Vow of Poverty

[Jallorn]

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


Sorry, I'm completely against VoP fixes. VoP is not supposed to be 'I don't need gear', it's 'I really think material possessions weaken me spiritually and I don't suck so much despite of it'.

Personally, I think that fluff and crunch are moderately separated, therefore, one doesn't need to suck to play the concept. As it is, one of the reasons the Monk sucks is because he can't use a lot of his class features with the magic items the other classes get. Vow of Poverty does the same thing, and it doesn't supply sufficient advantages to offset the disadvantage.

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.

Also, there's a degree of predictability to VoP that doesn't apply to magic items, a person can swap out items, but VoP gives the same specific bonus no matter what. There is a loss of vulnerability to certain exploits, most of which are so rarely employed by the DM that they aren't worth worrying about (like a Wizard's spellbook), in exchange for some static, predictable bonuses.

[Private-Prinny]

What part of changing the mechanical effects of Vow of Poverty changes the "I think gear weakens me spiritually" flavor of the feat, specifically? Defining the argument seems like a good place to start.

[Legend]

{{scrubbed}}

[Jallorn]

{{scrubbed}}

He said to set up a thread, and I don't mind other people chiming in, so...

[Incanur]

Vow of Poverty doesn't suck... for druids. (Think it still sucks? Read Exalted Wild Shape in conjunction with the blink dog entry.) If it works for a tier 1 class, that's good enough for me. :smallcool:

[Jallorn]

Vow of Poverty doesn't suck... for druids. (Think it still sucks? Read Exalted Wild Shape in conjunction with the blink dog entry.) If it works for a tier 1 class, that's good enough for me. :smallcool:

Except when you take into account Wands and Wilding Clasps. Then it does suck. There is so much versatility Wands and Scrolls provide that you lose with VoP. And then Wilding Clasps just do everything that Vow of Poverty does for Druids.

[Kylarra]

It's not that VoP doesn't suck for druids, they're just good enough to survive in spite of it.

[John Cribati]

A Wizard who takes Vow of Poverty is unable to own a spellbook.

A feat that forces a character to give up the entire backbone of its class is broken, and not in the good way.

[Jack_Simth]

Vow of Poverty doesn't suck... for druids. (Think it still sucks? Read Exalted Wild Shape in conjunction with the blink dog entry.) If it works for a tier 1 class, that's good enough for me. :smallcool:Warning: Exactly as written, with the 3.5 WotC Vow of Poverty, a Druid can't use a Divine Focus if the Druid has the Vow of Poverty, even though the focus costs "-" and would benefit the orphans not one iota if it were sold and the money given to them. This cuts out a large number of spells.... but the Druid remains a strong class. Of course, most of that is the Druid's relative lack of equipment dependency, and the Druid's ability to get most of the "Must-have" stuff from spells and Wildshape (and occasionally feats).

The biggest problem with the 3.5 Vow of Poverty as-written is the lack of the 'mandatory special abilities' that one would normally pick up from equipment - Flight, Teleportation, protection from stat drain and level drain, protection from grappling, and so on. Characters that can get those from other methods (Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Favored Souls... most tier 1 and tier 2 classes, really) are only moderately inconvenienced by the D&D 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds Vow of Poverty (well, if you do some minor thematic tweaks, like permitting a Vow of Poverty character to have a Divine Focus, to use doorknobs, and so on - assorted minor stupid stuff, really - and allow Atonement for forced violations (enchanted, tricked, and so on)).

So the solution isn't really to make any major changes to the Vow of Poverty... it's to make Exalted feats that can fill in for the 'mandatory special abilities' that one would normally get through equipment.

[Tvtyrant]

There are plenty of classes that can work around VoP, like Binders and Totemists, but they don't really get that much out of it. A totemist built around maxing out natural attacks has some advantages because it gets bonuses to all of them, but other then they don't get much.

One thing it could be worth it for is Spellwarp Sniper Warmages, since it gives them an attack bonus on their rays, both to hit and to damage. This is an interesting benefit, but I would have to play around with it to see if it is worth it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There are plenty of classes that can work around VoP, like Binders and Totemists, but they don't really get that much out of it. A totemist built around maxing out natural attacks has some advantages because it gets bonuses to all of them, but other then they don't get much.

Does a Totemist carry a totem?

[Veyr]

My opinion is that Vow of Poverty is hideously designed and under no circumstances should it be allowed. Anyone interested in it on a fluff/conceptual level should work out a homebrew solution with their DM.

[Tvtyrant]

Does a Totemist carry a totem?

No, it binds it. And it states "material possessions" which they are not.

[Zaq]

Just brainstorming, but allowing Devotion feats as bonus Exalted feats (and giving them more times per day for the VoP character) would be . . . well, stopgap, at least. Animal Devotion gives flight, which is always the 500 lb. gorilla, and there are plenty of others that aren't bad either, especially if you're not using real feat slots on 'em. Does it fix VoP? Of course not. But it's a start, I think.

[Thurbane]

My 2 cents on VoP? Yes, the bonuses it gives are pretty underwhleming compared to appropriate WBL...but IMHO, it should be. As above, I don't look on VoP as "Imma gonna play exalted so I can be as good as everyone else and not risk getting gear sundered or stolen", it should be "I willingly forego the temptation of material wealth, even if it means I must fight harder to compensate!".

Side Question: has anyone ever looked into a VoP Forsaker build?

[Kylarra]

Just brainstorming, but allowing Devotion feats as bonus Exalted feats (and giving them more times per day for the VoP character) would be . . . well, stopgap, at least. Animal Devotion gives flight, which is always the 500 lb. gorilla, and there are plenty of others that aren't bad either, especially if you're not using real feat slots on 'em. Does it fix VoP? Of course not. But it's a start, I think.Huh, if I were running 3.X again, that would be an interesting fix-ish. Maybe some sort of exalted extra turning that only fuels devotion feats as well.

[Jallorn]

My 2 cents on VoP? Yes, the bonuses it gives are pretty underwhleming compared to appropriate WBL...but IMHO, it should be. As above, I don't look on VoP as "Imma gonna play exalted so I can be as good as everyone else and not risk getting gear sundered or stolen", it should be "I willingly forego the temptation of material wealth, even if it means I must fight harder to compensate!".

Side Question: has anyone ever looked into a VoP Forsaker build?

And this is exactly the kind of thinking that I started this thread to dispute. The idea that a player should suffer because they want to follow a specific concept is horrible, and frankly, stupid, though usually because it's not thought out. It seems tempting to say, "Well, the PC shouldn't get something for nothing," but in fact, he isn't, he is giving up versatility, and he's getting approximately (in theory) what all the other PCs already have. It's never fun to be less useful than your teammates, so this argument, that the feat shouldn't be equal to what is given up, is ludicrous, because the idea of a feat is to add to your character, not remove. That would be a flaw. If a player wants to "willingly forgo," and wants to be weaker, that's easy enough to do, all he has to say is that he's never going to use a certain advantage. However, the feat shouldn't, as a rule, make your character weaker.

[Thurbane]

And this is exactly the kind of thinking that I started this thread to dispute. The idea that a player should suffer because they want to follow a specific concept is horrible, and frankly, stupid, though usually because it's not thought out. It seems tempting to say, "Well, the PC shouldn't get something for nothing," but in fact, he isn't, he is giving up versatility, and he's getting approximately (in theory) what all the other PCs already have. It's never fun to be less useful than your teammates, so this argument, that the feat shouldn't be equal to what is given up, is ludicrous, because the idea of a feat is to add to your character, not remove. That would be a flaw. If a player wants to "willingly forgo," and wants to be weaker, that's easy enough to do, all he has to say is that he's never going to use a certain advantage. However, the feat shouldn't, as a rule, make your character weaker.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then - I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion of play and game style.

If you believe that voluntarily forsaking a huge chunk of what defines a character's power and versatility in the 3.5 system (i.e. magical gear) should leave you as basically "same but different" to other characters that have not gone down this path, then we have a very basic stylistic disagreement.

FWIW, that's one aspect of 3.5 that I don't much like - the reliance on magical gear, that wasn't inherent to any similar degree in earlier editions of the game. Having said that, I've made peace with it, and accept it as inherent to the system.

As always, my mantra is "whatever works at your table". If you find that VoP works better for your group by tweaking it, then I say go for it, with gusto! :smallsmile:

[danzibr]

[...] However, the feat shouldn't, as a rule, make your character weaker.

Yeah, you blow 2 feats to get VoP. I believe VoP was *intended* by WotC to replace gear. That is, the fluff and crunch are supposed to line up. Right now they don't.

[Jallorn]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then - I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion of play and game style.

If you believe that voluntarily forsaking a huge chunk of what defines a character's power and versatility in the 3.5 system (i.e. magical gear) should leave you as basically "same but different" to other characters that have not gone down this path, then we have a very basic stylistic disagreement.

FWIW, that's one aspect of 3.5 that I don't much like - the reliance on magical gear, that wasn't inherent to any similar degree in earlier editions of the game. Having said that, I've made peace with it, and accept it as inherent to the system.

As always, my mantra is "whatever works at your table". If you find that VoP works better for your group by tweaking it, then I say go for it, with gusto! :smallsmile:

I don't think that the dependency on magic items is necessarily good either, but it's there, and it can't be ignored. My point was more that a voluntary nerf should be just that, voluntary. The rules should be crafted, at least within itself, as best as possible to be balanced. That doesn't mean that all feats should be as useful for one character as for any other, nor does it mean that all classes should be the same (as long as you recognize that difference, I think it's good to have variety(4e's same but different policy is not something I'm a huge fan of, although the system isn't horrible)). However, VoP doesn't work within itself, because it's not even. You see my argument as, "same but different," and I would say that it's more, "different but equal."

[Hirax]

I like Zaq's idea of allowing devotion feats to be taken as exalted feats. Really, more and better exalted feats would go a long way toward alleviating complaints, you just need to go through all the splatbooks and selectively place the exalted tag next to appropriate feats.

Fiating spellbooks being ok and other little harmless class appropriate tweaks is fine, I've always found it kind of silly that people make such an issue of that. If you want to complain about writing and editing not fleshing things out enough, the spellsage, and to a lesser extent unarmed swordsage.

[Jallorn]

As far as Fixes, I like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140428&) one.

[Karoht]

VoP + Monk was actually a very fun and thematic play, speaking from experience. But it was very much my cup of tea, and I happened to play in a very very good campaign where the two fit together very well. I'd never gone 15 levels straight Monk, it was interesting. Definately a learning experience as well.

[Thurbane]

Really, more and better exalted feats would go a long way toward alleviating complaints, you just need to go through all the splatbooks and selectively place the exalted tag next to appropriate feats.

Now this, I (mostly) agree with. The lack of Exalted feats, and how underwhelming many (most?) of them are is definitely an issue.

[TOZ]

Definately a learning experience as well.

I hear you brother. I learned a lot about monks and high level play in my game as well.

[Doc Roc]

VoP is my single least favorite feat in the game. I like it less than I like One With Nothing. I'd rather play two matches with an EDH deck consisting of nothing but relentless rats, one with nothing, swamps, and skittles as my general than spend another fifteen minutes arguing about one of the most boneheaded pieces of crap in the entire system.

So let's keep this quick:

Fluff and crunch do not match.
Many demons and devils are unassailable if you take VoP.
Many classes break under VoP without house rules.
Exalted feats are terrible, and scarce.
Players love the idea, and then get badly burned.
It causes arguments about how virtue should lead to suck.

Virtue. Should lead. To suck. Because that's Shinken's position, as far as I can see.

[Mystic Muse]

Many demons and devils are unassailable if you take VoP.

This is a really good reason that VoP needs changed from a Fluff standpoint. If one of your main enemies is totally unassailable because of something you're doing to be a better person, something is wrong.

[Doc Roc]

This is a really good reason that VoP needs changed from a Fluff standpoint. If one of your main enemies is totally unassailable because of something you're doing to be a better person, something is wrong.

Ever try catching up to two arrow demons with VoP? While they merrily teleporting around, kiting you to death?

[arguskos]

Ever try catching up to two arrow demons with VoP? While they merrily teleporting around, kiting you to death?
To be fair, that can be hard for normal characters anyways. :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

Ever try catching up to two arrow demons with VoP? While they merrily teleporting around, kiting you to death?

No. For three very good reasons.
1. I've been in very few 3.5 games. Only one in real life.
2. I've never fought arrow demons.
3. I've never used VoP.:smalltongue:

[Doc Roc]

To be fair, that can be hard for normal characters anyways. :smalltongue:

Absolutely true! The first person to tell me that a VoP wizard doesn't have this problem will get a negative cookie. A hunger geist, I suppose.



No. For three very good reasons.
1. I've been in very few 3.5 games. Only one in real life.
2. I've never fought arrow demons.
3. I've never used VoP.:smalltongue:

So uh, yeah. I used to think monks were the best, that VoP was awesome, and that it was good to ban conjuration and transmutation for a focused enchanter. If there is a boneheaded misconception about 3.x, I've held it.

[arguskos]

Absolutely true! The first person to tell me that a VoP wizard doesn't have this problem will get a negative cookie. A hunger geist, I suppose.
That sounds suspiciously like an issue with arrow demons being hax than it is with VoP. Better to just use a generic flying thing as your example (note that I totally agree with you about VoP, nice idea terrible terrible execution and needs to be lit on fire).

[shadow_archmagi]

Honestly, the games I run are not high OP enough that players take full advantage of magical gear (Also, we tend to level up at double or triple the normal rate, but don't get triple loot, so we're sort of on the poor side by default) so VoP never really created much conflict.

That said, claiming a character should miss out because he's taking a different path seems like a bad path of reasoning to me. Otherwise you might as well just say things like "Well, of course you're not as good as the druid! You chose to give up the best option when you decided to play a not druid!"

[Doc Roc]

That sounds suspiciously like an issue with arrow demons being hax than it is with VoP. Better to just use a generic flying thing as your example (note that I totally agree with you about VoP, nice idea terrible terrible execution and needs to be lit on fire).

Pit Fiends, Cornugons, and Erinyes all fly. And devils are somewhat weaker, on average, than tanari in the srd.

[arguskos]

Pit Fiends, Cornugons, and Erinyes all fly.
There we go! Let us bitch about how Cornugons totally laugh at VoP users (and I mean totally in all possible ways).

Also, I like Cornugons so much.

[Doc Roc]

There we go! Let us bitch about how Cornugons totally laugh at VoP users (and I mean totally in all possible ways).

Also, I like Cornugons so much.

Cornugons are an old favorite of mine, and I actually had no idea they had a fly speed until I just checked. Oh Planescape: Torment.... At least you got KotOR2 as a sequel.

For demons:
Vrocks, Nalfies, Balors, Succubus, Quasit.

The Nalfie in particular has call lightning as an at will. Is it just me or is the Nalfie's smite free of an action cost?

[Telonius]

Angel-wings around level 10 or so would go a long way to alleviate the mobility concern. A minor re-write to allow the character to carry a wooden Holy Symbol would be sensible for both fluff and crunch. (Seriously, your deity wants you to not have a symbol of him/her around...?)

Another alternate system might try to model how some actual Vows of Poverty work. The person in question doesn't own anything - all of their possessions belong to their Order. The character still gives all his loot to the Order, but can requisition items back from the Order. Depending on the character's standing within the organization, they can ask for more valuable items.

[Doc Roc]

Angel-wings around level 10 or so would go a long way to alleviate the mobility concern. A minor re-write to allow the character to carry a wooden Holy Symbol would be sensible for both fluff and crunch. (Seriously, your deity wants you to not have a symbol of him/her around...?)

Another alternate system might try to model how some actual Vows of Poverty work. The person in question doesn't own anything - all of their possessions belong to their Order. The character still gives all his loot to the Order, but can requisition items back from the Order. Depending on the character's standing within the organization, they can ask for more valuable items.

I definitely agree with both of these things, but this isn't how the game works. Yet.


But who cares, to extend a meme..... After all, fighting evil is so mainstream.
VoP: Hipster Exalted.

[Thurbane]

Well, from a fluff perspective, you should probably look at why a player wants VoP in the first place. Does he truly want some crunch to support his "Resisting the lure of the material is the true path to spiritual purity" character concept, or is he looking more for a "Haha Mr. DM - even though the BBEG managed to capture us and take our gear, I am still leet and at max power!". :smalltongue:

Note: this does not mean that I endorse a DM constantly placing players in a position where they are without their gear.

[Doc Roc]

Well, from a fluff perspective, you should probably look at why a player wants VoP in the first place. Does he truly want some crunch to support his "Resisting the lure of the material is the true path to spiritual purity" character concept, or is he looking more for a "Haha Mr. DM - even though the BBEG managed to capture us and take our gear, I am still leet and at max power!". :smalltongue:

Note: this does not mean that I endorse a DM constantly placing players in a position where they are without their gear.

If a player wants to spend two feats, and abide by the strictures of Exalted in letter and spirit, I don't really care which reason he picked it up for. The idea of the matter is fulfilled.

[PollyOliver]

I think it really does need revamping to work for most characters. If you make the common sense exceptions, casters are perfectly workable with it, but they still lose a ton of versatility. I'm playing a VoP druid right now, and while power is not an issue, not having scrolls or wands to make up for the times when you flat-out fail with your spell selection makes you much less adaptable. But casters are adaptable enough anyway.

The real problem is non-casters. They need flight, they need weapon and armor enhancements that aren't just +x's, they need the versatility they'd normally get from wands (UMD) or wondrous items or potions. A high level fighter-type is pretty screwed without flight. A grappler or tripper is shut down without a way to enlarge themselves. A rogue loses what little versatility he has without items to UMD or a way to boost his hide check or go invisible.

It is simply a completely and totally non-viable tactic for almost any character who is not a caster or in wild shape all day in an even halfway optimized group. And while I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be the same as wealth by level (it's not a sacrifice if it is, and if it's not a sacrifice what's so exalted about it?), I absolutely believe that it should be a viable, reasonably close to competitive option for all classes that aren't actually focused on items.

[Talya]

I love VOP, even as written, for certain character concepts. Druid is the perfect example...I hate the idea of a druid all decked out in great magic gear...it seems at odds with the concept of a druid being at one with the natural world, etc. (Actually, this sorta makes sense that the only time i've taken this class is on a druid, and a "fist of the forest.")

Anyway, people make a few assumptions that lead to VOP being all around bad for every class, but these assumptions are not RAW. Assumptions like: "The world is a giant Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe and you can customize your gear exactly as you wish." It is my experience that this is rarely the case, even in a place like Faerun, you can't just walk into a Walmart in Waterdeep and buy a dozen wilding clasps. In order to perfectly customize your gear, you generally need crafters in your party. That's a big game changer, admittedly, but it really seems so few people like going heavily into the item crafting route. Also, i've seen people argue that a VOP character will never get inherent bonuses because they can't use tomes. This forgets that the VOP character is obligated to donate their loot to charities, and rules elsewhere in the very same book VOP is in discuss the goodwill you build up by donating to organizations and churches, and how that goodwill can be traded for services. So yes, such things are available.

Another incorrect assumption is that the value of what VOP gives is less than WBL. It is, in fact, far higher, when you go through adding it all up. (the fact that it gives epic-level bonuses in several categories, and one can't easily place a value on some of the feats makes this even more true.) The problem isn't that VOP gives less value in bonuses than you'd have, but rather that you have little control over what those bonuses are.

Of course, on the flipside, VOP is unusable with certain character concepts, too. As stated by others, VOP is only really viable where certain essentials (such as flight) can be duplicated by the ascetic already without gear. Also, after you get past the first 4-5 exalted feats, you generally start running out of useful ones. These are definitely issues.


VOP may be flawed in many ways, but as someone who has played two VOP characters (a druid, and a Ranger/Barbarian/Fist of the Forest/Warblade), I will argue that it is, in practice, not bad, and frequently even a decent choice. It can be optimized for some character concepts.

[gorfnab]

A Wizard who takes Vow of Poverty is unable to own a spellbook.

A feat that forces a character to give up the entire backbone of its class is broken, and not in the good way.

There's a way around that.

Easy Bake No "Worries" Wizard

Elf, preferably Gray

Elf Generalist Wizard Racial Sub - Races of the Wild
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF - Dragon Magazine #357
Spontaneous Divination ACF - Complete Champion - Optional but great at higher levels
Collegiate Wizard feat - Complete Arcane

1st Level - 7+ Int mod 1st level spells known, all cantrips, 1 extra spell per day of highest level
No Familiar, No Scribe Scroll, No Spellbook

For some extra cheese add in Domain Wizard from Unearthed Arcana since it stacks with the Elf Generalist Wizard Racial Sub.

Note: Every level after 1st that advances wizard spellcasting gets you 5 spells known for free instead of the usual 2

Edit: If you're playing in Eberron, the feat Aerenal Arcanist (Player's Guide to Eberron) will net you an additional spell known per level netting you 8+Int spells at 1st level and 6 additional spells known every level after that.

[Tvtyrant]

Come to think of it, it may be interesting to run a campaign where everyone has the benefits of VoP from the beginning, and just drop the redundant items from the game. Then the mundanes get +whatever weapons and some other abilities without having to rely on casters and can make rainbow elemental weapons without hurting their to hit.

[MeeposFire]

Oddly I like the idea of making characters less item dependent in 3e. That is why I use a modified VoP on npcs. That way I don't need to take the time to equip them with so much crap or figure out what to give them, I can give them items that are special or I want the party to have, and I don't have to worry about the monte haul issues you get from fighting to many npcs. It would be harder to do in 3e but I would love to create a system that works like the inherent bonuses in 4e where items are there for special bonuses and not to just do the basic math of the game.

[Divide by Zero]

Now this, I (mostly) agree with. The lack of Exalted feats, and how underwhelming many (most?) of them are is definitely an issue.

Definitely most. I had trouble finding one worth taking by about tenth level.

[MeeposFire]

VoP could have been improved if they had examlted feats that were VoP feats that gave you effects that some popular items gave (flight teleporting etc) but had a prereq of VoP. Unfortunately they never got around to doing that.

[true_shinken]

And this is exactly the kind of thinking that I started this thread to dispute. The idea that a player should suffer because they want to follow a specific concept is horrible, and frankly, stupid, though usually because it's not thought out.
The point is that gear is better than no gear, and VoP is not meant to change that. If you are as good as someone without gear, well, that's no spiritual sacrifice, is it?
This boils down to how much you care about in-world verossimilitude plus fluff and crunch going hand to hand.
Also, it bother me when people try to min-max with BoED, fail to do it and complain about it. Guys, it's in the book's disclaimer! It's not supposed to be used the get more plusses!

As an aside, in Brazil's most popular fantasy setting (Tormenta) there is a feat similar mechanically to VoP called "Ao Sabor do Destino" (something like "At Fate's Whim") that gives you a few bonuses when you go without magical gear and allows you to use potions. I think even grafts are acceptable, if you had them before taking the feat. Since it helps being a badass normal, I quite like it.




That said, claiming a character should miss out because he's taking a different path seems like a bad path of reasoning to me. Otherwise you might as well just say things like "Well, of course you're not as good as the druid! You chose to give up the best option when you decided to play a not druid!"
You do realize that's exactly like the system works, right?
"VoP is weak so I won't play an ascetic" is the same as "Warblades does not get 9th level spells so I won't play one".

[Boci]

You do realize that's exactly like the system works, right?
"VoP is weak so I won't play an ascetic" is the same as "Warblades does not get 9th level spells so I won't play one".

And many groups try to remondy the second one. I use tier 3 casters, others ask casters to make sure their builds don't over shadow other party members.

[Incanur]

Except when you take into account Wands and Wilding Clasps. Then it does suck. There is so much versatility Wands and Scrolls provide that you lose with VoP. And then Wilding Clasps just do everything that Vow of Poverty does for Druids.

Wands and scrolls are passé these days. Useful, but no great loss. The cost of wilding clasps prevents them from being worthwhile until rather late in the game. Considering the advantage of free exalted feats for a relatively feat starved class, Vow of Poverty remains worthwhile until at least level 10. Normal druids don't get to turn into blink dogs at level 8. You can't eat people, but for survivability it's hard to beat a 50% miss chance that doesn't interfere with your spells and a free dimension door every round. Exalted Animal Companion also has benefits despite what guides say because it gives your buddy a human-level intelligence score through the celestial template. At 15-20 the lack of cool toys hurts, but the inherent power of being an awesome full caster more than compensates.

Also, convincing your average DM to let you use a divine focus with your VoP druid only takes a DC 5 diplomacy check. If nothing else, force the issue in game. If the gods smack you down for greedily plucking that sprig of holly, renounce them and head for ur-priest.

[Telonius]

Also, it bother me when people try to min-max with BoED, fail to do it and complain about it. Guys, it's in the book's disclaimer! It's not supposed to be used the get more plusses!

I totally agree with the sentiment - Vow of Poverty is about trying to make an otherwise-unplayable concept somewhat playable. But there's a difference between being upset you can't minmax, and being upset that you're totally ineffective against a large category of foes. Unless you have a friendly Wizard, or an independent means of flight (through race or shapeshifting or whatever), you're basically reduced to throwing rocks at flying enemies. Yes, the DM can specifically have an adventure with no flying enemies, but that's kind of straining credibility. At mid-to-high levels and against intelligent enemies, a Vow of Poverty character (like all other characters) is not going to survive or succeed unless they have a means of flight. The feat achieves its purpose (playable ascetic) at lower levels, but it fails at higher levels.

[true_shinken]

I totally agree with the sentiment - Vow of Poverty is about trying to make an otherwise-unplayable concept somewhat playable. But there's a difference between being upset you can't minmax, and being upset that you're totally ineffective against a large category of foes. Unless you have a friendly Wizard, or an independent means of flight (through race or shapeshifting or whatever), you're basically reduced to throwing rocks at flying enemies. Yes, the DM can specifically have an adventure with no flying enemies, but that's kind of straining credibility. At mid-to-high levels and against intelligent enemies, a Vow of Poverty character (like all other characters) is not going to survive or succeed unless they have a means of flight. The feat achieves its purpose (playable ascetic) at lower levels, but it fails at higher levels.

There are other ways of flight. Grab a flying mount via feat or shape a soulmeld.

[Person_Man]

On a somewhat related side note, I wrote a homebrew class called the Forsaker Totemist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172094) who basically takes a Vow of Poverty because he hates and/or wants to give up all material possessions and magic starting at first level. Instead of the normal benefits of the Vow, he basically gets a ton of essentia, soulmelds, and chakra binds (which prevent you from using items anyway) plus Forsaker class abilities (which fill in for armor, healing, Spell Resistance, etc). A couple of different people have play tested it with good results.

On topic, I would say that equipment is a crutch for weak classes and the icing on the cake for strong ones. If you choose not to use equipment for whatever reason (or your DM just bones you with junk), you just have to ramp up your optimization level to compensate. As long as you're roughly as powerful/useful as everyone else in your party, things will be fine. I actually played a Druid who gave up all material possessions before the Book of Exalted Deeds was published. He got nothing in return for his "Vow." I just hung out in Wildshape most of the time and Summoned as needed, and I was fine.

[Telonius]

There are other ways of flight. Grab a flying mount via feat or shape a soulmeld.

Not everybody uses Incarnum. If it isn't available, and if you aren't playing a Druid (who can fly anyway) or a Paladin, you're pretty much stuck. (Ranger won't qualify for a flying Exalted Companion until level 14 - personally I wouldn't want to be riding on a 30-40hp creature when I'm going up against CR14 foes). You could also go for the Skylord PrC if you're an elf or half-elf. But regardless, all of that is basically forcing all different sorts of characters into a fairly small number of effective choices that don't necessarily mesh with the character concept.

[Jallorn]

The point is that gear is better than no gear, and VoP is not meant to change that. If you are as good as someone without gear, well, that's no spiritual sacrifice, is it?
This boils down to how much you care about in-world verisimilitude plus fluff and crunch going hand to hand.
Also, it bother me when people try to min-max with BoED, fail to do it and complain about it. Guys, it's in the book's disclaimer! It's not supposed to be used the get more plusses!

And I think that that's a stupid design. It's not about Min-Maxing, even, it's about making it not suck. I agree with Doc Roc when he says that it's a stupid idea that, "Virtue should lead to suck." And you aren't the same as someone without gear, you're not as versatile. It's just... I don't know any way to say it except that the idea that, "Because you're "sacrificing," you should suck and be no fun to play," is stupid. The "spiritual sacrifice," is the fluff, and the power scales with level, which you're okay with. As is, your argument could be used to say, "It's a spiritual sacrifice, you shouldn't get anything at all."

And as for verisimilitude, how is it breaking the verisimilitude for a character, who happens to be a one of a kind hero, is able to gather power in a unique way to make him competitive with the people he fights with (he wouldn't be fighting with them if he weren't effective, they would tell him to stay behind for his safety, or something similar, like an NPC) in a world where mortals can gain the power of gods? In fact, even if you think the fluff and crunch go completely hand in hand, then Vow of Poverty, as is written, a divine blessing for a sacred vow, could be way way more powerful, after all, it's a blessing from a god.

Oh, and because of a, "spiritual sacrifice," you should suffer, "material penalties?"

And it's a feat, it is supposed to be "used to get more pluses." The issue is that it makes you give up far more than it gives, making it a flaw.

Now, if it were a trait one could take, I could see a mostly even trade, or even one that's a little short, but as a feat? Something that is, by definition, supposed to make you stronger? No.

And what is the idea behind the fictional ascetic master? Isn't it a person who has trained themselves so as to be superior, with nothing, to the average man with tools?

It's possible that our disagreement is created by a distinct disagreement on how the rules should be used. Specifically, you feel that because the system is imbalanced, it should be played that way, while I feel that although a system should never be restrictive in order to achieve balance, aught to be tweaked by the players and DM to achieve balance, within their group and play style. If this means that wizards don't nova, or that fighters get a boost, great. If this means that a feat needs a complete overhaul, fine. In the end, the goal is for everyone to have fun, and no one has fun if they feel useless/superfluous. So the idea that, "virtue should lead to suck," is bad, because it leads to suck, which isn't fun. Fluff and crunch should be partially separate, but only to the point it needs to be to be fun. You are taking the stance that VoP should stay sucky because of the fluff, and I am saying that it should be improved because it doesn't change the fluff at all, and makes it a viable, fun feat, which it isn't now.

[Karoht]

So random questions.
Do you think VoP was designed for fluff reasons?
Was it oriented towards certain classes and assumed useless/prohibited for
others?


I wish there was a way to make VoP work for villians or their criminal organization. Fluff reasons mostly.

[Devmaar]

Wands and scrolls are passé these days. Useful, but no great loss. The cost of wilding clasps prevents them from being worthwhile until rather late in the game. Considering the advantage of free exalted feats for a relatively feat starved class, Vow of Poverty remains worthwhile until at least level 10. Normal druids don't get to turn into blink dogs at level 8. You can't eat people, but for survivability it's hard to beat a 50% miss chance that doesn't interfere with your spells and a free dimension door every round. Exalted Animal Companion also has benefits despite what guides say because it gives your buddy a human-level intelligence score through the celestial template. At 15-20 the lack of cool toys hurts, but the inherent power of being an awesome full caster more than compensates.

Also, convincing your average DM to let you use a divine focus with your VoP druid only takes a DC 5 diplomacy check. If nothing else, force the issue in game. If the gods smack you down for greedily plucking that sprig of holly, renounce them and head for ur-priest.

There is exactly one feat a Druid needs to be excellent and they can still be tier 1 without it. I would say they are (arguably) the least feat-starved class in the game.

[Incanur]

There is exactly one feat a Druid needs to be excellent and they can still be tier 1 without it. I would say they are (arguably) the least feat-starved class in the game.

Does any tier-1 class absolutely need specific feats? Not that I'm aware of. Druids don't get bonus feats yet have access to plenty of fun - if not necessary - picks. Vow of Poverty pays itself back in two levels for humans - usually with Nymph's Kiss and Intuitive Attack - then provides goodies like Exalted Animal Companion and Exalted Wild Shape.

[Kylarra]

So random questions.
Do you think VoP was designed for fluff reasons?
Was it oriented towards certain classes and assumed useless/prohibited for
others?


I wish there was a way to make VoP work for villians or their criminal organization. Fluff reasons mostly.Vow of Hedonism? Have to spend all your wealth on useless bling and hookers?

[Veyr]

Those two feats pay for the feats wasted on Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty. They do nothing to ameliorate the "you cannot have items ever" rule. Nothing the Vow of Poverty ever gives you ever does, for any class.

[Telonius]

So random questions.
Do you think VoP was designed for fluff reasons?
Was it oriented towards certain classes and assumed useless/prohibited for
others?


I wish there was a way to make VoP work for villians or their criminal organization. Fluff reasons mostly.

I can totally see Asmodeus granting a Vile version of it. "So, you want to trade your immortal soul and all of your stuff to me for some ...uh ... power? Well, it's robbing me blind, really, but I'm feeling generous today. Here are all the restrictions, and the power that I'll grant you is in writing there. If you ever violate the contract, I get all my power back and you get nothing. Sign on the dotted line, please."

Tier-1 casters can break the universe in two without using feats, it's just a little harder (and takes longer). DMM and Persist are two of the biggies for Clerics, though he can 'zilla even without them (just not for as long). Wizard doesn't "need" metamagics, but is a lot more secure with them. Craft Contingent Spell is probably the most important feat for his "Nyaah, nyaah, nothing can kill me" schtick.

On the other hand, Artificer is Tier 1 because he can make (basically) anything thanks to his bonus feats. He can still get them normally, it just takes longer and he'd be more restricted in his options.

[Incanur]

They do nothing to ameliorate the "you cannot have items ever" rule. Nothing the Vow of Poverty ever gives you ever does, for any class.

Show me a level-8 druid that employs items to match the convenience and versatility of the VoP build. The feat only becomes a hindrance when wilding clasps and such become an insignificant expense.

[Doc Roc]

Show me a level-8 druid that employs items to match the convenience and versatility of the VoP build. The feat only becomes a hindrance when wilding clasps and such become an insignificant expense.

Rod of extend for enhanced wild shape at the start of the day.
Feathered Wing grafts for your fighter.

[Talya]

Rod of extend for enhanced wild shape at the start of the day.
Feathered Wing grafts for your fighter.


Anyone ever notice all metamagic rods require a CL17 to create?

Also, it was my understanding that grafts become part of you, and do not violate VOP.

[Veyr]

You would never be able to afford them, and being "paid" with them is the same as being paid their value in gp.

[Talya]

You would never be able to afford them, and being "paid" with them is the same as being paid their value in gp.


(1) Why would the druid want wing grafts for themselves? I was just commenting on grafts in general. (2) You didn't read my post above that the ascetic by RAW gets major benefits (worth a LOT of gold) from the charities they contribute their wealth to...and they are not forbidden from taking advantage of this. Much like they can benefit from someone else using a magic item on them, even if they cannot activate it themselves.

[PollyOliver]

Er...I have a real game example right now. I'm playing a VoP druid. She used to be a soldier, but is now a wandering healer and had no reason to expect today would be any different. Thus, I prepared almost all of her spell slots with healing and general utility wandering around spells, with a couple other spells just in case of bandits (not the brightest move, but anything else would have been really metagame-y). The most offensive spells she has prepared right now are dispel magic and entangle and bite of the weretiger, on a twelfth level caster, the only full caster in the party. (We have a cleric who I believe has lost several caster levels and a bard/marshal).

We got pulled into a combat encounter within about five minutes in game time. I spent the entire first encounter pouncing on things, because that was all I was prepared for. Since then, we've forced marched a bunch of peasant evacuees over land (and, because I didn't have scrolls, I didn't have enough castings of pass without trace or wind at back for all of them, so we were trackable and slow), and I was about to rest so I could prepare more useful spells when three enemy casters literally fell from the sky, on fire. Scrolls would be really helpful right now.

Edit: Not eighth level, sure, but at level eight you've got sufficient wealth to have a bucketful of scrolls on you for situations like this, so I think it's comparable. And sure, you're still a druid, so I can't complain, but it is a big versatility hit. And it's not like you can make up with it regularly with divinations, because most divinations either have a very short amount of foresight (like, say, omen of peril, which gives limited information and only goes out 1 hr) or have an expensive material component, which you have to pay for in XP, which isn't something I'd be willing to do regularly to make sure I've prepared the right spells. So while the class is still tier 1, and by all means still more than playable, it is a big hit.

The main key, though, is not how VoP borks druids, because they deserve to be nerfed anyway. It's how it nerfs the classes that can't stand to be nerfed, like the fighter and the rogue. I mean, a rogue pretty much loses all versatility without items to UMD. A fighter without flight, a charger without a way to avoid difficult terrain, be it flight or freedom of movement, and a grappler/tripper without a way to get larger are all pretty much screwed, and that's the real problem.

[Telonius]

Anyone ever notice all metamagic rods require a CL17 to create?

This isn't accurate. The CL of all Metamagic rods is 17. CL of a magic item is its relative power, and determines its saves. The only thing you need to do to craft a Rod is have the Craft Rod feat, and be able to cast the spells in the description. (Otherwise you'd need to be a 20th-level caster to make Sovereign Glue or Universal Solvent).

[Talya]

I absolutely hate expendable items. I will hardly use them on any character, even without VOP. Scrolls, wands (although, with 50 charges, a wand is a bit better. I just feel obsessive about replacing it before i might ever conceivably run out). They sit in my inventory for 15 levels (or until they're useless due to being much lower level), always saving them for some opportune moment that never arrives.

So I don't even consider scrolls or wands when comparing VOP against items. I compare them against stuff you keep forever (preferably that provides static, "always on" effects...I am not even fond of renewable usage based items that are "once a day" or similar - i always save them just in case I need them later in the day, and that later never arrives) ...and even then, VOP is usually a little lacking, depending on your class.

[PollyOliver]

That's certainly a valid playstyle choice, but consumables are a big source of versatility for both casters and all classes that have UMD, and groups that do use them are gong to lose all that utility if characters go with VoP. They give UMD classes like rogues a way to do something other than pop locks and shank people, they give spontaneous casters a way to make up for having only a few known spells, and they give prepared casters a way to make up for the fact that they have to guess every morning what spells they're going to need, and hope they don't forget something vital.

A non-UMD rogue in a party of even tier 3 characters is going to be consistently and badly outclassed at everything but disabling traps and shanking enemies that aren't immune to sneak attack. On casters with a limited number of known spells, scrolls are pretty much a life saver for those spells that are situationally vital but which you can't bear the thought of wasting a precious spell known on. Even prepared casters benefit from them a lot, especially wizards and archivists, who can scribe new spells from them and prepare new ones at their leisure with their free bonus feat. If you prepare the wrong spells for the job, or have a particularly tough batch of encounters that run through your daily spells, but have a scroll stash that contains a few of your more typical spells and a bunch of situational ones, you're still pretty well-prepared. Even fighter-types benefit from consumables like potions of fly and enlarge person.

And all this is aside from the fact that, as you noted, even non-consumables like the belt of battle and winged boots and anklets of translocation are pretty darn useful for melee-types, and you can't get that sort of utility from VoP.

[Doc Roc]

Not fond of x/daily? Weird...

[Tokuhara]

I once ran a Forsaker with VoP and had a blast being the "I don't need that +5 Greatsword! I do more damage with my big toe"

[HalfDragonCube]

Has anyone managed a build using Artificer with VoP?

Still, if a feat is so sucky that it grants you bonus feats, then optimising with it is going to be a problem. The thing seems to have meant to be a fluffy feat for good NPCs.

Since VoP characters can't own material possessions, surely they could just borrow material possessions?

[NNescio]

Has anyone managed a build using Artificer with VoP?

Still, if a feat is so sucky that it grants you bonus feats, then optimising with it is going to be a problem. The thing seems to have meant to be a fluffy feat for good NPCs.

Since VoP characters can't own material possessions, surely they could just borrow material possessions?

Explicitly forbidden.


...You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf--you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, ...

[Karoht]

Vow of Hedonism? Have to spend all your wealth on useless bling and hookers?

I got players doing that already, they don't need stat bonuses and free feats to incentivize continuing this behavior.

[HalfDragonCube]

Explicitly forbidden.

Right, so WotC can stop a small gap yet can't be bothered to check if the Tarrasque floats or not?


I got players doing that already, they don't need stat bonuses and free feats to incentivize continuing this behavior.

You poor, poor DM.

[Talya]

Not fond of x/daily? Weird...

I've gotten over that a bit more since I started playing spellcasters (although I still have a harder time with prepared than spontaneous due to "must save this" syndrom), but, yeah. Which isn't to say I won't use it. In fact, if it's "3/daily", i'm probably likely to use 2, but I'm not likely going to use that last one unless i'm going to die if I don't.

I don't like having to worry about "running out" of anything.

(I actually play the same way in computer RPGs. I always pick the "always on" passive abilities in a game before I pick the more powerful, but mana/stamina-consuming usage-based abilities.)



That's certainly a valid playstyle choice, but consumables are a big source of versatility for both casters and all classes that have UMD, and groups that do use them are gong to lose all that utility if characters go with VoP.

That's what the rest of the party is for. The VOP druid has the highest statistical block of anyone in the party before buffs and expendables are used. (and probably afterward, too.) Nothing prevents the rest of the party NOT using VOP from casting them on him and making him even better.

[Person_Man]

I absolutely hate expendable items. I will hardly use them on any character, even without VOP. Scrolls, wands (although, with 50 charges, a wand is a bit better. I just feel obsessive about replacing it before i might ever conceivably run out). They sit in my inventory for 15 levels (or until they're useless due to being much lower level), always saving them for some opportune moment that never arrives.

I'm the same way, especially with video games. Apparently there's a sub-group of gamers who hoard items, especially ammo, mana, and health potions, and other similar consumables. Conversely, there's another sub-group of that immediately burn through consumable items as soon as they get them. Both groups cause major balance issues for game designers for a variety of reasons, with the biggest complaint being that for hoarders early combat tends to be too hard (because we don't use consumables) and late combat tends to be too easy (because we eventually tend to sell off our consumables and get access to the best equipment earlier), whereas the burners face the opposite problem.

The fix is to make all of your resources reset after each combat. 4E definitely moved in this direction, as have most "shooter" video games.

[true_shinken]

And I think that that's a stupid design. It's not about Min-Maxing, even, it's about making it not suck.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I will never agree that a feat that makes not having gear as good as having gear is a good thing, because it makes no sense.



So random questions.
Do you think VoP was designed for fluff reasons?

You don't have to "think" so. The book explicitly tells you so.

[Mystic Muse]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I will never agree that a feat that makes not having gear as good as having gear is a good thing, because it makes no sense.


He's not even saying that it has to be as good as having gear in that quote. He's saying it has to not suck. The vow of poverty is supposed to make you a better person, but it renders you incapable of dealing with some of your greatest enemies without relying on somebody who can cast fly. That seems completely contrary to the flavor.

[Jallorn]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I will never agree that a feat that makes not having gear as good as having gear is a good thing, because it makes no sense.

It makes sense given the fluff of divine blessing or of ascetic master. And it's giving up, as I said, not the benefit of items, but the versatility.

Ok, let's try this step by step:

Do you agree that feats, by definition, are supposed to improve a character mechanically?

Do you agree that a game is no fun when you feel useless?

Do you agree that the point of a game is to have fun?

Do you agree that sometimes things is 3.5 are poorly designed traps and need to be fixed?

Also, what Kyuubi said.

Edit: And what if the fluff is changed? Because we can do that you know. What about the fluff of a monk who has trained his whole life, honed his body, mind, and spirit to become superior to the average man, and approximately equivalent to his teammates (who wield magic items), but doesn't know the first thing about using most magic items, and those few he could, refuses because he feels it would weaken him. This is literally a man chanelling his Ki to achieve supernatural results. Are you going to say he needs to suck because he's striving to be better, not in the eyes of a god, but in his own eyes? Because to him, the sacrifice would be using the crutch of magic items. He's not sacrificing anything, he's fulfilling his potential.

Or how about a psionic race doing something similar, only honing his psionic powers into the feat in such a way that it's just a part of him?

[Veyr]

This isn't accurate. The CL of all Metamagic rods is 17. CL of a magic item is its relative power, and determines its saves. The only thing you need to do to craft a Rod is have the Craft Rod feat, and be able to cast the spells in the description. (Otherwise you'd need to be a 20th-level caster to make Sovereign Glue or Universal Solvent).
Actually, yes, it is accurate, and yes, you do need CL 20th to make Sovereign Glue. Yes, this particular example is unbelievably stupid.

[Talya]

Actually, yes, it is accurate, and yes, you do need CL 20th to make Sovereign Glue. Yes, this particular example is unbelievably stupid.

I reread the SRD on item caster level after Telonius corrected me, and I can see why he believes you don't. It's actually a big ambiguous...

[PollyOliver]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I will never agree that a feat that makes not having gear as good as having gear is a good thing, because it makes no sense.

I agree that it doesn't make sense for VoP to be just as good (or better) than owning items. The vows are exalted in part because they represent sacrifice for a cause, so there's no point if there's no sacrifice.

But there's another side, which is playability, which all design must consider to a certain extent (making the assumption that the sacred vows should be generally usable by more than one archetype). And the fact is that, as written, the vow is so bad for all but a few rare noncasters (casters are nerfed but still powerful, again assuming that the common sense exceptions are made) that it's pretty much impossible to make a competitive high level melee character with it, even playing at a balance level of tier 3 or 4. And while I think the vow should be a sacrifice to a certain extent, I certainly don't think it should render most classes unplayable. In my opinion, a balance needs to be struck such that the vow is an actual viable, though not completely comparable, choice for most characters with a little work.

[Talya]

it's pretty much impossible to make a competitive high level melee character


This is all you really needed.

Okay, okay, we'll leave that discussion outside the thread. ;)

Anyway, I designed a raptoran VOP unarmed swordsage/monk/shadow sun ninja that i felt was rather competitive. Not that exceptions disprove your point. In general, Melee types are hurt far more by VOP than casters. Being able to sidestep many of those issues with careful race and class and build choices doesn't mean that VOP is good.

[Jallorn]

I agree that it doesn't make sense for VoP to be just as good (or better) than owning items. The vows are exalted in part because they represent sacrifice for a cause, so there's no point if there's no sacrifice.

But there's another side, which is playability, which all design must consider to a certain extent (making the assumption that the sacred vows should be generally usable by more than one archetype). And the fact is that, as written, the vow is so bad for all but a few rare noncasters (casters are nerfed but still powerful, again assuming that the common sense exceptions are made) that it's pretty much impossible to make a competitive high level melee character with it, even playing at a balance level of tier 3 or 4. And while I think the vow should be a sacrifice to a certain extent, I certainly don't think it should render most classes unplayable. In my opinion, a balance needs to be struck such that the vow is an actual viable, though not completely comparable, choice for most characters with a little work.

And I maintain that the sacrifice is the versatility. Actually, the fix I linked to earlier gives only 1,000,000 GP worth of bonuses, and a handful of feats, there is a distinct decrease in the availability of certain advantages, traded for others.

[Doc Roc]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I will never agree that a feat that makes not having gear as good as having gear is a good thing, because it makes no sense.



You don't have to "think" so. The book explicitly tells you so.

The book explicitly tells me lots of other things, which you frequently argue are wrong or silly wrt. VoP.

[Telonius]

I reread the SRD on item caster level after Telonius corrected me, and I can see why he believes you don't. It's actually a big ambiguous...

The key part you need is under Magic Item Basics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel):


The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form "CL x," where "CL" is an abbreviation for caster level and "x" is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.

"Prerequisites" are the part of the entry that occurs after "CL x". So for Sovereign Glue:


Strong transmutation; CL 20th; Craft Wondrous Item, make whole; Price 2,400 gp (per ounce).

The minimum caster level is the caster level needed to satisfy the prerequisites of "Craft Wondrous Item, make whole" - that is, Cleric 3.

[PollyOliver]

This is all you really needed.

Okay, okay, we'll leave that discussion outside the thread. ;)

Anyway, I designed a raptoran VOP unarmed swordsage/monk/sun soul ninja that i felt was rather competitive. Not that exceptions disprove your point. In general, Melee types are hurt far more by VOP than casters.

Well, I did qualify playing at tier 3 or 4, but point taken. :smallbiggrin:

And that character sounds like a lot of fun. But you've got two sources of flight right there, plus you don't need a weapon, plus you have access to supernatural abilities like swift greater invisibility, teleportation, and ability damage strikes multiple times a day. Which is why I also said with some rare exceptions. But try being a human crusader 20 or warblade 20, very solid tier 3's. You'll be utterly dependent on the goodwill of your party's casters for many fights, even if you're playing at tier 3 such that you're theoretically just as useful as them.

Jallorn: I agree that sacrificing some versatility is indeed part of the sacrifice. But there's a difference between sacrificing some versatility, which is what happens to a VoP druid, and sacrificing the ability to do absolutely anything useful whatsoever in a sizable number of fighting encounters when fighting is the one thing your class does well in the first place, which is what happens to most VoP melee characters, including tier 3's like the crusader and warblade. The latter makes no sense in terms of game balance, unless you're of the opinion that exalted must equal stupid and useless for a substantial portion of classes. VoP is supposed to be a sacrifice, but you should still be able to go out and do good with some level of competency.

[Doc Roc]

Well, I did qualify playing at tier 3 or 4, but point taken. :smallbiggrin:

And that character sounds like a lot of fun. But you've got two sources of flight right there, plus you don't need a weapon, plus you have access to supernatural abilities like swift greater invisibility, teleportation, and ability damage strikes multiple times a day. Which is why I also said with some rare exceptions. But try being a human crusader 20 or warblade 20, very solid tier 3's. You'll be utterly dependent on the goodwill of your party's casters for many fights, even if you're playing at tier 3 such that you're theoretically just as useful as them.

Jallorn: I agree that sacrificing some versatility is indeed part of the sacrifice. But there's a difference between sacrificing some versatility, which is what happens to a VoP druid, and sacrificing the ability to do absolutely anything useful whatsoever in a sizable number of fighting encounters when fighting is the one thing your class does well in the first place, which is what happens to most VoP melee characters, including tier 3's like the crusader and warblade. The latter makes no sense in terms of game balance, unless you're of the opinion that exalted must equal stupid and useless for a substantial portion of classes. VoP is supposed to be a sacrifice, but you should still be able to go out and do good with some level of competency.

Encounters like fighting demons, devils, evil wizards, birds, and some small burrowing mammals.

[Jallorn]

Well, I did qualify playing at tier 3 or 4, but point taken. :smallbiggrin:

And that character sounds like a lot of fun. But you've got two sources of flight right there, plus you don't need a weapon, plus you have access to supernatural abilities like swift greater invisibility, teleportation, and ability damage strikes multiple times a day. Which is why I also said with some rare exceptions. But try being a human crusader 20 or warblade 20, very solid tier 3's. You'll be utterly dependent on the goodwill of your party's casters for many fights, even if you're playing at tier 3 such that you're theoretically just as useful as them.

Jallorn: I agree that sacrificing some versatility is indeed part of the sacrifice. But there's a difference between sacrificing some versatility, which is what happens to a VoP druid, and sacrificing the ability to do absolutely anything useful whatsoever in a sizable number of fighting encounters when fighting is the one thing your class does well in the first place, which is what happens to most VoP melee characters, including tier 3's like the crusader and warblade. The latter makes no sense in terms of game balance, unless you're of the opinion that exalted must equal stupid and useless for a substantial portion of classes. VoP is supposed to be a sacrifice, but you should still be able to go out and do good with some level of competency.

I know, I'm on the side that VoP needs revamping. I was pointing out that the sacrifice is versatility, and in exchange, the feat should give approximately (bonus feats and all) equivalent bonuses to what they should have for their level, albeit specific static bonuses.

[HalfDragonCube]

Encounters like fighting demons, devils, evil wizards, birds, and some small burrowing mammals.

Vow of Poverty: Where paladins get creamed by moles.

[Doc Roc]

I know, I'm on the side that VoP needs revamping. I was pointing out that the sacrifice is versatility, and in exchange, the feat should give approximately (bonus feats and all) equivalent bonuses to what they should have for their level, albeit specific static bonuses.

We have a thing in Legend, called Full Buy-in, which gives you access to a broad range of choices by granting you an additional "character track" which is to say a set of 7 abilities. Classes are composed of three tracks, normally, so this represents a very considerable advantage.


That said? Full Buy-in still gives you a few items, due to the versatility\no-bad-choices concern that permeates the system.



Vow of Poverty: Where paladins get creamed by moles.

It's only funny when it's true. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/brainMole.htm) Not very deadly for Cr 1/2, but try fending off 8 of them at EL 4 with no items. And god help you if you have to fight pixies or will o' the wisp, two of the iconic harriers from fantasy.

[PollyOliver]

Vow of Poverty: Where paladins get creamed by moles.

Truthfully, though, moles are vicious little buggers.

Jallorn: Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your point.

We actually had this discussion a week or two ago, and I think someone (maybe Telonius?) was working on a fix. I think what we decided is that the main things you need, beyond fixing spell books and holy symbols, would be to give flight, size changing, and weapon and armor modifications (maybe trading in your +x's) to make meleers viable. Skill boosts would also go a long way toward helping out the skill monkeys. It would be nice if you could also gain low level SLA's to give rogues back at least a little of the utility of UMD. You won't get back everything that having a sack full of scrolls and wands gave you, but limited access to gravestrike, invisibility, spiderclimb, and the like would help out. There were two different ideas on how to do it--either adding it into the vop progression, or making them exalted feats with a vop prerequisite, because unless you're a druid (in which case you can pick up 4 or more useful feats) there's only a couple that were remotely good in the first place.

[true_shinken]

The book explicitly tells me lots of other things, which you frequently argue are wrong or silly wrt. VoP.
I don't even know what you are talking about here.

[Doc Roc]

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

That I should be able to competently fight evil with VoP.

[true_shinken]

That I should be able to competently fight evil with VoP.
You can competently fight evil as a Commoner. Just stick to threats at your power level and stay away from housecats.

[Jallorn]

You can competently fight evil as a Commoner. Just stick to threats at your power level and stay away from housecats.

But that's what we want to fix, we want to make VoP have the power level it claims to have.

[Doc Roc]

You can competently fight evil as a Commoner. Just stick to threats at your power level and stay away from housecats.

We have nothing more to discuss on this matter, I think.

[true_shinken]

But that's what we want to fix, we want to make VoP have the power level it claims to have.
VoP claims to have no power level. It claims to be a way for you not to suck so much.

[Doc Roc]

VoP claims to have no power level. It claims to be a way for you not to suck so much.

And yet there is great suck.

With great suck, comes great responsibility.

[Kylarra]

I got players doing that already, they don't need stat bonuses and free feats to incentivize continuing this behavior.
No it needs to be all of their wealth on useless things. Not just shinies for themselves. :smallcool:

[Forbiddenwar]

I have a VoP Unarmed SwordSage, level 5.
She has a better attack bonus and a better AC than the fighter and the cleric. She also does more damage than the fighter or the cleric or the wizard.

This is in part due to the free bonus feat at nearly every level.
Uses wisdom to attack? Thank-you.
Extra skill points + a bonus to all Cha skills? Thank-you
Touch is poison? Thank-you.
And I look forward to have a +8 bonus to my abilities. I believe the best a magic item can do is +5

I Don't think VoP needs to be fixed, anymore than 90% of the other feats. Many feats are considered poor choices, and so are rarely taken. Only a small amount of feats are considered to be no brainers from a power build perspective. VOP, I would argue, is an average feat, in terms of power. Little better than power attack.

Its usability varies far too greatly in each group and campaign.
If every other player is munchkining it up, then yea, VoP seems underpowered.
In a campaign where magic items fall out of the sky on a regular basis, VoP can be annoying to play.
But in the average game, VoP is a good gameplay choice.

It also makes for a great character choice, and allows greater depth to characters.

And it's entertaining when the DM does a "captured, erase your equipment and try to escape" a common element in games.

[Talya]

Well, there aren't many classes VOP would work on at all. Let's assume the silly little oversights that disable entire classes (Divine Focuses, spellbooks, etc.) are just that--oversights, and correct them. Then look at how well classes work with vow of poverty:

Wizard - Okay, let's not kid ourselves. The wizard would still be damned good. But they actually would suffer more than almost all other tier 1 casters from taking VOP even if they do get to keep a spellbook. Wizards rely on magical items right from level 1, and VOP doesn't begin to replace what they lose. That said, that +8 to their primary casting stat puts them in epic level spell DCs long before 21, and they end up far more durable than a typical wizard, but in the end, they just can't do their job as well. Not to mention that thematically, poverty just doesn't really work with this class, where they need laboratories and libraries and studies...no. No wizard VOP.

Sorcerer - works better with VOP than wizard, both mechanically and thematically. Still has a lot of options taken away for a lot of dubious benefits.

Cleric - these guys do alright, if they can get a holy symbol. And thematically it works, too. They probably suffer less than any other class other than druid.

Druid - Honestly, a VOP druid is going to end up more powerful overall, at least until they get to a level where they might be able to afford wilding clasps and such (assuming you're even playing in a setting with a "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe Emporium in it). This is especially true because there are several absolutely incredible exalted feats for druids, that they'd be much too feat-starved to take otherwise. I actually believe this is a solid choice for a druid, although you have to play them a bit differently.

Bard - Huh. You know, this limits several bard concepts severely, but the core of a bard's talents remain untouched by the loss of gear. That said, i'm not sure i'd take this feat on anyone who gets UMD as a class skill.

Rogue - Possibly even less reliant on gear for their main jobs than a bard, and yet still more greatly affected because of all classes, the rogue is most likely to load up on expendable items.

Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian - No. NO. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances ever consider it.

Monk - I'm of the opinion that if you're playing a single class monk, The effectiveness of VOP is the least of your worries.

Outside of core? Generally, melee types suffer more than skilled types, who suffer more than spellcasters. Among martial adepts, swordsage can get by, but warblade and crusader hurt badly.

[Boci]

Uses wisdom to attack? Thank-you.

Took that instead of sacred vow.


Extra skill points + a bonus to all Cha skills? Thank-you

Kinda good, but nothing special.


Touch is poison? Thank-you.

Took it instead of VoP.


And I look forward to have a +8 bonus to my abilities. I believe the best a magic item can do is +5


+11 actually. +6 from an enhancement bonus stat booster and +5 from a Tome. By replicating spells you can push it even further.

I'm not seeing how VoP is doing much aside making your unarmed swordsage less versatile.

[Forbiddenwar]

I often hear one of VoP weaknesses on melee characters is lack of flight. But I have to wonder, what good is flight when the ceiling is always 10 feet off of the ground?

This is an example of how VoP's perceived weaknesses are situation and story dependent.

[Talya]

+11 actually. +6 from an enhancement bonus stat booster and +5 from a Tome. By replicating spells you can push it even further.

If you're counting the +5 inherent bonus -- there are other ways to get it. The VOP character can get it just as easily as anyone else, and so would have a +13. Other than that, yes I agree with your other points.

[Boci]

If you're counting the +5 inherent bonus -- there are other ways to get it. The VOP character can get it just as easily as anyone else, and so would have a +13. Other than that, yes I agree with your other points.

Hoe easy is it to convince a caster to burn 25k XP for you?


This is an example of how VoP's perceived weaknesses are situation

I would view that as VoP's weakness not being crippling as being situational, not the other way around.

[Jallorn]

I often hear one of VoP weaknesses on melee characters is lack of flight. But I have to wonder, what good is flight when the ceiling is always 10 feet off of the ground?

This is an example of how VoP's perceived weaknesses are situation and story dependent.

Actually, that's more of an example of where the rules of the entire system are situational.

[Talya]

I have a VoP Unarmed SwordSage, level 5.

As I've stated earlier, swordsage works not terribly with VOP. And, you know, I really want to agree with you, because many of your arguments can be made well. But you're not doing so. All we need to do is look at one statement (one of several that have issues):


VOP, I would argue, is an average feat, in terms of power. Little better than power attack.


Power attack is your example? Power attack...the single largest source of damage for every person who ever wields a two handed weapon?

[Tvtyrant]

Hoe easy is it to convince a caster to burn 25k XP for you?



I would view that as VoP's weakness not being crippling as being situational, not the other way around.

It depends on the caster and how you plan to repay them. Offer to walk first in the dungeon from then on :smallyuk:

[Doc Roc]

Actually, that's more of an example of where the rules of the entire system are situational.

Also, if ceilings stop you, you aren't trying hard enough.

[Talya]

Hoe easy is it to convince a caster to burn 25k XP for you?

Certainly easier than it would be to convince him to burn 25k xp to make a tome to hide unused in a dungeon.

Anyway, that would be one of the many goodwill benefits you can get by RAW by donating to charities - which is something a VOP character does a lot of.

[PollyOliver]

Well, there aren't many classes VOP would work on at all. Let's assume the silly little oversights that disable entire classes (Divine Focuses, spellbooks, etc.) are just that--oversights, and correct them. Then look at how well classes work with vow of poverty:

Wizard - Okay, let's not kid ourselves. The wizard would still be damned good. But they actually would suffer more than almost all other tier 1 casters from taking VOP even if they do get to keep a spellbook. Wizards rely on magical items right from level 1, and VOP doesn't begin to replace what they lose. That said, that +8 to their primary casting stat puts them in epic level spell DCs long before 21, and they end up far more durable than a typical wizard, but in the end, they just can't do their job as well. Not to mention that thematically, poverty just doesn't really work with this class, where they need laboratories and libraries and studies...no. No wizard VOP.

Sorcerer - works better with VOP than wizard, both mechanically and thematically. Still has a lot of options taken away for a lot of dubious benefits.

Cleric - these guys do alright, if they can get a holy symbol. And thematically it works, too. They probably suffer less than any other class other than druid.

Druid - Honestly, a VOP druid is going to end up more powerful overall, at least until they get to a level where they might be able to afford wilding clasps and such (assuming you're even playing in a setting with a "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe Emporium in it). This is especially true because there are several absolutely incredible exalted feats for druids, that they'd be much too feat-starved to take otherwise. I actually believe this is a solid choice for a druid, although you have to play them a bit differently.

Bard - Huh. You know, this limits several bard concepts severely, but the core of a bard's talents remain untouched by the loss of gear. That said, i'm not sure i'd take this feat on anyone who gets UMD as a class skill.

Rogue - Possibly even less reliant on gear for their main jobs than a bard, and yet still more greatly affected because of all classes, the rogue is most likely to load up on expendable items.

Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian - No. NO. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances ever consider it.

Monk - I'm of the opinion that if you're playing a single class monk, The effectiveness of VOP is the least of your worries.

Outside of core? Generally, melee types suffer more than skilled types, who suffer more than spellcasters. Among martial adepts, swordsage can get by, but warblade and crusader hurt badly.

I'm of the firm opinion that any feat that nerfs fighters more than druids in the name of righteousness needs fixing.

I also find it amusing that the feat seems almost designed to hurt druids, which need the least help of any class, the least. Druids get the most good exalted feats, though you still run out around level 12 or so--and druid is pretty much the best-case scenario in terms of useful exalted feats. Touch of golden ice is good at low levels, but later your enemy is going to be saving on anything but a 1 anyway, and it's a pain for the DM to roll a save for every single attack like that just in case. But nymph's kiss is nice, as is intuitive attack just in case. Exalted companion is good (or, if you're going into lion of talisid, trade out for fotc), exalted wildshape is yummy, sanctify natural attack can't hurt, and that one metamagic feat that replaces half your blasty damage with irresistible damage can come in handy. For roleplay reasons, I used one to take a vow of obedience which was broken before the game began (instead of touch of golden ice). I don't know what to take next, though. Kind of off-topic, but anyone who's done this before have any advice, assuming I don't want to bother with touch of golden ice?

[Doc Roc]

Certainly easier than it would be to convince him to burn 25k xp to make a tome to hide unused in a dungeon.

Anyway, that would be one of the many goodwill benefits you can get by RAW by donating to charities - which is something a VOP character does a lot of.

Only if those charities have associated organizations, of which there are few, and they tend to be both problematic and not very charity-driven.

[Tvtyrant]

Also if you use the feats from Complete Divine that get you bonuses for doing nice things and giving to charity you get an almost endless pool for it by being a VoP. They aren't the best things ever but...

[Boci]

Only if those charities have associated organizations, of which there are few, and they tend to be both problematic and not very charity-driven.

True, but gods granting you miracles would be a potential way to fix VoP. Maybe look at the sacrifice rewards for inspiration.

[Talya]

Only if those charities have associated organizations, of which there are few, and they tend to be both problematic and not very charity-driven.



You can't go wrong donating to the church of {insert your setting's God/Goddess of Magic here}.

[cfalcon]

My opinion is that Vow of Poverty is hideously designed and under no circumstances should it be allowed. Anyone interested in it on a fluff/conceptual level should work out a homebrew solution with their DM.

/agreewholeheartedly

[Talya]

I'm of the firm opinion that any feat that nerfs fighters more than druids in the name of righteousness needs fixing.

Agreed!


Kind of off-topic, but anyone who's done this before have any advice, assuming I don't want to bother with touch of golden ice?

I'm playing one right now. I've convinced my DM to give me Rich Burlew's Fey Blood Druid feat for free (as all it really does is create an alternate druid with charisma based casting and an additional weakness...it's not really worth a feat.) It's working out rather well...


Nymph's Kiss at 1 if you can manage it, for the extra skill points. Overall, just a very solid feat. (+1 skill per level -i've seen a couple people argue this doesn't include x4 at level 1, but that would be odd compared to every other use of skill points in the game and I've never met a DM would wouldn't give 4 at level 1.) In addition, +1 to all saves and +2 to all charisma checks (including wild epathy and handle animal) - overall worth it. You're going to want to start with at least 13 charisma for Exalted feat requirements, so you're almost into party-face role here too. Not to mention, Nymph's Kiss has a fey connection, which really fits well with druids.

Touch of Golden Ice. Yes, I know what you said. But you're making piles of natural attacks. Even on the off chance your opponent rolls a 1, it's worth it. Edit: A lot of people don't notice that your charisma bonus gets added on to the dex damage from this feat. For my fey druid, this means 1d6+4 dex damage on a natural 1 from my opponent. If that opponent happens to be a dragon...well...you see where this is going. The odds are too slim to rely on, but it's great if/when it happens.

Exalted Companion. Absolutely spectacular. Even better if you can convince your DM to waive the alignment restriction on Unicorns or Pegasi. (or create a Pegacorn! not.) My fey druid mentioned above worships Lurue (the Unicorn goddess of magical beasts - who sponsors also druids in Faerun.) My DM waived the alignment restriction for me as a result.

Exalted Wildshape. I love this feat.

Animal Friend. +4 to wild empathy isn't spectacular, but together with higher charisma and Nymph's Kiss? Welcome to wild "Diplomancy." Be it animal or magical beast, it's on your side now.

Sanctify Natural Attack. Obviously.

Nimbus of Light/Holy Radiance/Stigmata. These are often overlooked, but they really add a lot of versatility to a character. Druids don't get any special powers to fight undead normally, despite undead being an anathema to the natural world, so it's thematically nice there, too. Also allows for some costly healing for your party without prepping cure spells.

Technically the metamagic feats in BoED are not exalted feats. If you can get your DM to allow them (reasonable choice) then yeah, take them too.

There are one or two others that have some use, but only grant minor situational bonuses. You never run completely out of valid feats, but if you're hitting the others, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

There are additional [Exalted] feats in a few Faerun books, but they are religion and setting specific, and I don't recall how useful to druids.

[PollyOliver]

Agreed!


I'm playing one right now. I've convinced my DM to give me Rich Burlew's Fey Blood Druid feat for free (as all it really does is create an alternate druid with charisma based casting and an additional weakness...it's not really worth a feat.) It's working out rather well...

I'm at level 12 right now, and pondering what to do with my 14th level feat. I didn't catch that the metamagic feats aren't exalted though, I'll have to run that by my DM (I haven't actually used it yet, so either way it's probably okay).

I have nymph's kiss, sanctify natural attack, intuitive attack, exalted wild shape, favored of the companions, that metamagic feat, and the broken vow of obedience I mentioned. I do have exalted companion, as it's a bonus feat for one of my classes, and though I could have gotten a unicorn (as the game doesn't have strict alignments) I went with a celestial riding dog for character reasons.

I'd like animal friend, but I don't have the charisma score for it. Same with holy radiance. Nimbus of light looks interesting, though I honestly don't expect to do much diplomacy, as there are others in the party much better suited for it. The light thing is pretty cool though. My main thing against touch of golden ice is that at twelfth level most monsters are going to be making that fort save easily, and it's a play by post game (and I've got multiple natural weapons) and I don't really want to make the DM roll a million saves every time I attack just in case the monster rolls superbly low. More of a preference thing than an optimization thing.

Maybe exalted SR? It'll only apply when I'm in celestial animal form, but if there's nothing else I can think of, extra spell resistance is never bad.

[Forbiddenwar]

I would argue that no feat has the weakness to reduce a druid from being tier 1, nor does any feat have the power to raise a monk from tier 5.
A wizard is a wizard is a wizard.

[Doc Roc]

You can't go wrong donating to the church of {insert your setting's God/Goddess of Magic here}.

Terrible true words. Help the hungry magically talented orphans, dispossessed by the Sorcerer Pogroms!

[TOZ]

In related news, Paizo's Ultimate Magic has a Vow of Poverty. It's a Monk-only class feature, and requires the Monk give up everything but no more than six plain, mundane items. In return, the Monk adds +1/2 levels to his Ki Pool class feature.

This is my surprised face. -_-

[Tvtyrant]

"Every Monk now MUST take VoP in order to reign in their overpoweredness! If we allow them to roam free they will DESTROY THE INTERNET"

This is how I interpret this.

[Incanur]

Rod of extend for enhanced wild shape at the start of the day.
Feathered Wing grafts for your fighter.

That's solid but doesn't necessarily compensate for not being able to turn into a blink dog and having to worry about gear when shifting.


I spent the entire first encounter pouncing on things, because that was all I was prepared for.

No summons? Druids can always summon when individual brawling doesn't work.


Scrolls would be really helpful right now.

I've honestly never seen PCs make much use of scrolls, probably because of the cost and low CL. They can be handy, but relying on them leads to problems down the road. Now, the lack of access to wands of lesser vigor does hurt. I haven't seen many PCs memorize healing spells, either.


And it's not like you can make up with it regularly with divinations, because most divinations either have a very short amount of foresight (like, say, omen of peril, which gives limited information and only goes out 1 hr) or have an expensive material component, which you have to pay for in XP, which isn't something I'd be willing to do regularly to make sure I've prepared the right spells.

Exactly none of the core druid divination spells require expensive material components or focuses. What are you thinking of?


A fighter without flight, a charger without a way to avoid difficult terrain, be it flight or freedom of movement, and a grappler/tripper without a way to get larger are all pretty much screwed, and that's the real problem.

No doubt about that, though I think that speaks to a larger issue in 3.x class design. It's problematic for items to matter so much to certain classes. I'm still a fan of VoP for druids. :smallamused:

[true_shinken]

Certainly easier than it would be to convince him to burn 25k xp to make a tome to hide unused in a dungeon.

Touché. Ouch.

[PollyOliver]

No summons? Druids can always summon when individual brawling doesn't work.


I've honestly never seen PCs make much use of scrolls, probably because of the cost and low CL. They can be handy, but relying on them leads to problems down the road. Now, the lack of access to wands of lesser vigor does hurt. I haven't seen many PCs memorize healing spells, either.


Exactly none of the core druid divination spells require expensive material components or focuses. What are you thinking of?


Sorry, you're right about the divinations. It's been a very long time since I used a druid, and I was thinking of the fact that the cleric focus is 100 gp. Thanks, though, that'll be useful in the future. :smallsmile:

As for scrolls, I don't play a ton of casters, but when I do I have scrolls. It's nice to be prepared all the time, or to keep casting after a ton of encounters. The saves aren't great, but that doesn't matter on buffs or utility spells like wind at back (which, along with pass without trace, is the scroll I'm really missing right now.) There's a metric crap-ton of out of battle utility that comes from having scrolls, and even in battle there are some nice druid spells that have useful effects or decent damage even on made saves.

Yeah, I could have summoned. But that brings me to another item that druids lose that's really useful--the ring of the beast. Use your highest SNA out of your second-highest spell slots and keep your highest slots for other absurd shenanigans? Yes, please. For a summoner, this is basically getting x number of free y-level spell slots, where y is the highest level spells you can cast.

Edit: I'm a fan of VoP on druids too, since I'm playing one right now. I don't mean that the versatility hit you take makes you unplayable. You're still a full caster with wild shape. You're just not quite as good as you would be, which on a druid is probably still way too good. :smallsmile:

[Doc Roc]

That's solid but doesn't necessarily compensate for not being able to turn into a blink dog and having to worry about gear when shifting.


Given that I'd spend the feats I'd have spent on VoP on aberrant wildshape instead, and that Exalted means no Fleshraker, I'm not perfectly sure I agree.

[Tvtyrant]

Given that I'd spend the feats I'd have spent on VoP on aberrant wildshape instead, and that Exalted means no Fleshraker, I'm not perfectly sure I agree.

Which Aberration do you wildshape to?

[HalfDragonCube]

Maybe if VoP was just an option at character creation rather than a feat, then it might be balanced.

[Divide by Zero]

Maybe if VoP was just an option at character creation rather than a feat, then it might be balanced.

Nope. It's not the feats that's the problem, but rather that it doesn't grant flight or non +X weapon enhancements or any of the other things that non-casters need to stay relevant past about level 5.

[Doc Roc]

Which Aberration do you wildshape to?

With enhanced wildshape, there are a lot of good ones.

[Talya]

Given that I'd spend the feats I'd have spent on VoP on aberrant wildshape instead, and that Exalted means no Fleshraker, I'm not perfectly sure I agree.

Actually, Exalted Wildshape allows Celestial versions of any animal you can normally wildshape into, and also grants their (Ex) and (Su) abilities (but not Spell-Like Abilities.) If you really want a fleshraker form, nothing prevents Celestial Fleshraker.

[Doc Roc]

Actually, Exalted Wildshape allows Celestial versions of any animal you can normally wildshape into, and also grants their (Ex) and (Su) abilities (but not Spell-Like Abilities.) If you really want a fleshraker form, nothing prevents Celestial Fleshraker.

It has poison.

[Forbiddenwar]

Nope. It's not the feats that's the problem, but rather that it doesn't grant flight or non +X weapon enhancements or any of the other things that non-casters need to stay relevant past about level 5.

Does VOP prevent spells being cast on you? Does VOP prevent a teammate from casting enlarge or flight? Does VOP prevent magical healing?

I just don't understand how lack of flight or non +X weapon enhancement is a deal breaker for melee characters.

I agree with Incanur, If a fighter requires flight or other specific items to stay relevant after level 5, that's a problem with the class, not the feat.

[Yora]

I think vow of poverty only applies to material possessions of monetary value. A spell cast on you can not be converted to money or be traded for something else, even if it's made permanent.

But what about being a guest in a palace? Being offered to eat a banquet, sleep in a luxurious room, and use the fancy baths? At no point, you come into possession of anything of value.
I assume the vow of poverty not being just about charity to others, but also avoiding the temptations of luxury. Living like a king by being a guest of a king would be compromising the ideal of renouncing luxury.

[Doc Roc]

Does VOP prevent spells being cast on you? Does VOP prevent a teammate from casting enlarge or flight? Does VOP prevent magical healing?

I just don't understand how lack of flight or non +X weapon enhancement is a deal breaker for melee characters.

I agree with Incanur, If a fighter requires flight or other specific items to stay relevant after level 5, that's a problem with the class, not the feat.

Resource cost is opportunity cost. Unless I can persist flight on you, you are eating actions that I need to use to KILL THE BAD GUYS.

[Divide by Zero]

Does VOP prevent spells being cast on you? Does VOP prevent a teammate from casting enlarge or flight? Does VOP prevent magical healing?

A round casting fly is a round not casting haste. You're wasting other characters' actions and making the entire party worse as a result.

[DrWeird]

Have we yet established the exact nature of what WotC was intending with VoP - that is, have we decided upon exactly what their intention for playability was with it? I.e. "The character gives up gear entirely which cuts them off from magical gear and in exchange gains certain benefits but faces a challenge OR they severely underestimated the advantages versus the lack of versatility in gear advantages" - because from reading the text it seems that it they did indeed intend for a 'holy quest' to be difficult. Admittedly, this is a personal interpretation of their direction, but that was my vibe from the book as a whole.

On the other hand, WotC is famous for screwing up and making 3/4 of entire books absolutely worthless and unplayable.

[Talya]

It has poison.

Natural creatures are not evil for having venom. I'm sure there are still celestial platypii for us to laugh at.

[Boci]

Certainly easier than it would be to convince him to burn 25k xp to make a tome to hide unused in a dungeon.

Wait, was that supose to be a serious point?

[Talya]

Resource cost is opportunity cost. Unless I can persist flight on you, you are eating actions that I need to use to KILL THE BAD GUYS.

Agreed. The VOP would have to settle for an Overland flight, I suspect.

[Boci]

Agreed. The VOP would have to settle for an Overland flight, I suspect.

Personal range.

[true_shinken]

Wait, was that supose to be a serious question?
Considering it's not even a question... I don't think so.



because from reading the text it seems that it they did indeed intend for a 'holy quest' to be difficult. Admittedly, this is a personal interpretation of their direction, but that was my vibe from the book as a whole.
This is simply obvious when you actually sit down and read the book. If you go fishing for plusses, though, you'll miss it. I believe that's why VoP gained this reputation, because people think of it as something it's not.

[Boci]

Considering it's not even a question... I don't think so.

Point then.

[only1doug]

VoP claims to have no power level. It claims to be a way for you not to suck so much.

Vow of Poverty claims to have "benefits that can help to outweigh the lack of items"

"Outweigh" sounds to me like you are supposed to be better with the feat than you would be without it.


If anyone does create a re-write of VoP could you have the abilities powered from ECL instead of Character Level? As written any character with a race or template which contains LA has a worse time with VoP than those without.
(obviously an easy houserule to apply but if we are discussing a complete re-write lets get it right)

[Telonius]

It has poison.

The Celestial version would probably have a Ravage instead of a Poison. :smalltongue:

[Doc Roc]

Natural creatures are not evil for having venom. I'm sure there are still celestial platypii for us to laugh at.

They cannot be exalted, because these are the rules for being exalted. I am sorry. You want this "great fluff" and this is what it is.



The Celestial version would probably have a Ravage instead of a Poison. :smalltongue:

One can dream, dream of a day where someone thought that maybe, just maybe, a transformative template should transform something.

[Talya]

They cannot be exalted, because these are the rules for being exalted. I am sorry. You want this "great fluff" and this is what it is.


"Exalted" wildshape forms are not special. They are standard celestial creatures. Nothing prevents a venomous creature from having the celestial template. And there is nothing at all evil about a creature with venom using its natural weapons. Such things are not described as an evil act.

[Doc Roc]

"Exalted" wildshape forms are not special. They are standard celestial creatures. Nothing prevents a venomous creature from having the celestial template. And there is nothing at all evil about a creature with venom using its natural weapons. Such things are not described as an evil act.

The use of poison, in any form, is contraindicated by exalted rules.

[Talya]

Poison is generally associated with evil in D&D. Typically only evil classes gain access to use it safely (assassin, blackguard). However, I don't believe I've ever seen it spelled out that "Poison is always, in all forms, evil."

[Jack_Simth]

Poison is generally associated with evil in D&D. Typically only evil classes gain access to use it safely (assassin, blackguard). However, I don't believe I've ever seen it spelled out that "Poison is always, in all forms, evil."
Book of Exalted Deeds, page 34, comes really, really close:

Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness. Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil to use.

[NNescio]

Poison is generally associated with evil in D&D. Typically only evil classes gain access to use it safely (assassin, blackguard). However, I don't believe I've ever seen it spelled out that "Poison is always, in all forms, evil."

Book of Exalted Deeds, Page 34~35 explicitly calls out poison use as being evil, since poison that deal ability damage "causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." Poison that don't cause ability damage are exceptions, with Oil of Taggit being the only example listed from the DMG.

This is the sole reason why BoED introduced ravages, which are basically just "poison, but not evil, even if it causes ability damage."

Which is really stupid, but you can't have your cake and eat it too if you are an exalted character.

Edit: Ninja'ed.

[ShriekingDrake]

Virtually, all animals with poison are neutral. Clearly, it cannot be the case that using poison makes one evil. Were that the case, all animals that naturally had poison would not be neutral, they would be evil.

As far as exalted wild shape, I don't know.

[NNescio]

Virtually, all animals with poison are neutral. Clearly, it cannot be the case that using poison makes one evil. Were that the case, all animals that naturally had poison would not be neutral, they would be evil.

As far as exalted wild shape, I don't know.

"Virtually, all animals that can kill innocent people are neutral. Clearly, it cannot be the case that killing innocent people makes one evil. Were that the case, all animals that naturally can kill people or otherwise prey on sentient humanoids would not be neutral; they would be evil."

The actual reason is something different instead:

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

[Boci]

Virtually, all animals with poison are neutral. Clearly, it cannot be the case that using poison makes one evil. Were that the case, all animals that naturally had poison would not be neutral, they would be evil.

I'm guessing the argument would be they get a free pass ofr not being sentient. But the PC is sentient, and thus by choosing to use a tactic that involves undue pain and suffering, you are committing an evil act.

Which is still stupid.

[PollyOliver]

I'm guessing the argument would be they get a free pass ofr not being sentient. But the PC is sentient, and thus by choosing to use a tactic that involves undue pain and suffering, you are committing an evil act.

Which is still stupid.

What's stupid is that inducing dex damage with touch of golden ice is less evil than inducing it with a poison. Or even that killing someone by tearing them to shreds with your wild-shaped claws could be less evil than using a poison which does dex damage to allow you to more easily capture them, cure them, and put them on trial.

[Thurbane]

The use of poison, in any form, is contraindicated by exalted rules.
...so, you want to tweak VoP, but you're good with BoEE rules regarding poison being evil? :smalleek:

Couatl says hi.

Not to mention the insultingly stupid concept that BoED calls ravages. Same, same, but different. :smallfurious:

[Doc Roc]

What's stupid is that inducing dex damage with touch of golden ice is less evil than inducing it with a poison. Or even that killing someone by tearing them to shreds with your wild-shaped claws could be less evil than using a poison which does dex damage to allow you to more easily capture them, cure them, and put them on trial.

People laugh when I say I sometimes hate exalted for good reasons.



...so, you want to tweak VoP, but you're good with BoEE rules regarding poison being evil? :smalleek:

Couatl says hi.

Not to mention the insultingly stupid concept that BoED calls ravages. Same, same, but different. :smallfurious:


No. I hate the entire freaking thing and want it to die in a fire. Is that a tweak now? Can that be a tweak, please?

[NNescio]

What's stupid is that inducing dex damage with touch of golden ice is less evil than inducing it with a poison. Or even that killing someone by tearing them to shreds with your wild-shaped claws could be less evil than using a poison which does dex damage to allow you to more easily capture them, cure them, and put them on trial.

Presumably it's because ravages only affect evil beings. Which is still stupid.

"It's okay to poison ravage them and cause undue suffering because they are evil. Moral relativism ahoy!"

[Boci]

What's stupid is that inducing dex damage with touch of golden ice is less evil than inducing it with a poison. Or even that killing someone by tearing them to shreds with your wild-shaped claws could be less evil than using a poison which does dex damage to allow you to more easily capture them, cure them, and put them on trial.

I know. I could see an argument for diseases being evil because of the chance of it spreading, but as long as you aren't poisoning an entire village's water supply it shouldn't be evil. Maybe chaotic, especially in certain cultires, but not automatically evil.

As for ravages and infliction, I assume they do not cause pain and suffering, somehow.


...so, you want to tweak VoP, but you're good with BoEE rules regarding poison being evil? :smalleek:

Couatl says hi.

Not to mention the insultingly stupid concept that BoED calls ravages. Same, same, but different. :smallfurious:

Yeah the book should have been called book of lawful stupid and have two section: passive (vow of peace and its ilk) and active (ravages, anything to aid in genocide).

[Doc Roc]

As for ravages and infliction, I assume they do not cause pain and suffering, somehow.

So a horrible, largely asymptomatic wasting? That's.... terrifying!

[NNescio]

I know. I could see an argument for diseases being evil because of the chance of it spreading, but as long as you aren't poisoning an entire village's water supply it shouldn't be evil. Maybe chaotic, especially in certain cultires, but not automatically evil.

As for ravages and infliction, I assume they do not cause pain and suffering, somehow.

Doesn't seem so according to the BoED:


Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain...


...the powers of good have their own answer to poison and disease: ravages and afflictions, magical traumas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies.


... Ravages and afflictions affect only evil creatures, and are particularly debilitating to evil outsiders...

[Boci]

So a horrible, largely asymptomatic wasting? That's.... terrifying!

I guess if I seriously wanted to justify the mechanics I would tie in the stat damage to a realization of their evil, causing hesitation/lack of will to live. But the kind of lack of will that doesn't come with suffering.

[Talya]

I'm guessing the argument would be they get a free pass ofr not being sentient. But the PC is sentient, and thus by choosing to use a tactic that involves undue pain and suffering, you are committing an evil act.

Which is still stupid.

What about Celestial creatures with venom? They are both sentient, AND good.

[Boci]

What about Celestial creatures with venom? They are both sentient, AND good.

They don't have a choice, they wre born that way. Druids still choose to assume the form a creature with poison.

[Thurbane]

BoED has a lot of concepts and crunch I like, but the part I dislike the most is it's simplistic (bordering on moronic), and often self-contradictory view on morals and alignment. BoVD is also guilty of this, but (IMHO) not as much as BoED.

[ShriekingDrake]

"Virtually, all animals that can kill innocent people are neutral. Clearly, it cannot be the case that killing innocent people makes one evil. Were that the case, all animals that naturally can kill people or otherwise prey on sentient humanoids would not be neutral; they would be evil."

The actual reason is something different instead:

That's true. I'm just making the point that using poison is not sufficient to make an animal evil. Just as killing an innocent in D&D is not sufficient make an animal evil.

For that matter, one need not use poison to be evil. (I hope this is self-evident enough.)

So, I believe that we've established that it is neither necessary or sufficient for poison use to make an animal evil.

[Veyr]

BoED has a lot of concepts and crunch I like, but the part I dislike the most is it's simplistic (bordering on moronic), and often self-contradictory view on morals and alignment. BoVD is also guilty of this, but (IMHO) not as much as BoED.
That's because BoVD mostly only has "for the Evulz" type of cartoony Evil in it, so most of it we'll agree is evil just because it's stupidly over the top evil with no moral ambiguity.

[Boci]

BoED has a lot of concepts and crunch I like, but the part I dislike the most is it's simplistic (bordering on moronic), and often self-contradictory view on morals and alignment. BoVD is also guilty of this, but (IMHO) not as much as BoED.

Despite my earlier snarky comment about how the book should have benn presented, I genuinly think that if it was split into proper rightousness and misguided good could have made it a much better book. Just be honest, ravages are probably no different to poisons, but the people who use them generally believe they are a legitimate weapon of good.

[ShriekingDrake]

BoED has a lot of concepts and crunch I like, but the part I dislike the most is it's simplistic (bordering on moronic), and often self-contradictory view on morals and alignment. BoVD is also guilty of this, but (IMHO) not as much as BoED.

I agree with this on all counts.

[Incanur]

Given that I'd spend the feats I'd have spent on VoP on aberrant wildshape instead, and that Exalted means no Fleshraker, I'm not perfectly sure I agree.

The godlike will-o'-wisp form doesn't come online until level 9, so I remain comfortable in my claim that VoP gives as much as it takes away until about that stage in the game. :smallwink: I agree wilding clasps and items win afterwards. Being an invisible, magic-immune orb with a perfect fly speed and high touch AC thanks to a clasped monk's belt far surpasses in even the blink dog for survivability.

[Doc Roc]

That's because BoVD mostly only has "for the Evulz" type of cartoony Evil in it, so most of it we'll agree is evil just because it's stupidly over the top evil with no moral ambiguity.

I have played a couple Saturday Morning Cartoons Campaigns, using BoVD stuff, and they were super-great.

BTW: Cloakers are quite a good shape at EL 6.

[Provengreil]

Agreed!


I'm playing one right now. I've convinced my DM to give me Rich Burlew's Fey Blood Druid feat for free (as all it really does is create an alternate druid with charisma based casting and an additional weakness...it's not really worth a feat.) It's working out rather well...

Touch of Golden Ice. Yes, I know what you said. But you're making piles of natural attacks. Even on the off chance your opponent rolls a 1, it's worth it. Edit: A lot of people don't notice that your charisma bonus gets added on to the dex damage from this feat. For my fey druid, this means 1d6+4 dex damage on a natural 1 from my opponent. If that opponent happens to be a dragon...well...you see where this is going. The odds are too slim to rely on, but it's great if/when it happens.


actually, the ravage section reads:

"Any evil creature {that fails its save} takes damage equal to that listed the appropriate table, plus its charisma bonus."

in other words, the charisma bonus is based on the enemy's charisma, not yours. still problematic for liches and dragons and such, but not so awesome for high charisma users.

[TOZ]

actually, the ravage section reads:

"Any evil creature {that fails its save} takes damage equal to that listed the appropriate table, plus its charisma bonus."

in other words, the charisma bonus is based on the enemy's charisma, not yours. still problematic for liches and dragons and such, but not so awesome for high charisma users.

However, it was super awesome when my Touch of Golden Ice monk grappled the CE unseelie fey warlock. :smallbiggrin:

[Provengreil]

However, it was super awesome when my Touch of Golden Ice monk grappled the CE unseelie fey warlock. :smallbiggrin:

wow, that's quite the hug of death.

[Rhakiath]

I can't understand why anyone would think BoED is underpowered. My group, me in particular, gave our DM fits from using that book. My character, a human paladin, used a couple feats from that book and ended up being the most overpowered character in the history of our table by level 10. I had very high stats as a rolled character, and as a cavalier build I could deal tons of damage with a lance and massive strength. Once I died, I came back as a risen martyr with D12 hit die, immunity to virtually everything, yet more charisma to put me at 18, and holy purpose adds a bonus to everything, making up for the crap attack progression. The class revolves around becoming deathless, a type of good undead.

The charisma, for those of you that don't know, is added to my AC and saves due to class features of both classes. Also, I had a lot of healing with lay on hands, decent turning, good smiting, and a few spells. I also glowed due to nimbus of light, just for fun. My AC once I got mundane full plate and a heavy shield was well over 30. I wanted so badly to take (un)holy toughness, which would have added over 60 HP, putting me at about 150 HP at level 10, but my DM wisely forbade it since it's a monster feat. Oh, and I radiated a protection from evil spell, giving an extra AC bonus, etc. to my entire party. Due to my deathless body, I literally had no CON score, and couldn't fail fort saves unless they worked on objects, and I had reflex and will saves of 12+ at level 10. Heck, I didn't have to breathe, so I told my DM that I'd hold my breath from when I was revived until further notice, and saved a drowning ally several sessions later. My DM killed me in a cutscene with my approval, since he couldn't possibly kill me in a real encounter without killing my entire party. The shenanigans I was able to cause with that character are legendary.

Charisma is not a dump stat. The book lacked much info on deathless, however. We had to agree on certain things such as what happened if I died, or if I got turned by a cleric. My DM was never annoyed by how powerful I was though, since I roleplayed, in his words, "the most paladinny paladin ever".

Vow of poverty is one of the most hack feats ever; it carries a fair number of limitations but the bonuses as written are very powerful. You can complain about not being allowed a spellbook or components, but it takes only common sense to avoid problems. As long as the player gives away all his stuff, and roleplays, I am happy with the feat being taken. My VoP monk has given away a lot of cash to orphans so far. For Wizards, you can simply have a borrowed spellbook from another wizard in the party, if there is one. You could also use tattoos instead, or if you really want to get cute, his familiar could own the spellbook. Material components, as in the description, can be begged or found. I'd say anything with a material component with a listed value should be off limits, but there's no reason he couldn't make and sell wands and potions at market price, though that's kind of pointless for his own party.

My interpretation of possessions was that, besides food, clothing, and items with no value like a staff, you could consume but not own. Being able to drink potions, provided your party gives them to you, is one example. But you couldn't wear a ring they give you, even if you give it back. That seems contradictory, but consumables vs permanent items is an important distinction in measuring character wealth. The gains from the feat are not only non consumable, but PASSIVE bonuses of huge value. Putting a GP value on all those bonuses is hard, since few items give a similar passive bonus that's not removable. In addition, you have your entire party, who gain more from having an epic ally than extra money.

Think of it like an Amish person. They seem to forgo modern technology, but there are tons of loopholes they use, like not being able to own cars, but still getting rides from friends. You can similarly mooch off of your party members, so you really don't give up too much.

The only classes I could see being bad with this feat are the rogue, fighter, and Paladin. Barbs, rangers (2wf + quarterstaff), monks, sorcs, and druids all gain a lot of useful stuff, though some is redundant. Wizards and bards do need gear, but either could be played with the rules interpreted more flexibly.

In my current campaign, we are using essence from killing monsters instead of rolling HD, and soulstones are required to absorb hit points. My monk pointed out he couldn't carry soulstones, so I gave him a tattoo into which he could absorb essence. Similarly, training for skills and feats costs money in my campaign, but his order gives him the training for free as needed as long as he performs good deeds.

He also has an armormaking craft background, and by the rules as written it isn't clear whether he could buy materials to make and sell armor, with tools being doubtful. He can make do by punching the molten iron with his fists, and I decided that as long as he donates all of his cash and income he can still craft armor, since it is done to make money for orphans. There is no reason why a commoner couldn't take VoP and donate all his money from cleaning the stables, except perhaps that he has no money in the first place. If the player can go out and sell his share of loot on the market to make money for charity, that's a form of business and it's allowed by the RaW, so as long as he doesn't own his forge or tools he can go to town.

BoED revolves around very strong roleplaying, which is why many of the power players among you don't like it. My main problem with it is that it isn't well fleshed out; there are balance issues, but oftentimes the book doesn't do a good job of laying out strict rules. Vow of poverty, however, is not underpowered. Being exalted is not a decision to make your character more powerful from a metagame standpoint at all. My experience was that I had to throw away my self preservation in exchange for doing good, never do things the easy way, and decide to do knowingly stupid things because they are good. The DM takes advantage of you, throws BoVD at you, and tries to make being exalted more difficult, but the feats and play style of BoED give you better equipped for that.

For what it's worth, I do think the poison rules are somewhat stupid, and aren't worded to address a whole lot of situations. The ravages are essentially debuff spells in their mechanics and should have been treated as magical rather than like poisons.

[Divide by Zero]

Two things immediately come to mind:

1. A single anecdote from a clearly low-op group does not prove a feat's power or lack thereof.
2. VoP forbids you from using armor, even mundane armor. If the DM missed (or allowed) that, then it's quite possible that other things got changed as well, which would make it seem better than it actually is.

[TOZ]

wow, that's quite the hug of death.

The player was not amused, but being that he only ever played that one character in every game, with pretty open hostility to the rest of the party, I didn't care. Made for a nice check and balance for the party.

[Sir Homeslice]

BoED revolves around very strong roleplaying, which is why many of the power players among you don't like it.

Yes, that's it. The dirty commoner power players don't like the BoED because of its roleplaying, which is obviously anathema to them and thus can be the only reason they dislike it. It's completely unthinkable for there to be any other reason at all.

[Qwertystop]

Yes, that's it. The dirty commoner power players don't like the BoED because of its roleplaying, which is obviously anathema to them and thus can be the only reason they dislike it. It's completely unthinkable for there to be any other reason at all.

Yeah, it's inconceivable that there could ever be a problem in the actual rules for the things in the book.
:smallamused:

[Divide by Zero]

Missed that line on the first read through. Since when do munchkins (I assume that's the term you meant) not like the book? There's a reason some people call it the Book of Exalted Cheese.

[Provengreil]

However, it was super awesome when my Touch of Golden Ice monk grappled the CE unseelie fey warlock. :smallbiggrin:

wow, that's quite the hug of death.

[Veyr]

wow, that's quite the hug of death.

wow, that's quite the hug of death.

Is this seriously a double post with 48 minutes in between them? That is hilarious.

[Thurbane]

Yeah, it's inconceivable that there could ever be a problem in the actual rules for the things in the book.
:smallamused:
To be fair, that's pretty endemic to all of WotC books!

And you awful optimizers, I bet you're the sort of people that houserule out favored class rules, and drop the multiclassing restrictions on Paladins and Monks. Oh wait, you people don't use Paladins or Monks! :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Sorry, forgot dips, of course! :smallsmile:

[TOZ]

Is this seriously a double post with 48 minutes in between them? That is hilarious.

I can doublepost my response if you like. :smallwink:

[Divide by Zero]

Is this seriously a double post with 48 minutes in between them? That is hilarious.

This is the third time I've seen it happen (the previous one was by you, in fact, IIRC), so yeah, wouldn't surprise me.

Edit: yep.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10968597#post10968597
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10968780#post10968780

[Boci]

To be fair, that's pretty endemic to all of WotC books!

And you awful optimizers, I bet you're the sort of people that houserule out favored class rules, and drop the multiclassing restrictions on Paladins and Monks. Oh wait, you people don't use Paladins or Monks! :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Of course we do. Paladin is one of the easiest ways to get cha to saves and the variant auras can be useful, especially the one for tyranny. And monks can be useful in the right build. I just don't understand why people keep mistaking 6 for 20 when discussing how many levels each class has.

[Veyr]

This is the third time I've seen it happen (the previous one was by you, in fact, IIRC), so yeah, wouldn't surprise me.

Edit: yep.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10968597#post10968597
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10968780#post10968780
:smalleek::smallredface:

Haha, wow. I hadn't noticed; thanks. I've cleaned it up since I figure there's nothing in that post worth reading twice, heh. But wow, I feel kind of silly about that.

[Rhakiath]

#1, DBZ, I used the paladin as an example of the BoED as a whole, not VoP. I didn't take that feat since I needed the armor. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my long and rambling post. Just Paladin 6, Risen Martyr 4, and 22 Charisma.

#2, I didn't really intend that remark to be as much of a shot at you guys, my group and I enjoy playing both sides of that spectrum between roleplaying and roll playing. To clarify, you are not a dirty commoner or a munchkin if you don't like BoED. There are parts of that book, as with every other book, which I dislike. But since I read things on the first page about VoP being too weak, and additional features being added to "fix" it, I thought it necessary to disagree. Of all the things wrong with that book, that particular feat being underpowered is certainly not on the list. Sure, your DM could screw you over by making you step on a copper coin that sticks to your feet or something, but such a major character choice should make the DM adjust to fit your character's play style. BoED and Vile really don't fit too well with other splatbooks, they tend to be the main character building sourcebooks for an individual campaign. Cherry picking one or two feats from them doesn't really work that well, since being exalted isn't something in which you dabble.

#3, as for those of you who believes Paladins to be lousy after level 6, all you need to do is die like I did and use BoED to make an epic character. Dying is a small price, really. Every character should do it.

[Lhurgyof]

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. As it is, one of the reasons the Monk sucks is because he can't use a lot of his class features with the magic items the other classes get. Vow of Poverty does the same thing, and it doesn't supply sufficient advantages to offset the disadvantage.

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.

Also, there's a degree of predictability to VoP that doesn't apply to magic items, a person can swap out items, but VoP gives the same specific bonus no matter what. There is a loss of vulnerability to certain exploits, most of which are so rarely employed by the DM that they aren't worth worrying about (like a Wizard's spellbook), in exchange for some static, predictable bonuses.

There's a prestige class in the 3.0 Masters of the Wild book called the "Forsaker". Look it up, and use those benefits for VoP. Or use it to help boost it.

[Provengreil]

Is this seriously a double post with 48 minutes in between them? That is hilarious.

i posted, left my computer to do some stuff, get sidetracked, came back to an error message, and refreshed.

[Zonugal]

There's a prestige class in the 3.0 Masters of the Wild book called the "Forsaker". Look it up, and use those benefits for VoP. Or use it to help boost it.

The problem with using the "Forsaker" is that to gain access to it's damage reduction ability one had to destroy magical items which goes against the stipulation of charity within the rules of Vow of Poverty.

That's right, every time you smash an amulet it could have gone to help some orphans!

[Divide by Zero]

#2, I didn't really intend that remark to be as much of a shot at you guys, my group and I enjoy playing both sides of that spectrum between roleplaying and roll playing. To clarify, you are not a dirty commoner or a munchkin if you don't like BoED. There are parts of that book, as with every other book, which I dislike. But since I read things on the first page about VoP being too weak, and additional features being added to "fix" it, I thought it necessary to disagree. Of all the things wrong with that book, that particular feat being underpowered is certainly not on the list. Sure, your DM could screw you over by making you step on a copper coin that sticks to your feet or something, but such a major character choice should make the DM adjust to fit your character's play style. BoED and Vile really don't fit too well with other splatbooks, they tend to be the main character building sourcebooks for an individual campaign. Cherry picking one or two feats from them doesn't really work that well, since being exalted isn't something in which you dabble.

DM screw isn't at all what makes the feat underpowered. Aside from the fact that only a total jerk DM would do that in the first place, I don't think anybody has brought up that point yet in this thread. But you failed to account for the numerous arguments against it, primarily the lack of reliable flight.


#3, as for those of you who believes Paladins to be lousy after level 6, all you need to do is die like I did and use BoED to make an epic character. Dying is a small price, really. Every character should do it.

No offense, but have you ever been in a group with a competent spellcaster? Even if Risen Martyr didn't suck, it still wouldn't be able to keep up.

[Lhurgyof]

The problem with using the "Forsaker" is that to gain access to it's damage reduction ability one had to destroy magical items which goes against the stipulation of charity within the rules of Vow of Poverty.

That's right, every time you smash an amulet it could have gone to help some orphans!

That's why I said use it as a base for the abilities of VoP. :smalltongue:

Do you think, for example, that the abilities conferred by forsaker (without the destruction of magic bull) outweigh the penalties associated with giving all your wealth to charity?

[Zonugal]

That's why I said use it as a base for the abilities of VoP. :smalltongue:

Do you think, for example, that the abilities conferred by forsaker (without the destruction of magic bull) outweigh the penalties associated with giving all your wealth to charity?

I'd honestly much rather play a manifester if I had to utilize VoP. Something like an Ardent/Monk/Slayer with Tashalatora could make it worth it.

[Lhurgyof]

I'd honestly much rather play a manifester if I had to utilize VoP. Something like an Ardent/Monk/Slayer with Tashalatora could make it worth it.

No, no, no. I meant taking the VoP feat and getting the perks of a Forsaker.

[Zonugal]

No, no, no. I meant taking the VoP feat and getting the perks of a Forsaker.

Oh, well I guess that would work too. Except for the underlying mechanical faults in VoP (mobility being the biggest of them).

[Incanur]

No offense, but have you ever been in a group with a competent spellcaster? Even if Risen Martyr didn't suck, it still wouldn't be able to keep up.

Competent spellcasters break games, but the straight-classed paladin in a longstanding campaign I DMed never had much trouble feeling useful. The eventual saint template, angel wings, and relic sword certainly helped with that, as did the cleric's whimsical approach to spellcasting and the sorcerer's penchant for blasting.

[Divide by Zero]

Competent spellcasters break games, but the straight-classed paladin in a longstanding campaign I DMed never had much trouble feeling useful. The eventual saint template, angel wings, and relic sword certainly helped with that, as did the cleric's whimsical approach to spellcasting and the sorcerer's penchant for blasting.

I'm not saying paladins can't be useful. But for it to be "the most overpowered character in the history of our table" is a different matter entirely.

[Rhakiath]

There isn't a lack of reliable flight from VoP.

1: Drink a potion of Fly given to you by an ally
2: Get an ally to cast Fly on you
3: Cast Fly on yourself if you have spells
4: Ride on an ally's flying mount or flying carpet
5: Get a flying mount
6: Have an ally who cast Fly on himself carry you
7: Play a race that can fly
8: Wild shape into something that can fly
9: Half Dragon
10: Have an ally Polymorph wings onto you, making it permanent at his own cost.

All of these are allowed under the RaW, and some are specifically mentioned.

As for Paladins, I don't play them for optimization builds, but this one was the best character in the party, and yes, there was a competent wizard. I could deal 30 damage a shot from horseback with a lance, easily. If I critted, smited, and did max damage, I would do about 181 damage, and about 244 if I full power attacked. The most I'd ever legitimately done was about 60, at level 7 or 8. Minimum was 21, and max with only a charge and normal hit was 42 if using my lance. My average was a good deal more than the party wizard due to spirited charge, and I missed a lot less.

Try saying the risen martyr doesn't suck to my DM for that campaign, he'll disagree. The AC bonuses and such alone were pretty good, but I found out the real ramifications of being undead; in one fight, I attacked an atropal scion and tanked its death ray, since it couldn't kill me. I couldn't be critted, which is how I died in the first place. In fact, the powerful undeads that killed me couldn't even hit me 2 levels later. Here is a list of things that can't kill me, though you have to substitute deathless for undead and positive energy for negative where necessary:

Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.

That lot's just from the subtype, the class combo had even more immunities, such as fear and several energy immunities. That's an awful lot of stuff that can't hurt me.

The casters in the party were formidable, especially since they were power players and used the spell compendium and such. They were nice to have, but my character performed the role of tank, secondary healer, leader, etc. better than the wizards wizarded. The only downside of the class is that once you finish your task or get reduced to 0HP, you poof. But that made it all the more interesting for me to play, and made it more of a rush to fight like the devil with no buffer of negative HP. The class was, for me, the most fun PrC I've ever played.

Since it was fun to play, I fail to see how it can suck.

Also, I should point out we seldom have higher levels than 10, precisely because they cease to be as fun to play when the wizards break the game. 5 levels later, I'd just get disintegrated a few times, but at level 10 the most damage most spells will do is around 10d6, so spirited charge with a lance and 18STR is far from obsolete at that point.

[Mystic Muse]

There isn't a lack of reliable flight from VoP.

1: Drink a potion of Fly given to you by an ally Pretty sure you can't do this by RAW. May be wrong

2: Get an ally to cast Fly on you You shouldn't have to rely on your ally to be able to do your job.

3: Cast Fly on yourself if you have spells And only a few classes can do this, and they aren't the reason VoP needs fixed.

4: Ride on an ally's flying mount or flying carpet
If my ally has a flying mount, that means he wants to use it.

5: Get a flying mount Yeah, I'll just buy a mount with my mone- Oh wait....

6: Have an ally who cast Fly on himself carry you This requires for your ally to do nothing the entire time he's allowing you to do your job. This shouldn't be considered an option.

7: Play a race that can fly Such as? The only two I can think of that are worth using are raptoran and Dragonborn.

8: Wild shape into something that can fly That requires that you be a druid. I can see plenty of non druids wanting to use this.

9: Half Dragon You have to be a race that's naturally large to get this. You're looking at a minimum of 4 lost levels here.

10: Have an ally Polymorph wings onto you, making it permanent at his own cost. This also has the problem of you having to rely on your allies, and it comes with the additional problem of being easy to dispel.

You shouldn't have to rely on your allies to be able to do your job.

[Divide by Zero]

There isn't a lack of reliable flight from VoP.

1: Drink a potion of Fly given to you by an ally
2: Get an ally to cast Fly on you
3: Cast Fly on yourself if you have spells
4: Ride on an ally's flying mount or flying carpet
5: Get a flying mount
6: Have an ally who cast Fly on himself carry you
7: Play a race that can fly
8: Wild shape into something that can fly
9: Half Dragon
10: Have an ally Polymorph wings onto you, making it permanent at his own cost.

3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are class- or race-specific, 4 and 6 are impractical in combat when it matters, 2 wastes another player's valuable actions, and 10 is not legal by RAW (polymorph is not a valid target for permanency). 1 is the only universally viable option, and it's expensive.


As for Paladins, I don't play them for optimization builds, but this one was the best character in the party, and yes, there was a competent wizard. I could deal 30 damage a shot from horseback with a lance, easily. If I critted, smited, and did max damage, I would do about 181 damage, and about 244 if I full power attacked. The most I'd ever legitimately done was about 60, at level 7 or 8. Minimum was 21, and max with only a charge and normal hit was 42 if using my lance. My average was a good deal more than the party wizard due to spirited charge, and I missed a lot less.

Übercharger says hi. Also, you can't get that high consistently, and ~30 damage per round isn't really impressive at that level.


Try saying the risen martyr doesn't suck to my DM for that campaign, he'll disagree. The AC bonuses and such alone were pretty good, but I found out the real ramifications of being undead; in one fight, I attacked an atropal scion and tanked its death ray, since it couldn't kill me. I couldn't be critted, which is how I died in the first place. In fact, the powerful undeads that killed me couldn't even hit me 2 levels later. Here is a list of things that can't kill me, though you have to substitute deathless for undead and positive energy for negative where necessary:

Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.

That lot's just from the subtype, the class combo had even more immunities, such as fear and several energy immunities. That's an awful lot of stuff that can't hurt me.

So you're arguably better at not dying. That really doesn't help your party out. Serious monk syndrome here.


The casters in the party were formidable, especially since they were power players and used the spell compendium and such. They were nice to have, but my character performed the role of tank, secondary healer, leader, etc. better than the wizards wizarded. The only downside of the class is that once you finish your task or get reduced to 0HP, you poof. But that made it all the more interesting for me to play, and made it more of a rush to fight like the devil with no buffer of negative HP. The class was, for me, the most fun PrC I've ever played.

How did you perform the role of tank? With mediocre damage output and no relevant battlefield control, why were the monsters attacking you instead of the squishy wizards?

[Rhakiath]

OK, the potion is specifically written in one of the entries, there is one in the feats and one in the beginning.

having the wizard cast fly on his party isn't really unheard of. Unless you are a level 12+ party, flying items are pretty expensive, and by that point level 3 spells are cheap. Since when is it a character's "job" to fly?

Mounts aren't as expensive as you think; consider the paladin's free mount, the druid or ranger's animal companion, or an animal you befriend in the wild. The ally sharing a broom or carpet is specifically mentioned. There's also the leadership feat, which can get you a freaking dragon cohort.

As for the ally carrying you, it's reliable flight. It might not be useful in combat, but it's still good for passing obstacles and such.

There are a decent number of flying races, use your imagination.

The half Dragon suggestion still works, even if you don't like it.

Are you kidding me? What means of flight are there that can't be dispelled or antimagicked? Besides, the rest of the VoP bonuses will remain in antimagic, while your allies will be whimpering like kittens. No spells, no magic items at all, and the VoP player is virtually unaffected.

You might not be able to specifically buy boots of levitation, but you can do pretty much everything else. Unless you are a solo character, you aren't missing much in the flying department. Relying on other characters is kind of important in D&D. Your basic wizard relies on Tar the half orc barbarian to tank damage for him. Tar needs to fly? The wizard casts fly on him. Why you would spend 7500+ GP on flying boots for the tank when the wizard could do the same thing for free?

So the druid can fly, any class with spells can fly, any class with a decent animal companion or mount could get flying, but the other classes that can't fly without others' magic anyway can only fly with others' magic. How is VoP responsible for that?

Edit: the monsters were attacking me instead of the allies since I had a pegasus, a reach weapon, ride by attack, etc. The enemies get AoE'd if they go near my party, they get pwned by my lance regardless, and my remaining party consisted of a ranged ranger, a sorc, and a cleric who served as a secondary tank. I went out of my way to put myself in a lot of danger, so that many of the monsters had little choice. My party would get attacked a fair bit, and my DM tried hard to kill the mages and archer much of the time, but the only fight that I didn't juggernaut was when my idiot fighter fell off a cliff and almost drowned.

The race and class specific items are specific, but they cover a fair bit of ground. How often, exactly, is it STRICTLY necessary to fly? It's fun, I'll grant you, but not strictly necessary. When you're in a cave, like most red blooded adventures, you can't even use flight much. There are ways of getting wings and such though. Grafts, while iirc they are evil, would work. I don't feel like looking up every sourcebook, but there are a lot of ways of getting wings.

Damage for cone of cold at level 10= 10d6, average of 35. Fireball is the same amount at that level. Neither can be critted, both have saves, and both can kill allies. In addition, you can't do them forever.

[Mystic Muse]

OK, the potion is specifically written in one of the entries, there is one in the feats and one in the beginning. Okay, must have missed that. I apologize.


having the wizard cast fly on his party isn't really unheard of. Unless you are a level 12+ party, flying items are pretty expensive, and by that point level 3 spells are cheap. Since when is it a character's "job" to fly? It's not a character's job to fly, it's a character's job to be able to deal with his enemies. Considering the number of evil outsiders and just straight up bad guys that can fly, you should have a decent way to do it yourself.



Mounts aren't as expensive as you think; consider the paladin's free mount, the druid or ranger's animal companion, or an animal you befriend in the wild. The ally sharing a broom or carpet is specifically mentioned. There's also the leadership feat, which can get you a freaking dragon cohort.

Yes, it can get you a dragon cohort. The problem is, for any medium sized race, you have to be level 22 before any large sized dragons are available as cohorts.


As for the ally carrying you, it's reliable flight. It might not be useful in combat, but it's still good for passing obstacles and such. Fine, I'll give you that.


There are a decent number of flying races, use your imagination. Care to point a few out? Because the only ones I can think of that are halfway decent are Raptoran and Dragonborn.


The half Dragon suggestion still works, even if you don't like it. I'm aware that it works, for a certain definition of "Works". It just makes something that's already bad much worse.


Are you kidding me? What means of flight are there that can't be dispelled or antimagicked? Besides, the rest of the VoP bonuses will remain in antimagic, while your allies will be whimpering like kittens. No spells, no magic items at all, and the VoP player is virtually unaffected. Actually, VOP bonuses go away too. The problem with something like a permanencied spell is that every time it's dispelled you have to put it back on. Grafts are also unaffected by Dispel/antimagic from what I can tell in the Fiend Folio. If there's a more recent book with them, feel free to point me to it, because I'm pretty sure the Fiend Folio is 3.0 material. Granted, they're evil items, but it's still worth pointing out.



Your basic wizard relies on Tar the half orc barbarian to tank damage for him. Tar needs to fly? The wizard casts fly on him. Why you would spend 7500+ GP on flying boots for the tank when the wizard could do the same thing for free? because maybe you don't have a wizard or similar caster in your party? And no, the wizard doesn't Necessarily have to rely on his allies to tank for him.


So the druid can fly, Yes.
any class with spells can fly, Wrong actually.
any class with a decent animal companion or mount could get flying By a strict RAW reading, no they can't. Unless you can point me to a valid animal mount that can fly, since both the Paladin's mount and animal companion have to have the animal type.

[Divide by Zero]

having the wizard cast fly on his party isn't really unheard of. Unless you are a level 12+ party, flying items are pretty expensive, and by that point level 3 spells are cheap. Since when is it a character's "job" to fly?
Boots of Flying pay for themselves after 22 encounters and never become obsolete.

Mounts aren't as expensive as you think; consider the paladin's free mount, the druid or ranger's animal companion, or an animal you befriend in the wild. The ally sharing a broom or carpet is specifically mentioned. There's also the leadership feat, which can get you a freaking dragon cohort.
Class-specific stuff doesn't help other classes, wild animals tend to die in combat, and sharing a broom is incredibly limiting. Leadership works, but using a borderline-broken feat to justify it is questionable.

As for the ally carrying you, it's reliable flight. It might not be useful in combat, but it's still good for passing obstacles and such.
Which doesn't help at all in combat, when it matters most.

There are a decent number of flying races, use your imagination.
And if none of those races even remotely fit the character concept? There are a lot more that don't than do.

The half Dragon suggestion still works, even if you don't like it.
A minimum +4 LA equals an even more gimped character.

Are you kidding me? What means of flight are there that can't be dispelled or antimagicked? Besides, the rest of the VoP bonuses will remain in antimagic, while your allies will be whimpering like kittens. No spells, no magic items at all, and the VoP player is virtually unaffected.
Aren't exalted feats explicitly supernatural? I'm AFB, but if I'm remembering correctly, you're just as useless as the rest of them.

Tar needs to fly? The wizard casts fly on him. Why you would spend 7500+ GP on flying boots for the tank when the wizard could do the same thing for free?
Because the wizard's combat action is worth more than that. Basic rule of optimization: never do with a spell what you can do with an item.

So the druid can fly, any class with spells can fly, any class with a decent animal companion or mount could get flying, but the other classes that can't fly without others' magic anyway can only fly with others' magic. How is VoP responsible for that?
Because it makes them worse? How is it not responsible for that?

[Rhakiath]

The VoP bonuses don't go away after antimagic. The permanencied wings or such nonsense would, but the AC bonuses, DR, ability score bonuses, etc. wouldn't go away unless you break your vow, since they are feats.

some abilities are extraordinary abilities, and some are supernatural, the supernatural abilities might be stopped by antimagic field, but never by dispelling.

[PollyOliver]

Damage for cone of cold at level 10= 10d6, average of 35. Fireball is the same amount at that level. Neither can be critted, both have saves, and both can kill allies. In addition, you can't do them forever.

And you know what else you can cast at level 10? Cloudkill, dominate, feeblemind, dismissal, enervation, black tentacles, confusion, and bestow curse, and that's core only and not touching the horrible, horrible brokenness that can be polymorph. Crack open a couple splatbooks and you'll note that, among other amazing things, if you want to be a blaster a druid can literally drop an avalanche on the enemies' heads, deal nearly as much damage, trap them all in one place, and then follow that up with a second level spell to start dealing con damage while they're trapped.

And all of those are things you're not doing (also, hasting the entire party) when you're wasting your action to cast fly on the VoP fighter whose entire class is built around hitting things, but can't hit anything at all because the dragon (insert other level-appropriate monster here, noting that half the core level-appropriate monster encounters have flight or another alternative movement mode) happens to have wings. That's neither fair to the fighter, who is utterly dependent on the goodwill of a party member to be able to try to fulfill his basic class description, nor fair to his party members, who have better things to spend their money on than potions for him and far, far better things to spend their actions on.

[Divide by Zero]

EXALTED FEATS

These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are).

So yes, you lose ALL of the benefits in an AMF.

[Incanur]

Yeah, even remotely optimized wizards don't really cast fireball or cone of cold.

[Tvtyrant]

Unless they are Uttercold or Born of the Three Thunder casters.

[Rhakiath]

So anyone except a wizard or cleric or druid is a burden on their party?

If it were up to me, you lot would fight on your own and none of you whelps would reach level 3... :P

So, back to the point of this thread. Let's pretend for a second that a player wants to play a character who has taken a vow of poverty. You're all saying that because of this feat, he couldn't have fun because his character isn't optimized? I think the feat is reasonably powerful, and I'd give up my items in exchange for the absurd bonuses any day.

DR10/evil? Permanent true seeing? Freedom of movement? never having to eat or breathe? energy resistance 15/acid, cold, sonic, electricity? Mind shielding? exalted strike? AC +15? Ability scores +8/6/4/2? +3 all saves? endure elements? up to 11 bonus exalted feats from taking one feat?

Hot damn. What class couldn't use 11 exalted feats for free? You can't call that underpowered. Having 11 bonus feats is mainly what separates fighters from warriors, by comparison. This is on top of the monk's ability fest, and it gives you a lot for just 2 feats and your items. Your fists both become +5 exalted weapons, how easily can you afford two +5 weapons for a dual wielder?

There might be builds arguably better, but I wouldn't consider myself getting a raw deal if I wanted the flavor of this feat, and half the rest of the book's feats on top of that.



EDIT: page 30. It lists the majority of the effects as EX abilities.

If you interpret it your way, they lose natural armor. By that logic, you could take a rock into an antimagic field and it would turn to jello. The natural armor is intended to be a reflection of sleeping outdoors and such, taken to a certain degree of extremity.

[PollyOliver]

Yeah, even remotely optimized wizards don't really cast fireball or cone of cold.

Which is not to say you can't play a blaster. I've played fun blasters. But really (and I'm not aiming this at you), the expectation that your party members should be happy to waste an action or a potion or both on you every encounter when there are so much more useful things they could be doing with that money and time is not only seriously suboptimal in terms of the best uses of the party's resources, but also seriously presumptuous on the part of your character in a way that (in both an in-game and a metagame sense) is not conducive to party dynamics.

"Sorry, I can't fly, but since I'm clearly so much more important than you, waste the first turn of every encounter casting fly on me, instead of taking out an enemy or buffing every single one of us. Or, since my combat usefulness is so much more important than yours, give me your hard-won cut of the gold that you could be using to improve your armor to increase your chances of living to do good, or could even be giving to charity, so I can contribute more, because while technically I have to give all my money away, I'm still allowed to mooch money off of you that you could be giving away." Yes, that's real exalted of you.

If you are unable to even begin to try fulfilling the basic purpose of your class in a significant proportion of encounters in which that purpose should be very useful (i.e., fighters in battle) without the intervention of the rest of the party to help you, you are seriously, seriously underpowered, and that's what VoP does to both melee characters.

[Divide by Zero]

So, back to the point of this thread. Let's pretend for a second that a player wants to play a character who has taken a vow of poverty. You're all saying that because of this feat, he couldn't have fun because his character isn't optimized? I think the feat is reasonably powerful, and I'd give up my items in exchange for the absurd bonuses any day.
No, I'm not saying that. I've played a VoP character before, and it was perfectly fun. What I'm saying is that having the feat is demonstrably worse from a mechanical perspective than not having it. Since feats are supposed to make your character better, that's bad design.

DR10/evil?
Irrelevant. Most major threats at that level aren't attacking your HP.

Permanent true seeing?
Spell or item.

Freedom of movement?
Spell or item.

never having to eat or breathe?
Situational.

energy resistance 15/acid, cold, sonic, electricity?
See damage reduction.

Mind shielding?
Spell or item.

exalted strike?
Magic weapon.

AC +15?
Largely irrelevant at higher levels, and obtainable by spells and items.

Ability scores +8/6/4/2?
Items. That extra +2 to one stat isn't impressive.

+3 all saves?
Spell or item.

endure elements?
Seriously?

up to 11 bonus exalted feats from taking one feat?

Hot damn. What class couldn't use 11 exalted feats for free? You can't call that underpowered. Having 11 bonus feats is mainly what separates fighters from warriors, by comparison.
Good luck finding more than about four worth taking for any class not named druid.

This is on top of the monk's ability fest, and it gives you a lot for just 2 feats and your items. Your fists both become +5 exalted weapons, how easily can you afford two +5 weapons for a dual wielder?
Lol monk. Also, that's one of several reasons why dual wielding doesn't work very well. Also also, greater magic weapon.

There might be builds arguably better, but I wouldn't consider myself getting a raw deal if I wanted the flavor of this feat, and half the rest of the book's feats on top of that.
It's certainly better than not using magic items and getting nothing in return. But it's worse than using magic items.

[Incanur]

Which is not to say you can't play a blaster. I've played fun blasters.

Indeed. Optimized wizards are scary and not necessarily a good choice at the table. 3.x, being the insane game that it is, relies on folks who play tier-1 classes not exploiting the full power of their mechanical abilities in order to run smoothly. Either that or extensive DM intervention. Otherwise it becomes an orgy of free/cheap wishes, polymorphing, and explosive runes nukes.

[Mystic Muse]

DR10/evil? Terrible. Any decent threat can bypass it.
Permanent true seeing? This I admit is nice. Comes way too late though.
Freedom of movement? Costs 40,000 in a ring.
never having to eat or breathe? Costs about 20,000 for a ring and neck item that can do that.
energy resistance 15/acid, cold, sonic, electricity? Eh, I guess that's not bad. I can get energy resistance 20 to all those for 112,000 if I really want them that badly though.
Mind shielding? You can get it in a ring for 8,000
exalted strike? can get it in a weapon already.
AC +15? Can get it in items too. More than 15 actually.
Ability scores +8/6/4/2? Belt of magnificence. +6 to all for 200,000.
+3 all saves? +5 to all saves is only 25K
endure elements? Can't think of one but I know I could find it in an item if I actually cared to look.
up to 11 bonus exalted feats from taking one feat? Most of the exalted feats are barely worth taking anyway.



Hot damn. What class couldn't use 11 exalted feats for free? You can't call that underpowered. Having 11 bonus feats is mainly what separates fighters from warriors, by comparison. This is on top of the monk's ability fest, and it gives you a lot for just 2 feats and your items. Your fists both become +5 exalted weapons, how easily can you afford two +5 weapons for a dual wielder? Except it isn't free, it costs you all loot forever.

[Thurbane]

So anyone except a wizard or cleric or druid is a burden on their party?
Yeah, I have a problem with this kind of thinking too.

In part, I blame the tier system. I'm sure it was made with the best of intentions, but far too many people wield it as a club with which to bludgeon the idea into people that 3/4 of the classes in the game are unplayable.

Speaking entirely from personal experience, class disparity and 5th wheel syndrome are vastly exaggerated on gaming forums, compared to how much of an issue they are in actual, pen & paper, co-op gaming groups.

If it's really such an issue, riddle me this: if gaming groups are based around the assumption that (some) players will use every op trick in the book to make the most powerful/versatile character they can under RAW, why isn't everyone at every table simply playing Pun Pun, or some equivalent? If you've found a loophole that lets you "auto-win" the game every time, why bother playing anything else? I'm not trying to be facetious (well, maybe a bit), I would genuinely like to know...

[Tvtyrant]

Lol monk. Also, that's one of several reasons why dual wielding doesn't work very well. Also also, greater magic weapon.

It's certainly better than not using magic items and getting nothing in return. But it's worse than using magic items.

Greater Magic Weapon is a spell you need to either UMD or have your local Cleric cast for you... Which defeats the purpose of your argument.

[Incanur]

In part, I blame the tier system. I'm sure it was made with the best of intentions, but far too many people wield it as a club with which to bludgeon the idea into people that 3/4 of the classes in the game are unplayable.

Interesting. I interpret the tier system in the opposite direction and look skeptically on anything over tier 3. Does that come from being a DM more than a player?

[PollyOliver]

So anyone except a wizard or cleric or druid is a burden on their party?

If it were up to me, you lot would fight on your own and none of you whelps would reach level 3... :P

So, back to the point of this thread. Let's pretend for a second that a player wants to play a character who has taken a vow of poverty. You're all saying that because of this feat, he couldn't have fun because his character isn't optimized? I think the feat is reasonably powerful, and I'd give up my items in exchange for the absurd bonuses any day.

DR10/evil? Permanent true seeing? Freedom of movement? never having to eat or breathe? energy resistance 15/acid, cold, sonic, electricity? Mind shielding? exalted strike? AC +15? Ability scores +8/6/4/2? +3 all saves? endure elements? up to 11 bonus exalted feats from taking one feat?

Hot damn. What class couldn't use 11 exalted feats for free? You can't call that underpowered. Having 11 bonus feats is mainly what separates fighters from warriors, by comparison. This is on top of the monk's ability fest, and it gives you a lot for just 2 feats and your items. Your fists both become +5 exalted weapons, how easily can you afford two +5 weapons for a dual wielder?

There might be builds arguably better, but I wouldn't consider myself getting a raw deal if I wanted the flavor of this feat, and half the rest of the book's feats on top of that.

Rhrakiath:

Well, yes and no, on your first point. If you play with an immature group that doesn't care about the group fun and only personal fun, who also optimizes, yes. If you play with a mature group, there are plenty of useful roles non-casters can fulfill. In my RL group, all members of which have a pretty firm grasp of optimization, I play non-casters 2/3 to 3/4 of the time. But if that role is "hitting things really hard" and you can't reach the things fully half the time, you're not very useful, are you? And that's not fun.

As for exalted feats, have you actually read them? Most classes can only pull two or three fully useful feats out of that list. If the roleplay requirements are enforced (such as nymph's kiss), even fewer in some cases. Druids, who are apparently blessed in all things, can get more like 4 to 6. But look at the list, look at the pre-reqs, and tell me how many of them would be truly helpful on an average-stated fighter (meaning, you probably didn't take a 13 charisma) wielding a greatsword.

As for there being builds that are "arguably better", I think you're again missing the point. You are a melee character. Let's say you're your monk. You're a human monk 10. You've got all these nifty bonuses. Your fists are enchanted. You picked up touch of golden ice. Wonderful. But a third to a half of your encounters are against creatures that you cannot possibly get to without the party caster forgoing buffing everyone in the party, or forgoing using a battlefield control spell to lock down the enemy and keep it from hurting people, and instead deigning to buff you and you alone so you can take a crack at fulfilling your class's basic purpose, which is to hit things. If this was rare, sure, whatever. But all the freaking time? Of course there are better builds. Past low levels, vow of poverty cripples a melee character that doesn't have flight as a race or class feature.

Which is not to say I don't like the idea of vow of poverty. I'm playing a VoP druid right now. It's seriously less versatile than a normal caster because of lack of items and scrolls. But it's still a druid, so whatever. But a fighter? A monk? Even a warblade or a crusader? Unless you pigeonhole yourself into two races (half dragon isn't playable unless you start at 5, at which case you'll get one-shotted as a melee character), you are utterly dependent on the party's goodwill and desire to humor you to be even remotely competent at your job.

Edit: In general, my point about spells was not that only casters can be competent. If you play in a group of mature people who care about everyone having fun, that's not true. My point is that it's ridiculous to expect another character to blow the first round of combat all the time just to make you baseline competent when there are so many other things he could be doing.

[Divide by Zero]

Greater Magic Weapon is a spell you need to either UMD or have your local Cleric cast for you... Which defeats the purpose of your argument.

It's also hour/level, unlike fly which wastes a precious combat action unless you know the encounter is coming and can prepare in advance.

[NNescio]

Ah.. Risen Martyr...

It has poor BAB advancement, which is bad news for a primary melee fighter (AKA the paladin), its Detect Evil at will ability is also redundant, and it explicitly forbids players from taking levels in any other class, effectively forcing them to take levels only in Risen Martyr.

Raise Dead and Reincarnate also don't work on you, so good luck if you are rendered dead (well, "deader") again. Furthermore, A paladin who takes Risen Martyr levels can only have a maximum level of 16, since the Risen Martyr's capstone effectively kills your character permanently.

Or, in the words of Psyren, "Congratulations, you've hit Level 20! Level 16! Now roll a new character!"

Especially since you can't take levels in any other class, so there's no way to delay the inevitable.

And if somehow, your DM still think that your class is overpowered, he can screw you over far more easily than he can do to paladins, as the Risen Martyr has a significantly more restrictive code of conduct. Any Risen Martyr who wilfully commits an evil act is immediately destroyed to face judgement in the upper planes. (read: perma-dead again) The "evil" part is judged according to exalted standards, so he'll fall for doing things even a Paladin can get away with. (how 'bout telling a white lie to the parent who lost his only child? Oops, you are now permadead. Page 9 of BoED says so. Lying is evil, no exceptions. *)

Oh and hey, Atonement doesn't help. At least paladins and other exalted characters get that option.

Granted, the Risen Martyr does have a rather cool concept, but its execution is just appalling bad.

(*Some of the other 'moral judgements' in the BoED are even worse. So much for something that is supposedly for "mature readers" only.)

[Thurbane]

Interesting. I interpret the tier system in the opposite direction and look skeptically on anything over tier 3. Does that come from being a DM more than a player?
That's a perfectly valid POV - it's just not one I tend to see as commonly as vice versa.

[Divide by Zero]

Yeah, I have a problem with this kind of thinking too.

In part, I blame the tier system. I'm sure it was made with the best of intentions, but far too many people wield it as a club with which to bludgeon the idea into people that 3/4 of the classes in the game are unplayable.

Speaking entirely from personal experience, class disparity and 5th wheel syndrome are vastly exaggerated on gaming forums, compared to how much of an issue they are in actual, pen & paper, co-op gaming groups.

If it's really such an issue, riddle me this: if gaming groups are based around the assumption that (some) players will use every op trick in the book to make the most powerful/versatile character they can under RAW, why isn't everyone at every table simply playing Pun Pun, or some equivalent? If you've found a loophole that lets you "auto-win" the game every time, why bother playing anything else? I'm not trying to be facetious (well, maybe a bit), I would genuinely like to know...
Already answered that for you:

No, I'm not saying that. I've played a VoP character before, and it was perfectly fun. What I'm saying is that having the feat is demonstrably worse from a mechanical perspective than not having it. Since feats are supposed to make your character better, that's bad design.

[Rhakiath]

"Sorry, I can't fly, but since I'm clearly so much more important than you, waste the first turn of every encounter casting fly on me, instead of taking out an enemy or buffing every single one of us. Or, since my combat usefulness is so much more important than yours, give me your hard-won cut of the gold that you could be using to improve your armor to increase your chances of living to do good, or could even be giving to charity, so I can contribute more, because while technically I have to give all my money away, I'm still allowed to mooch money off of you that you could be giving away." Yes, that's real exalted of you.

If you are unable to even begin to try fulfilling the basic purpose of your class in a significant proportion of encounters in which that purpose should be very useful (i.e., fighters in battle) without the intervention of the rest of the party to help you, you are seriously, seriously underpowered, and that's what VoP does to both melee characters.

I disagree, the party should view it as charity of their own, and in fact it's a good idea for a party to all donate some money to charity. Also, consider the saint template.

For one member of the party to be exalted, and the rest to be greedy ungrateful bastards, is not a good mix.

It's not as if the VoP character is eating the buff spells, he's getting them so that when he risks his neck protecting the squishy mage, me might be able to take a harder beating. How selfish of the VoP player to want to live.

To suggest the other party members would even consider donating their money is laughable based on how you characterize them. As for a character needing help to fly to be playable, I disagree. taking a turn in battle to cast buffs isn't really such a bad thing. No one is forcing the wizard to cast fly on the monk, the wizard could fight by himself if he wanted to. Begging from your party isn't forcing them, and wouldn't be done lightly.

Asking your caster to buff you isn't about ego; it's clearly a bigger benefit to him than blasting away at the monsters, so I don't see why he'd be angry about it. "What, you can't fly? How worthless you are! You're already level 6 and you should've bought those boots of levitation! Sorry, I won't cast fly on you. If you can't fly, I'll just use my godlike wizard powers to kill the dragon myself because I'm a wizard and even though two levels ago I hid behind you like a frightened chipmunk, you can't fly."

What about clerics healing people? Can't fault the fighter for falling unconscious. The Bard? That class relies on buffing others, as does the marshal, to name a few. You use party resources when you have to, and if one member of the party is a VoP character, you help him if you're his friend.

Think about it, would you be mad at a jewish or Muslim friend who declined to eat pork or break their fast? Would you be mad at a devout pacifist for not fighting? So why would you be mad at someone with a vow of poverty who wants to eat or fly or whatever? He is no more able to fly by himself than a fish breathing air. The analogy to religion is appropriate, since that (or a similar lifestyle) is what an exalted character is often roleplaying.

On a lighter note, I'd find it funny for a dragon to take vow of poverty and fight a party. Not only would it be about a +4 to CR, there would be no treasure! The party would cry real tears if those bonuses applied to a monster. They'd call it hideously overpowered, but from the other end no one thinks much of it.

EDIT:

And I don't consider the downsides to the risen martyr to be too limiting. we don't play to level 20, I knew I'd be done at some point. Made me want to fight harder, the element of desperation was fun. I didn't commit any evil acts because I was playing a serious paladin. That's a no brainer. As for the BAB, the holy purpose stacks with everything, including attack rolls. Add the holy circle which debuffs foes in melee, iirc, fighting from horseback, being really strong, and being way ahead of the curve by having 6 pally levels, I wasn't having a problem hitting things. My fighter in the party had slightly better AB, but was a lot worse overall. Plus there's the look on your DM's face when he wants to have a cutscene battle and says I get KO'ed or stunned by magic, etc, and it's something I'm immune to and he has to BS some effect that stops me. I like playing paladins, simple as that, and I was able to cause a lot of dramatic events as well as shenanigans of legend with that character.

[Divide by Zero]

Asking your caster to buff you isn't about ego; it's clearly a bigger benefit to him than blasting away at the monsters, so I don't see why he'd be angry about it. "What, you can't fly? How worthless you are! You're already level 6 and you should've bought those boots of levitation! Sorry, I won't cast fly on you. If you can't fly, I'll just use my godlike wizard powers to kill the dragon myself because I'm a wizard and even though two levels ago I hid behind you like a frightened chipmunk, you can't fly."
"You want me to cast fly on you again? Why don't you just wear those boots we found? I have better things to do, like buffing the party members who can actually contribute meaningfully."

What about clerics healing people? Can't fault the fighter for falling unconscious. The Bard? That class relies on buffing others, as does the marshal, to name a few. You use party resources when you have to, and if one member of the party is a VoP character, you help him if you're his friend.
Cleric healing shouldn't be something that regularly comes up in the middle of combat, like flight would. Bard and marshal can buff the entire party at once, so that's irrelevant.

Think about it, would you be mad at a jewish or Muslim friend who declined to eat pork or break their fast? Would you be mad at a devout pacifist for not fighting? So why would you be mad at someone with a vow of poverty who wants to eat or fly or whatever? He is no more able to fly by himself than a fish breathing air. The analogy to religion is appropriate, since that (or a similar lifestyle) is what an exalted character is often roleplaying.
First example is irrelevant. For the second, I would not take a pacifist into a combat situation that they are clearly not prepared to handle. Likewise, if party dynamics didn't force it, I'd probably ditch the VoP fighter and hire someone who can actually do their job properly.

[PollyOliver]

Well, for one, that was hyperbole. But your response doesn't even make any sense. Thinking it's a little self-centered to expect that your party will be willing to give up the game's most precious recourse (actions) on a regular basis just to make you competent at your own job is the equivalent of expecting Muslims to eat pork? What? I'm not talking about someone who chooses to sacrifice and follow their own religious path. I'm talking about someone who chooses to do that and then expects that other people will be willing to frequently mitigate all the downsides of that sacrifice at cost to both themselves and everyone else involved.

In any case, if it comes down to it, yeah, the caster probably does have way better things to do than cast fly on you--things that would benefit the party more than him casting fly on you. And not even all of these are offensive spells. I'm not saying that he should solo the dragon. Haste would buff the whole party. Mass resist energy protects everyone from the breath weapon. But it's selfish to want to do that instead of casting flight on the fighter again, because he's not baseline competent at his basic class description, which is fighting?

But anyway, the point of the thread is not the particular ego of a VoP character. The point is whether VoP is underpowered. And the fact that we're having this bizarre discussion about whether it's egomaniacal to have to ask your party to sacrifice their actions and their gold (while you hypocritically donate your own and use theirs) proves the point in and of itself. If you need to be that hopelessly dependent on the goodwill of your party members to have a shot at being competent in a sizable fraction of fights, you're underpowered. And since it was taking the feat that made this happened, the feat is underpowered.

[Divide by Zero]

Suppose we grant that it's possible to obtain reliable flight. The fighter still has trouble dealing with grapples/other size-related situations, or miss chances, or anything that targets their weak save(s), or like 3/4 of the other supposedly CR-appropriate encounters.

[PollyOliver]

Yeah, flight's the biggie, but the others I think noncasters need in VoP fixes are size-changing (for trippers and grapplers), access to non +x weapon and armor enhancements, and additional versatility for skill monkeys, such as limited SLA access and maybe a skill boost. Rogues without any items to UMD lose what little versatility they had.

It'll still be a nerf, even if you fix those things. I think that's okay--it is supposed to be a sacrifice after all. But especially for classes that aren't all that powerful to begin with, I think it should be much closer to a small versatility hit and a roleplaying challenge than "whoops, you're useless now, sorry, the enemy has wings and is more than two sizes larger than you".

Edit: How would you deal with miss chance and the weak save thing? Ghost touch from being able to get non +x's would handle incorporeality, but as for the rest, I don't know. Grant blind-fight?

[Thurbane]

Already answered that for you:
My reply was to the general sentiment, not actually a reply to what Rhakiath was commenting on. Hope that clears it up.

[Doc Roc]

How does VoP deal with a will o' the wisp? Just walk ms through that encounter, okay?

What about a nalfesheen?

An arrow demon?

A dragon who keeps to the air?

[Hazzardevil]

I don't belive that PC's should be crippled for wanting to try a concept.
Druid's are good enough to get around the penalties,
Wizards don't need books, they can just borrow another wizard's book from their church. Plus, a lot of the stuff VoP gives the wizard can't get anyway.

The thing is, you take VoP you lose tons of things you practicly need for high level play.

[MeeposFire]

So yes, you lose ALL of the benefits in an AMF.

As per the FAQ you only lose the VoP abilities that are supernatural in the stat bar for VoP. All extraordinary abilities in that stat bar are still retained. It says that those were supposed to be seen as exceptions that were not clear enough in the original writing. However this still does not change the fact that VoP hurts you more than it helps.

[Talya]

Yes. Wrong actually. By a strict RAW reading, no they can't. Unless you can point me to a valid animal mount that can fly, since both the Paladin's mount and animal companion have to have the animal type.

Dire Eagle, Giant Eagle. (Not that paladin can get those. Animal companions, yes. Of course, they can also take Exalted Companion, so we're really talking about paladins here.)

Anyway, most of this arguing is silly. If one is playing in a campaign where the majority of combat will take place in three dimensions (and not under water), it behooves anyone taking VOP to ensure they are designing a character that can fly without help.

Now, i've seen a lot of campaigns, even under 3.5 RAW, where that simply doesn't happen. They optimize for their strengths, but the melee types still stand on the ground with swords, and the enemies tend to do the same. Then you get one sorceress (*cough*me*cough*) who tends to use alter self to take to the air in every fight, and suddenly the DM starts putting in a few flying enemies just to keep her on her toes, but the rest of the party lacks nothing by being on the ground. A lot of these arguments are theoretical because in my experience, most people don't want to play in a party of flying superheroes when playing in D&D. Even in a very high-magic setting like The Forgotten Realms, high-level iconics like Elminster, the seven sisters, and that oh-so-maligned-Drizzt don't bother flying in combat most of the time. It does not fit people's image of what they expect to do in a fight there.

[Taelas]

There is a great difference between taking a feat which completely makes gear unnecessary (which is overpowered by any stretch of the imagination) and a feat which allows the concept itself to be playable.

The question is: Does the current Vow of Poverty make the concept playable? Personally, I do not think it does.

[ShriekingDrake]

I think that it does. In the several groups I play in, we've had a number of characters take VoP. It has made the game interesting because the DM was thoughtful about how to manage it in each of the cases. I've played two VoP characters myself, and they worked out great. Yes, my paladin could never fly. But he worked with a party, not alone.

So much of the discussions about VoP identify limitations of the the feat, of which there are many, in a context that seems to suggest the character will be alone. In every encounter, some party members are able to contribute more or less. The game is designed around there being a party, not that it has to be that way.

I think VoP is very flavorful and playable. It provides an opportunity to make something other than the acquisition of wealth and items worth striving for.

[Telonius]

Suppose we grant that it's possible to obtain reliable flight. The fighter still has trouble dealing with grapples/other size-related situations, or miss chances, or anything that targets their weak save(s), or like 3/4 of the other supposedly CR-appropriate encounters.

I'd call that a problem with melee classes in general. It's not really VoP's fault that the whole system is skewed.

[true_shinken]

I don't belive that PC's should be crippled for wanting to try a concept.
VoP is not about trying a new concept mechanically, as in "I don't want to bother about gear". It's about trying a new concept in termos of story, as in "I'm on a spiritual quest without gear".
Heck, if you gain magical powers as good as gear or better than gear, there is no spiritual sacrifice, is there?
Basically, you're thinking of this in a game-balance way and the book itself does not work on this assumption, it follows the simulationist view to the letter (basically, no gear can't be better than actual gear).

[Talya]

Suppose we grant that it's possible to obtain reliable flight. The fighter still has trouble dealing with grapples/other size-related situations, or miss chances, or anything that targets their weak save(s), or like 3/4 of the other supposedly CR-appropriate encounters.

Defensively, dealing with grapples, VOP grants Freedom of Movement. The other things are all issues that not having VOP doesn't solve anyway.

[only1doug]

I think a Major Problem of VoP is that it is static where Equipment is adaptable, if you need to you can change your existing equipment with stuff planned for another contingency and you can pick and choose what suits your character best.

A reworked VoP should perhaps offer options and a method of changing previous choices (whether that be daily, monthly or 1 / level).

[Doc Roc]

VoP is not about trying a new concept mechanically, as in "I don't want to bother about gear". It's about trying a new concept in termos of story, as in "I'm on a spiritual quest without gear".
Heck, if you gain magical powers as good as gear or better than gear, there is no spiritual sacrifice, is there?
Basically, you're thinking of this in a game-balance way and the book itself does not work on this assumption, it follows the simulationist view to the letter (basically, no gear can't be better than actual gear).

You do realize that VoP does not forbid spending every night of your life inside mage's magnificent mansion? It is not clear to me that the designers gave a crap about this spiritual sacrifice you seem so fixated about. Some simulation.

VoP does nothing well as written, and this thread has just been scrabbling over points rehashed a thousand times. As far as I can tell, VoP is for people who want "hardcore" stories about dragons who waddle everywhere.

[Rhakiath]

Talya brings up a good point which I agree with, and that is that flying is not, or should not, in my opinion, an every encounter thing. Playing every encounter with a gimmick like that would get old fast for me, and I would tell my DM not to throw flying stuff at us every time if I couldn't hit. Your DM should take the play style into consideration after taking this feat. You couldn't play vow of nonviolence without a lot of changes to encounter style, any more than playing a commoner campaign with high power foes. VoP is less of an adjustment, but your DM needs to take it into account, whether he simply BSes a quick fix or carefully balances the encounters.


As for the dragon problem, I'd rather the dragon fly away out of reach than some of its other strategies. Honestly, dragons happen to have a number of ways to screw you regardless of your build.

As for will o wisps, there is Ki Strike, and a lot of feats in Exalted to give your unarmed attacks and martial strikes good aligned damage, magic damage, etc. Plus your weapons are more than +1 from VoP in the first place, including your fists.

Flying is great, but there are ways to kill flyers without melee, even with no magic weapons. Consider the simple sling. No cost to find pebbles, and it is a simple weapon clearly allowed by VoP, yet can be used on fliers and large enemies alike. Sure, 1d4+str isn't impressive, but Magic Stone, power attack, sneak attack for rogues and such can still damage things. Hell, as a monk, just find a way to Kamehameha the flyers using a stunning fist usage, I believe oriental has something like that. There's also the Goad feat, from miniatures, though it isn't a hard save.

As for the nalfesheen, I've never heard of it and doubt there is no way around it. The arrow demon is easy; deflect arrows feat is free for monks :P, the demon won't want to come anywhere near you if you're exalted anyway. Regardless of your class, if you have 11 exalted feats to play with, you can find a lot to put the hurt on undead and outsiders. Just ready an action and get an attack or grapple on them when they attack.

[Doc Roc]

Deflect arrows blocks one arrow, if you are aware and not flatfooted, then you die. Arrow demons don't need to come near you, they are crazy mobile.

Will o the wisp is invisible. Good luck with your ki strike.

The nalfesheen is an iconic core enemy.

You just let the dragon fly off? Good, it ravages your monastery. Thank god.


It is pretty clear we are playing different games, and I suppose that is fine. There is enough Cake to go around. I've run out of things to say.

[Starbuck_II]

As per the FAQ you only lose the VoP abilities that are supernatural in the stat bar for VoP. All extraordinary abilities in that stat bar are still retained. It says that those were supposed to be seen as exceptions that were not clear enough in the original writing. However this still does not change the fact that VoP hurts you more than it helps.

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:

[Talya]

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:

How, exactly would you go about unassigning skill points from a temporary loss of the Nymph's Kiss feat, anyway?

Actually, that goes for permanent loss of the feat, too...legitimate question. Perhaps, just as you cannot gain retroactive skill points by taking it (or boosting your intelligence), you also cannot lose retroactive skill points?

[Incanur]

Conceptually, it makes somewhat more sense for martial characters to deal with flyers by shooting them with arrows. That's how Bard slew Smaug in The Hobbit, after all. As Talya mentioned, almost no heroic fantasy fluff includes flying warriors. That get you into wuxia wire fu or superhero comics. Unfortunately, bows require heavy feat investment to deal good damage in 3.x, and VoP forbids them anyway.

Incidentally, the 3.5 campaigns I've DMed did include a considerable number of aerial opponents. One of the most memorable encounters involved the party party battling demons and then a dragon from foundering elven airship. Mass fly came in handy there, though the dwarven barbarian simply tanked falling to the earth. :smallamused:

[PollyOliver]

Conceptually, it makes somewhat more sense for martial characters to deal with flyers by shooting them with arrows. :

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?

[true_shinken]

You do realize that VoP does not forbid spending every night of your life inside mage's magnificent mansion? It is not clear to me that the designers gave a crap about this spiritual sacrifice you seem so fixated about. Some simulation.
Nothing in D&D forbids anyone from doing that, so I fail to see your point.


VoP does nothing well as written, and this thread has just been scrabbling over points rehashed a thousand times. As far as I can tell, VoP is for people who want "hardcore" stories about dragons who waddle everywhere.
Be careful with those veiled offenses, Doc.


That seems false as VoP is a supernatural feast
No, you're thinking of a spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroesFeast.htm) :smalltongue:

[Karoht]

VoP on a monk.
If your party is ever in jail, and has their magic items stripped of them, congratulations, the party is now looking to you, the VoP monk if the Wizard is somehow locked down.

One of the perks of not having access to magic items is, you don't need magic items to be awesome. You're naturally awesome. In the situations where others can be disarmed, have their items disintigrated or disjunctioned or Anti-magic-fielded, you carry no such signifigant items that can cost you a major chunk of your effectiveness.

Does it offset what CAN be given to you via items? No. Not entirely. 11 feats is nice, but you can get feats through items as well. But, having your hands count as +5 weapons? Yeah I'm down with that. Rather, I was down with that, the time I played a VoP Monk.

In no way am I saying that VoP actually offsets the lack of items equally, but there are perks.