interest in the self.

PollyOliver

2011-05-17, 02:06 PM

I think it all devolves from the idea that devotion is demonstrated by the abrasion or annihilation of anything that represents an interest in the self.

I agree in that I think some of it stems from that. I completely disagree with the actual sentiment, but I don't think I can adequately explain why without getting into a discussion of real-world religion that would probably be inappropriate to the forum.

Doc Roc

2011-05-17, 02:33 PM

I agree in that I think some of it stems from that. I completely disagree with the actual sentiment, but I don't think I can adequately explain why without getting into a discussion of real-world religion that would probably be inappropriate to the forum.

The sentiment is, however, axiomatic in most fantasy verses.

Taelas

2011-05-17, 02:40 PM

Agreed, on all counts.

Fluffwise, I prefer VOP on a nature-focused character. (Druid or Fist of the Forest or similar). It ...fits better. Those same characters would be baffled by a vow of Chastity. There's nothing unnatural about sex, by any stretch of the imagination.

There's nothing 'natural' about being Exalted, either. Not really sure why you bring that up.

Talya

2011-05-17, 03:21 PM

There's nothing 'natural' about being Exalted, either. Not really sure why you bring that up.

Vow of Poverty actually fits, thematically, with a wilderness-sort living at one with nature, perhaps more than it does with any other archetype. Vow of Chastity does not fit that same archetype at all.

Taelas

2011-05-17, 04:02 PM

Vow of Poverty actually fits, thematically, with a wilderness-sort living at one with nature, perhaps more than it does with any other archetype. Vow of Chastity does not fit that same archetype at all.

I disagree. The poverty aspect fits, but the Exalted part does not -- not thematically, anyway. It isn't against the concept, but it doesn't support it either.

Graytemplar

2011-07-12, 07:44 AM

i apologize if this is just a repeat of what someone else has said, but have u considered vow of poverty in conjunction with other vows, for example, i have a goatfolk tattooed (branded?) monk with vow of poverty, vow of nonviolence and vow of peace, I can only do subdual damage to enemies who are not immune to nonlethal damage, unless i have defeated them once before. My ac is 38 ive got constant circle vs evil centered on me, constant calme emotions centered on me, every attack i make does 4d6 holy damage, and if something evil so much as touches me, its dex is damaged as golden ice creeps along its skin

the drawbacks are laughable as well, being a tattooed monk eliminates my need for expensive robes or armor, i do more damage with my fists than i would with a +5 bastard sword of flame, and i've worked something out with my dm/ deity(phieran)to carry a bag of holding whose sole function is to teleport items within to a twin bag in a church of phieran/orphanage

Talya

2011-07-12, 07:58 AM

I am genuinely curious ... how in baator did you end up selecting this thread on VOP to post in? I mean, it's been two months since the last post here, and an average of three new VOP threads are made every week... how'd you choose this thread over all the others in your search for a VOP thread to post in?

Dragonsoul

2011-07-12, 12:28 PM

Well Since this thread is here...

VoP/Forsaker actually Synerges Pretty well, Now for giving up Magic items you get- Note you also have to give up buffs cast on you as you must resit them and you will as you become pretty much immune to magic:smalltongue:
-AC +15, then Con to AC (Forsaker says a Natural Armor bonus, I'm not sure of the stacking rules here TBH, the NA from VoP is +2 )
- +5 Enhancement to hit, Weapon are good aligned
-A total of +20 to stas +8/+6/+4/+2 Enchancement, +10 Inherent (Spread as you wish- Remember max +5 to a stat)
-+3 To all saves,
-DR 11/+5 or DR 10/Evil (Note the Forsaker has to smash up magic weapons to get the DR 11
-Fast Healing 3(50 HP a day), Heal 1 hp an Hour.
-Energy Resist 15, Freedom of Movement, True Seeing
The big one- Forsaker gets a SR 20 that stakes with an other SR you might have, go Drow and grap the Exalted feat that boosts SR(And you will because you'll have Exalted Feats to burn) and at level 20 you have SR 55.. which is frankly insane, Dip Paladin 2 and you could end up with saves in the high 30's to go with it making you as close to untouchable by Magic as is Possible for Non-Casters to be.....

Of Course its still Probably not worth it as you still give up your WBL but its closer and if there is some EX way to get Flying-that would be great (Or indeed some way to go get SR-then you could just go Raptoran/Dragonborn)

Andorax

2011-07-12, 03:52 PM

One of the concepts I've been interested in trying out is VoP on a Psion/Psion Uncarnate. Many of the holes in VoP can be shored up with good power selection (and even RAW psions are safe...no spellbook, no components whatsoever).

What makes it more interesting, though, is with no material goods, you are able to utilize and stick with full incorporeality without leaving behind piles of goods that need picked up on later.

Honestly, I'd happily play this with no modification, or at the least, with the addition of a few more Exalted feats to choose from.

I think the thing that's missed in the discusison (no surprise here) is that VoP is actually fairly well thought out and designed, it's just suffering from trying to be a one-stop solution to a vast array of different problems.

Short of creating a "melee-combat flavored VoP", a "stealth flavored VoP", a "casty flavored VoP", and so on and so forth (after all, the gear of these characters varies greatly), you're never going to cover all the bases that you COULD cover with gear. So instead, VoP covers the core essentials most adventurers need, and covers them rather well.

I've seen several people vehemently state that VoP makes characters anywhere from "1 tier lower" to "NPC grade" to "absolutely unplayable sponges on their parties". I just don't see it...it imposes some restrictions, creates some obstacles. In some situations, you'll be weaker...in others stronger. A trade-off.

Besides, as with MANY of the options introduced in BoED, they're going to have significant effects on the campaign in question. BoED isn't MEANT to be dropped into just any campaign with just any group, and much of the text written there goes on about how campaigns need to take into account a desire to utilize BoED material.

Oddly enough, with the number of people who have come in on the side of "VoP needs improved", I've seen very few actual proposals for how to do it.

Perhaps a separate thread with a link back here and a proposed list of additional Exalted feats (which seems to be generally agreed to be either a partial, or full, solution). Having some of them as part of a VoP-specific tree (with VoP as a pre-requisite) can target specific weak points in the VoP along the way.

For starters...what would happen if we took some of the conceptual ideas behind the Forsaker from 3.0 MotW, applied it to the destruction of EVIL items (which it would be wrong to sell just to help orphans out) and used it as a way to boost VoP abilities...in some manner...and made that into an Exalted feat with VoP as a pre-req?

Another option would be to open up the feat list for VoP characters to specific feats above and beyond the Exalted list. This wouldn't be a huge laundry list, just some particular ones that help aleviate some of the issues (Close-Quarters Fighting comes to mind).

Graytemplar

2011-07-12, 04:04 PM

Divide by Zero

2011-07-12, 08:13 PM

I think the thing that's missed in the discusison (no surprise here) is that VoP is actually fairly well thought out and designed, it's just suffering from trying to be a one-stop solution to a vast array of different problems.

No, the problem with VoP is that it doesn't really account for all of the things that magic items actually do, and tries to compensate for them by just adding more plusses to everything. If it were well thought out and designed, it would actually take into account that vast array of different problems.

Captain Caveman

2011-07-12, 08:38 PM

I think we are all ignoring the two greatest reasons for why in the world you would take VoP.

Reason number 1.
You will never ever be asked to write and keep up with loot like some kind of mid evil accountant for your party because no one wants to write down that you picked up a diary and a few dozen baubles.

Reason number 2

DM says "alright everyone, needs to roll up a character of 9th level by next week." About a week later you realize oh man I didn't make a character... uhhh it's a monk/swordsage with VoP... DONE. That's right VoP just makes making a character quick and easy.

Jack_Simth

2011-07-12, 08:39 PM

No, the problem with VoP is that it doesn't really account for all of the things that magic items actually do, and tries to compensate for them by just adding more plusses to everything. If it were well thought out and designed, it would actually take into account that vast array of different problems.The normal ones being... what, almost everything on the List of Necessary Magical Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851) (warning: Dead thread)?

Yeah. Wouldn't it be great (for VoP characters) if there were simply a big listing of Exalted feats that would do that? Of course, it would have the side-effect of making the feat list for every VoP character who's trying to be optimal almost identical....

Andorax

2011-07-13, 11:09 AM

The normal ones being... what, almost everything on the List of Necessary Magical Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851) (warning: Dead thread)?

Yeah. Wouldn't it be great (for VoP characters) if there were simply a big listing of Exalted feats that would do that? Of course, it would have the side-effect of making the feat list for every VoP character who's trying to be optimal almost identical....

Necessary in one campaign isn't necessary in another, and the original VOP does a fairly good job of covering the bases (I'm sure you and others will heartily disagree). AC, DR/ER, Stat boosts, save boosts, ability to pierce the most common DRs...yeah, I'd say those are among the most fundamental go-to abilities.

Also, as has been pointed out (and debated), the actual 'cash value' of the VoP benefits is WBL-competitive. NOWHERE NEAR as flexible, but not the complete value-as-expressed-in-GPV ripoff it's been made out to be. Adding everything else on the "necessary magic items list" would swing the pendulum the other way, going from a viable campaign choice to the must-have, go-to thing for characters not dependant on a specific and unusual piece of gear or a non-exalted concept.

Finally, I'd disagree that a series of good, VoP dependant Exalted feats would inherently result in VoP clones...what you take will depend on which needs fit your campaign, and cover the areas your particular character needs to shore up.

The VoP druid probably won't need a flight-granting feat, nor would the Raptoran, nor would the fighter in a campaign where, even at high levels, most of the fights are still conducted with feet on the ground.

The VoP Rogue would leap at the chance to get a VoP-granting teleport of some sort for chasing down those pesky arrow demons...the VoP Nomad, not so much.

Overall, I think the only changes needed to the VoP are:

1) Commonsense. Allow rough wooden holy symbols, for example. Most DMs play it this way anyways, but necessary for nit-pickers.

2) Expanded list of Exalted feats, some of which are VoP (and likely level) dependant, designed to shore up specific, identified weaknesses.

3) *possibly* putting some non-exalted, but situationally beneficial feats on the list of "additional allowed bonus feats". This could also be covered via Exalted variations of them. Close-Quarters Fighting comes to mind.

Divide by Zero

2011-07-13, 01:15 PM

Necessary in one campaign isn't necessary in another, and the original VOP does a fairly good job of covering the bases (I'm sure you and others will heartily disagree). AC, DR/ER, Stat boosts, save boosts, ability to pierce the most common DRs...yeah, I'd say those are among the most fundamental go-to abilities.
Flying enemies. Invisible enemies before level 18. Incorporeal enemies. DR/(anything besides magic or good). If your campaign has none of those things, then it is not a typical campaign.

Also, as has been pointed out (and debated), the actual 'cash value' of the VoP benefits is WBL-competitive. NOWHERE NEAR as flexible, but not the complete value-as-expressed-in-GPV ripoff it's been made out to be.
And I think you're misunderstanding people's arguments. It's not the raw GP equivalent, but rather that lack of flexibility that is its problem.

Talya

2011-07-13, 01:45 PM

Flying enemies. Invisible enemies before level 18. Incorporeal enemies. DR/(anything besides magic or good). If your campaign has none of those things, then it is not a typical campaign.

Actually, I disagree here.

1) In most campaigns i've played in, if anyone ever gained easy access to flight, it was only me (because I was playing a sorcerer and used Alter Self for that purpose.) I've played in several campaigns, all differing groups, and in none of them did the players ever expect to or attempt to gain access to flight. Flying enemies were fought at range or brought down to earth rather than them going up to meet them.
2) Invisible enemies are quite rare. However, VOP grants permanent truesight (also helps with incorporeal enemies...helps hit them, too.)
3) DR is typically defeated by doing more damage than the DR mitigates.

I'm the first one to argue VOP needs more versatility. However, i think those "list of necessary magic items" makes assumptions that those of us prone to read message boards like this one take for granted -- the vast majority of D&D players don't give more than a passing thought to optimization or the like, and most consider those static + bonuses before they think about what other things magic can do. Most people don't experiencethe power gap between fighters and "tier 1" classes. Most wizards blast, and most people amazingly seem to think the monk is a well designed class. I'm not saying I agree with them, I certainly do not. But this forum does not represent the "average" player.

Dragonsoul

2011-07-13, 02:44 PM

Lets see where VoP comes short(Referencing the List of Necessary Magic items)
Assume VoP/Forsaker <Because I'm you don't your either a)A spellcaster and for all the magic items- you can go "Hurp durp I's spellcaster!"or b) Your a monk and your doing it because the idea a small man in a patchwork robe beating up Dragons is Awesome.

Note: Forsaker is a Prestige class from Masters of the Wild that forswears magic items in return for major stat boosts and stackable SR, as well as other benefits
Flight-Problematic, it can be gotten from class/racial features (Wildshape Ranger Springs to mind but then Raptoran, or Dragonborn is a possiblity) but it's defiantly a major weakness of VoP.
Mind Blank: You don't get it, but you do have bonus to Will saves and Forsaker gets Slippery Mind at level 6 as well as an Undetectable alignment, but quite frankly immunity is such a ludicrously expensive item that not all Characters will get it:smallsigh: but yeah I got nothin'
Stun/Daze/Fear:Again your going to have to rely on your Will saves, but they will be very high.
True Seeing: Level 20
Miss Chances+Tactical Teleportion: If you have Wild Shape, you can get Celestial Wild Shape and Shift into a Blink Dog.But other than that...
Immunity to Death effects/Energy Drain/Negative Levels: Fort Saves, they will be high.... but its far from ideal.
Freedom of Movement: Level 17
Storage Space: :smalltongue:

Most of your Bases do get covered by VoP but your left with a few weaknesses, which in turn can be covered by class features.
But Remember your a member of a party your Wizard can Dispel any effects of you, and you can't expect do be a "Do everything".

In the end its not a broken class in either direction, its not for every class concept but its not an utterly crippling defect either and lets you do some pretty unique things-SR50 Anyone?

Andorax

2011-07-13, 03:44 PM

Somehow, my earlier reply was eaten.

Flying enemies. Invisible enemies before level 18. Incorporeal enemies. DR/(anything besides magic or good). If your campaign has none of those things, then it is not a typical campaign.

Must the VoP character, regardless of class, always be able to take down all of the above types of foe? Is a wal-mart character going to always be able to deal with all of these types of foes all the time?

Invisible: Hath not the wizard glitterdust or the druid faerie fire? Can the VoP character not guess a square and suck up a miss chance? Short of party-wide true seeing, displacement does the same thing to most equipped characters, does it not?

Incorporeal: Assuming a non-caster VoP, you've got me there. I'm sure ghost touch is the first thing every good wal-mart character puts on their +1 weapons.

DR: Is the wal-mart character always equipped to handle every DR, and can that DR not be overcome by sheer force if necessary? I thought that was one of the key reasons why DR values were dramatically lowered in 3.5 (DR 50/+3 Iron Golems, anyone?)

I've fired up another thread in homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207221) on the topic of adding exalted feats to the list, and some non-exalted feats permitted as bonus VoP feats, and I'd love your feedback on the subject.

The way I see it, the "list of necessary magic items" fall short in one regard is that it insists on "immunity or nothing". VoP gives good save and AC boosts, but the LoNMI says that you need immunity to certain categories of effects (really good fort and will saves don't cut it) and miss chances.

Generally speaking, LoNMI falls into three categories:

1) Covered, but slow in coming
Freedom of movement and True seeing.

2) Immunity or nothing
stuns, dazes, death effects, negative levels, mind control (all of which usually have a save, and usually can have that save improved by VoP and resultant feats, especially if you're willing to take additional vows).

3) Would be nice/rely on other party members
Flight, tactical teleport, extradimensional storage. Things I touch on in my proposed feat-based solution.

In my experience, VoP covers the most commonly taken magical boosts for any character 5th or higher...ability boosts, save boosts, AC boosts, attack boosts, DR and ER. It misses other areas, but not as badly as some have implied.

And yes, I openly acknowledged that it's the flexibility that's the problem...which is why the above-linked additional thread is listed, and why I'd love to hear from you there as well.

MeeposFire

2011-07-13, 03:51 PM

I just add incarnum soulmelds and chakra binds to the bonus feat list which adds a bunch of nifty item like abilities to choose from. Need to fly? We have feats for that now. Need immunities? We have a few.

Talya

2011-07-13, 06:34 PM

Invisible: Hath not the wizard glitterdust or the druid faerie fire? Can the VoP character not guess a square and suck up a miss chance? Short of party-wide true seeing, displacement does the same thing to most equipped characters, does it not?

Incorporeal: Assuming a non-caster VoP, you've got me there. I'm sure ghost touch is the first thing every good wal-mart character puts on their +1 weapons.

VOP characters have both trueseeing and magic weaponry at all times.

Sucrose

2011-07-13, 06:36 PM

VOP characters have both trueseeing and magic weaponry at all times.

Even at times before level 10? An ability gained far too late is scarcely better than an ability not gained at all.

Talya

2011-07-13, 06:45 PM

Even at times before level 10? An ability gained far too late is scarcely better than an ability not gained at all.

Magic weaponry they get at 4. Trueseeing they don't get until 18, you're right.

Andorax

2011-07-14, 03:24 PM

Generally speaking, I don't see very many full parties decked out in true seeing earlier than around 18 anyways, but that may just be the sort of groups I tend to game with.

Any thoughts about these proposed solutions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207221)?

Acanous

2011-08-30, 05:54 PM

on Vows in the Real World:
I agree that Chastity in itself shouldn't be considered exalted, but putting "Pursuit of sex" below other things, like say, helping out other people, THAT is a [Good] thing to do.

Frankly, most vows are becomming outdated. Marriage in itself is falling by the wayside. Women don't need a man to take care of them anymore (Well, some of them don't, anyhow), and men don't need a woman to take care of the kids. (Again, there's still some that do)

As we become more informed and equal, the older, socially enforced vows and stigmas against sex will be eroded. We can expedite this by having safe, consentual sex and treating the subject with maturity.

On Vow of Poverty in D&D: It is a legitimate feat choice for a very few, mostly Fist of the Forest Monk/Barbarian types. Some Druids (Because the bonus applies while wild shaped) but is a very bad option for... anyone else.
Some of this can be mitigated by house-ruling the bonus feats into "Any feat you could qualify for" instead of "Exalted Feat" which are *Only* found in the one book.

For low levels, VoP can help a great deal. For High level, it's good enough that you can contribute. VoP really seems to fail in the 10-15 bracket, but there's good news! You can retrain out of the feat before breaking it (It says you can't take another feat if the vow has been broken), then break the vow of poverty and get yourself geared for the tier.

Newt

2011-12-18, 02:12 PM

on Vows in the Real World:
I agree that Chastity in itself shouldn't be considered exalted, but putting "Pursuit of sex" below other things, like say, helping out other people, THAT is a [Good] thing to do.

Frankly, most vows are becomming outdated. Marriage in itself is falling by the wayside. Women don't need a man to take care of them anymore (Well, some of them don't, anyhow), and men don't need a woman to take care of the kids. (Again, there's still some that do)

As we become more informed and equal, the older, socially enforced vows and stigmas against sex will be eroded. We can expedite this by having safe, consentual sex and treating the subject with maturity.

Everyone needs someone to take care of them, or at least get their stupid references. As to the kids part, if there's a divorce then the female gets the kids, men get told to shove it. True story, world wide. I'd also like to point out that conscription, a power usable by all governments world wide, will soon apply to females. Before they were exempt in Western countries, but hey, violence against women is okay. Equal.. Equal doesn't exist, never will exist. It's funny though, find a feminist from way back, one of the old crew. They'll look at the world they created and weep. Why open a door for a lass when you're equals? Why give up your seat? "Equality bitch, stfu and stand". Heard that on a train, half a mind to throw the guy off of it, but you know, legal reasons tell me that's a bad idea especially since the train was moving at the time. Course, it's not equality if females get maternity leave, but they want it. :P

{Scrubbed}

Newt

2011-12-18, 02:13 PM

{Scrubbed}

On topic:

VoP is so drastically underpowered that it's only viable in certain situations and with certain character concepts. Everyone agrees on that they just state it differently. Saying "It's fine in this situation so it doesn't need a rewrite" is saying the same thing, you're just putting a spin on it. Politicians do that and who likes those rats? Which is probably an insult to rats.

Also technically a monastery based NPC only feature given how if your plan for getting past any item based opponent (ethereal, incorpereal, invisible, flying, etc, et al) involves forcing the wizard to buff you then you've exerted your will over another which has to break an exalted rule somewhere. Note that if that's your plan then no point lying to yourself, you know the vow is underpowered and you know that your party needs to babysit you. If they're okay with that then go ahead, but make sure to check first.

There, summation of sixteen pages worth of comments.

Little Brother

2011-12-18, 02:30 PM

Holy necrobump, Batman!

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-18, 09:09 PM

Everyone needs someone to take care of them, or at least get their stupid references. As to the kids part, if there's a divorce then the female gets the kids, men get told to shove it. True story, world wide. I'd also like to point out that conscription, a power usable by all governments world wide, will soon apply to females. Before they were exempt in Western countries, but hey, violence against women is okay. Equal.. Equal doesn't exist, never will exist. It's funny though, find a feminist from way back, one of the old crew. They'll look at the world they created and weep. Why open a door for a lass when you're equals? Why give up your seat? "Equality bitch, stfu and stand". Heard that on a train, half a mind to throw the guy off of it, but you know, legal reasons tell me that's a bad idea especially since the train was moving at the time. Course, it's not equality if females get maternity leave, but they want it. :P

{Scrubbed}

Why should you open a door for a girl any more than you should for a guy? Maternity leave is like sick days. Grammar mistakes happen.

Zeb The Troll

2011-12-19, 02:15 AM

As to the kids part, if there's a divorce then the female gets the kids, men get told to shove it. True story, world wide.Or, you know, not. I was given custody of my daughter in a divorce that happened 22 years ago and not because I had to prove the mother was unfit. I gave a better case than she did, I got custody. It's only gotten easier for men since then. Paperwork now reads "custodial parent" instead of "mother" for example.

Course, it's not equality if females get maternity leave, but they want it. :PI also got family leave when my son was born a little over two years ago. I am legally allowed to take as much time off as she does. The trouble is that it's all unpaid. Then again, so is hers. The only stipulation is that the new parent can't lose their job or tenure/seniority because of taking family medical leave.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}So does actually presenting factual information instead misunderstood half truths.