Vow of Poverty <.< ...?

[tacho101]

This is my first post so pardon for silly mistakes.

The Question is, is Vow of poverty worth it? i am running a dwarf Barb, and was thinking of picking it up later.

since i talked my GM into allowing me to have 3 dwarf barb racial levels of my own design, i essentially get to pick 3 feats at the levels where i get trap sense. initially i wanted the barb to be a multiple trick pony, but after reading Vow of poverty, i have the basic shock trooper going and wanted to include the combat brute for a little more cheese since i plan to sunder all day everyday and cleave into mooks. Stats str:21 con:16 dex: 14 int: 10
wis :12 and cha: 10.

The original idea was to make a Barb charger with Robilar's to cover but
i figure this will turn him into ultra saves man along with all the added bonuses it would be useful outside of combat too. planning on taking it at lvl 15 , this is an idea for flavor after establishing combat prowess.

Thanks a bunch everyone.

[Lord_Gareth]

Man, is it this day of the week again?

Really short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: not for a barbarian, anyway. You need those magic items. If you're interested in Vow of Poverty, try a Druid, or a Cleric, or even a Sorcerer. Not a martial class.

[Divide by Zero]

Most casters can pull it off (wizard needs some shenanigans to get around not having a spellbook, though, and a jerk DM might not let a divine caster use a holy symbol). Anything else is in trouble.

[Kuma Kode]

Yeah, this question crops up on a schedule, it seems.

The basic gist is that characters in D&D, particularly non-magical classes, rely on magic gear for pretty much everything, including being good at what they're supposed to be good at, so they can't really afford to lose them. Vow of Poverty gives you some bonuses to compensate, yes, but they are acquired later than you would get them from an item, they aren't usually as good, and some things, like flight, water breathing, and pretty much any other non-numeric effect, simply aren't covered.

Overall, it will gimp you. It's a noble attempt to make an ascetic at all possible, but it's still not in any way a tactically good move. The only way to actually take this feat and not hamstring yourself is to be able to provide these effects yourself, such as through your own spellcasting ability. Even then, getting them from items would free up your spell slots for other things, so you're still gimping yourself.

EDIT: Note that our "this time of the week" jokes are in no way meant to imply you're stupid or anything. The feat is very trap-like in design: it is presented as a viable option and looks damn good for a feat on the surface. It's only in practice do you realize that it's actually going to hinder you.

[NecroRick]

Disclaimer: Some of the books are specifically marked "for mature audiences only". If your DM suspects you of trying to use it for character optimization (e.g. "is it worth it"), they are perfectly within their rights to disallow you from taking it.

The various vows give you a large advantage, but there is a big penalty that goes with it. In the case of poverty at high levels (once the WBL really takes off) the players with magic items are going to leave you in the dust.

Prior to that (ie while magic is scarce), it is a big advantage.

In terms of your character, I think that is the important thing. Plenty of well defined characters just have a few (but powerful) items, so if you're just rebelling against the "walking jewellery shop" style of character design then there are other ways to express that.

[PollyOliver]

KumaKode--water breathing is there actually, under greater sustenance. But in general, I agree with the rest of what you said. At mid levels, weapon enchantments that aren't just +x, flight, and movement/teleportation options are the biggies, IMO. Later, the lack of the necessary high level immunities is huge.

[Kuma Kode]

KumaKode--water breathing is there actually, under greater sustenance. But in general, I agree with the rest of what you said. At mid levels, weapon enchantments that aren't just +x, flight, and movement/teleportation options are the biggies, IMO. Later, the lack of the necessary high level immunities is huge.

Yeah, I didn't actually look at Vow of Poverty and just started listing off non-numeric functions that have come up before. Woops.

[nyjastul69]

It really depends upon the game you're playing in. If there's a whiff of optimization going on, it's likely to fall flat.

On the other hand, I've seen a VoP Monk dominate many sessions. It was a less than optimized game and still under 8th level at the time however.

I would suggest invoking rule 0, check with your GM for guidance. He's the only one that can tell you whether it'll be a viable choice.

[Mystic Muse]

Disclaimer: Some of the books are specifically marked "for mature audiences only". If your DM suspects you of trying to use it for character optimization (e.g. "is it worth it"), they are perfectly within their rights to disallow you from taking it.


They're perfectly within their rights to disallow anything, that doesn't make the reason good. Banning something because a player is trying to use it for optimization is like banning something because a player likes vanilla pudding. If you're going to ban something because it's "Optimization" then the same reasoning can be applied to everything in the game that helps that character at all. All optimization is, is making a character better at what they do. Yes, this can be taken too far, but that doesn't make it bad.

[TheRinni]

Yeah, in your case, I would only take it if you happened to be playing in a low-magic campaign.

[tacho101]

Again thanks to everyone that has posted a response, it is officially my first game of D&D so i had to ask. i was thinking it was too good to be true. the only thing making me think twice is that it easily throws me into to Champion of Gwyn PrC, which i thought would make it worth it. the party is at an average of lvl7 right now and this campaign will most likely end at level 22 or so.

and as far as the my GM goes, he does limit us since after i got a bit wiser by reading your threads, i asked about ToB and it was banned.

[NecroRick]

They're perfectly within their rights to disallow anything, that doesn't make the reason good. Banning something because a player is trying to use it for optimization is like banning something because a player likes vanilla pudding.

No, it's more like giving someone the keys to your car and then hoping that they will drive responsibly.

Wizards/WotC put that disclaimer on some of the books because they dealt with 'mature' topics (human sacrifice springs to mind). Others it was there because they knew the stuff could and would be abused, but they were saying "please use this stuff responsibly".

[Veyr]

Psh, please. The "for mature audiences" sticker is there to sell books, by making it sound like there's something racy, risque, or gory in there, which is exactly the kind of thing that will draw a certain demographic to the book. Hell, even if you don't buy it because you think it'll be titillating, the sticker is basically a challenge to your maturity ("are you mature enough to handle this?").

It's a marketing gimmick, and nothing else. Vow of Poverty is still a hideously-designed feat-trap. Most of the rules in the book are similarly-poor.

[Boci]

Others it was there because they knew the stuff could and would be abused, but they were saying "please use this stuff responsibly".

So why wasn't that sticker on every non-fluff book then?

[Mystic Muse]

So why wasn't that sticker on every non-fluff book then?

Exactly. Heck, the player's handbook should have that disclaimer as well if it was intended to be used as a "please use this stuff responsibly" sticker.

And no, it's not liked giving somebody the keys to your car and asking them to drive responsibly. That is something that is completely reasonable. Banning something because it's optimization, when all optimization is is making your character good at what they do, is completely arbitrary. Hence the comparison to banning something because a player likes vanilla pudding.

Optimization is not a bad thing. There is such a thing as too much in different campaigns, and banning something because it is too powerful for your campaign is a reasonable response. Banning something because all it does is make a character better at what they do is not. Banning something because it is optimization is the latter, not the former. As I said before, if you want to ban things that optimize a character, you would have to ban literally everything that helps a character.

Optimization is a scale, and certain points on the scale are too much or too little for different campaigns. If it's too much, feel free to say your players can't take it. If it isn't, and because it's optimization is the only reason you're banning it, you're being really mean to your players.

[Kobold-Bard]

How's your DM with homebrew?

Because Droylt's VoP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140428)fix is a much more tolerable substitute than the one in the book.

[Taelas]

No, it's more like giving someone the keys to your car and then hoping that they will drive responsibly.

Wizards/WotC put that disclaimer on some of the books because they dealt with 'mature' topics (human sacrifice springs to mind). Others it was there because they knew the stuff could and would be abused, but they were saying "please use this stuff responsibly".

I honestly hope you are kidding.

Only the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds have the 'mature audiences only', as far as I am aware.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

The only way around VoP that I know of is one level of Apostle of Peace with the clause lets you use magic items that let you protect yourself. You can then put the defensive and merciful (for vow of peace) properties on a weapon as long as at least 1 point of enchantment is allocated to your AC you can use it. But in the case of a Barbarian it's a huge trap.

[Alefiend]

The stickers are there to protect us gamers from a return of the hordes of "D&D Is EEEEEVIL!" nutters that plagued us back in the late '70s and early '80s. They're like the voluntary ratings on albums—a sheer veil, nothing more. Then again, I would probably want to steer clear of anybody who bought those books because of the possibility that there was something to the warnings.

Vow of Poverty is supposed to be a "reward" (really just protection against a hostile world) for adhering to a strictly ascetic lifestyle because of religious commitment. If you have a good in-character reason that your barbarian would do this—and are willing to accept and abide by the limitations it requires—then you should take it. If you're taking it strictly to augment character stat performance and/or have plans for getting around the limitations, then the GM should block you now or strip the vow later when you start synergizing it.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for optimizing, at least until game-breaking combos start appearing. But the Exalted and Vile feats are statements about who and what the character is at the core. They are something to build a personality and a story arc around, not a stat block.

That said, I don't think Vow of Poverty is that bad. You give up something, you get something. Those somethings may or may not be on par with what you could achieve with items, but you will always have them, and any weaknesses they leave mean you have to use some strategy. Potential win.

[Taelas]

:smallannoyed:

Optimization is not mutually exclusive with character development. You could want to take something for optimization reasons and use it to develop your character. In fact, that is what most people do.

That said, Vow of Poverty is not optimization at all, but quite the opposite.

[Talya]

Vow of Poverty is frequently a decent option for a Druid. There are several cases where it will actually make the druid better than he could be with gear. However, in general, VOP does not make a character more powerful.

It shouldn't be a feat. It should be a character option that does not use any feats (let alone two), and should have more exalted feats to fill common holes left by a lack of gear (such as flight, for example.)

[Divide by Zero]

If you were thinking about playing an ascetic character anyway, then VoP is a no-brainer, as it's vastly powerful than no bonuses at all. But it just doesn't compare to WBL.

[PollyOliver]

That said, I don't think Vow of Poverty is that bad. You give up something, you get something. Those somethings may or may not be on par with what you could achieve with items, but you will always have them, and any weaknesses they leave mean you have to use some strategy. Potential win.

All right. You're a level 20 barbarian. Your base will save is +6. You probably didn't put your VoP stats into WIS, because you put them into STR, CON, or DEX; let's be generous and say you put the +2 in it. You get a +5 resistance bonus. Let's be kind and say you didn't actually completely tank wisdom, but put a 12 in it. Your will save is +13. Better hope it's an enchantment! A wizard who was remotely paying attention will have save DCs 30's or or higher. With a half-hearted effort put into it, it will be such that you save only on a natural 20. That's okay, right? Most 20th level characters shelled out for mind blank, which obviates most of the worst will save or kill your party spells. But wait, VoP did not include mind blank! I guess that's that then. And you can't even use any other item to boost that save into almost worth rolling territory. So what strategy, praytell, shall I use here? Take the "iron will feat" so maybe if I'm really lucky and the wizard was really stupid I might save on a 19 as well as on a 20?

Edit: whoops, you only get resistance +3

Or, you're a level 10 barbarian built around charging and some tripping as a backup. The DM gives you a flock of flying opponents. Your options--1) put down your weapon and ignore all the feats that you spent boosting your tripping and charging and general melee capacities and take out that backup bow you found a few levels back and fire off a couple near useless shots per round, 2) do nothing, or 3) hope there are casters and that they're willing to pay the opportunity cost of not casting spells that will win the encounter on instead allowing you to fulfill the basic function of your class. Every time this comes up. Better yet, if you're a warblade instead of a barbarian, you're not even proficient with bows! What fun!

Invisible opponents who aren't dumb enough to stand right next to you so you can hit them with your flour pouch? Better be level 18 or higher, because true seeing doesn't come online until then and you get no half-measures.

Etc, etc, and whatnot.

You can pull it off with a caster with only a moderate power hit, assuming your DM lets you have a spell book or a holy symbol. If wildling clasps are not on the table, it might be a boost for a druid, at the versatility cost of not having scrolls on those days you totally screwed up your proper spell selection. But on a melee character who does not get flight or crazy jumping or really awesome ranged attacks, a way to combat invisibility, and either immunities or ways to protect his weak saves, in a game where enemies use intelligence-appropriate tactics and enemy casters do more than just blast? No. Just no.

[agahii]

I've played almost no wealth games before where the (CR system was not changed either). In these games VoP is awsome, but after the first time the DM will typically outright ban VoP because it gets around what they want for their game. I don't agree with a DM doing this, but I'm just throwing it out there as what will likely happen if a DM is running a very low wealth game.

[Dark Kerman]

Optimise? No.
Flavour and character style. Yes. :smallsmile:
By gum, I have a shifter/druid, who can tear a man to shreds with his bare hands, but I still have love for my scythe which I gave to the character as part of his background (I still need to type that up mind you...) :smallwink:

[Olo Demonsbane]

Vow of Poverty has a questionable ruling that could make it actually somewhat workable; technically, only the first feat has to be Exalted. With the now massive amount of feats that you get, you can get access to flying and whatnot in other ways. However, despite this, it is still probably worse than just going for good magic items.

[nyarlathotep]

Additionally vow of poverty can work decently one incarnates and totemists.

[NeoSeraphi]

Or, you're a level 10 barbarian built around charging and some tripping as a backup. The DM gives you a flock of flying opponents. Your options--1) put down your weapon and ignore all the feats that you spent boosting your tripping and charging and general melee capacities and take out that backup bow you found a few levels back and fire off a couple near useless shots per round, 2) do nothing, or 3) hope there are casters and that they're willing to pay the opportunity cost of not casting spells that will win the encounter on instead allowing you to fulfill the basic function of your class. Every time this comes up. Better yet, if you're a warblade instead of a barbarian, you're not even proficient with bows! What fun!.

You can't use bows with Vow of Poverty. You can only use simple weapons. So a crossbow, which warblades ARE proficient with, but you only get 1 attack per round. If it's a heavy crossbow, it's one attack per two rounds.

Yes, Vow of Poverty does limit your character's options, but really, fluff-wise, why should a martial character have the ability to fly or see through illusions anyway? Yes, it's true that if you want to be able to fight anything at all that comes your way, you should stock up on wings of flight and a mask of true seeing and all these other fantastic items that a shopkeeper miraculously has in stock when you want to buy them. But the fact of the matter is, if you have a good DM then you don't need to worry about it.

As long as you are dealing decent damage with your morningstar or your quarterstaff, it shouldn't be a problem. Yes, you can't have an answer for every option the DM throws your way, but D&D itself (not optimization, but D&D) isn't about trying to beat the DM. It's about playing his or her game. If the DM throws you something that you have absolutely no chance of hitting/killing (like a flying opponent), then chances are it's either to test your ability to use your environment, a chance to give your party members a time to shine, or because he or she doesn't want you to kill them. Whether because they are just supposed to show up, put on a show and be an actual boss fight later, or because they are a suspicious-looking character that you would normally attack without thinking, but has actually come to save you, there's an answer.

It's the DM's job to make your game enjoyable. Fighting the DM or planning for every possible outcome doesn't make the game better. It only upsets the DM and possibly ruins his or her storyline if you had something in store that he or she didn't know about or forgot about, and I'm speaking from experience here.

[PollyOliver]

I agree with most of what you posted (and thanks for the bow catch, I knew I was missing something), but "a good DM will design his campaign and encounters in a way that makes this playable" does not mean that it was well-designed in the first place. I can design encounters to make just about anything playable; that doesn't mean it's well designed or not gigantically inferior to other options. If you take a roughly representational sample of encounters out of the DMG and Monster Manual, VoP is makes most (there are exceptions) melee classes useless in a surprisingly large fraction of encounters at around mid levels. Your DM can fix this, but that's by virtue of being a very good DM, not by virtue of the feat not gimping you (and costing you two feats in the process).

[nyarlathotep]

You can't use bows with Vow of Poverty. You can only use simple weapons. So a crossbow, which warblades ARE proficient with, but you only get 1 attack per round. If it's a heavy crossbow, it's one attack per two rounds.

Yes, Vow of Poverty does limit your character's options, but really, fluff-wise, why should a martial character have the ability to fly or see through illusions anyway? Yes, it's true that if you want to be able to fight anything at all that comes your way, you should stock up on wings of flight and a mask of true seeing and all these other fantastic items that a shopkeeper miraculously has in stock when you want to buy them. But the fact of the matter is, if you have a good DM then you don't need to worry about it.

As long as you are dealing decent damage with your morningstar or your quarterstaff, it shouldn't be a problem. Yes, you can't have an answer for every option the DM throws your way, but D&D itself (not optimization, but D&D) isn't about trying to beat the DM. It's about playing his or her game. If the DM throws you something that you have absolutely no chance of hitting/killing (like a flying opponent), then chances are it's either to test your ability to use your environment, a chance to give your party members a time to shine, or because he or she doesn't want you to kill them. Whether because they are just supposed to show up, put on a show and be an actual boss fight later, or because they are a suspicious-looking character that you would normally attack without thinking, but has actually come to save you, there's an answer.

It's the DM's job to make your game enjoyable. Fighting the DM or planning for every possible outcome doesn't make the game better. It only upsets the DM and possibly ruins his or her storyline if you had something in store that he or she didn't know about or forgot about, and I'm speaking from experience here.

Martial characters with the vow of poverty however will not be dealing good damage. They are truly and wholly bad, they will make designing encounters hard because of how much worse they are than the rest of the party. Complete Warrior Samurai with basic equipment (just magic armor and stuff directly relating to fighting stuff not flying, true seeing, etc) will be out-damaging them by a large margin.

Additionally that last piece of advice only works if you are really predictable. Most good DMs I've seen don't have a stringent plan and are already rolling with the punches. For instance I recently had an encounter that I had planned by PCs to run from due to it being well over their ECL and they decided to fight it citing the danger it posed to their nearby homecity. Naturally this was in character and understandable but they only survived thanks to the dread necromancer in the group having a well optimized set of equipment allowing them to take a previously slain enemy as an armored transport of sorts.

[nyarlathotep]

double post sorry

[Talya]

Vow of Poverty has a questionable ruling that could make it actually somewhat workable; technically, only the first feat has to be Exalted. With the now massive amount of feats that you get, you can get access to flying and whatnot in other ways. However, despite this, it is still probably worse than just going for good magic items.

That...I've never noticed that. The wording is unclear for that one sentence. It is, however, going to be hard to get that past your DM, and not only because the heading makes clear to which feats you have access.

"Bonus Exalted Feats: At 1st level, an ascetic gets a bonus exalted feat, and another bonus feat at 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter."

[Zonugal]

For the simplest of re-flavoring see if your DM will let you transform Vow of Poverty into Vow of Pride. You don't have to change anything mechanically except the reasoning that you took it. Instead of swearing away objects because of an exalted reason you do it because you feel they are the trappings of the weak. You want to show how great the human body can be truly by itself without aid.

Totally fits a barbarian...

[NeoSeraphi]

Assuming 18 Str with bonuses from Rage, Level, possibly Race, and the Enhancement bonus provided, as well as a +5 Inherent bonus to Str from 5 consecutive wish spells (5 different 17th level wizard NPCs, paid for by the barbarian's share of party loot before it got donated or tithed, or possibly just by another sympathetic party member or by a caster of the party themselves (a possible +2 or +3 bonus in that case), then you're looking at a total of 42-48 Str at level 20 during a Mighty Rage. Wielding a +5 Morningstar in both hands is going to deal 1d8+29-1d8+33 damage, without Power Attack. With Power Attack, approximately 1d8+49-1d8+53. It's lower than a normal martial character's, but it's still respectable for 20th level.

Edit: Breakdown

18 (Initial) + 8 (Mighty Rage) + 8 (Enhancement from Vow of Poverty) + 5 (Wish) + 5 (Level) + 4 (Orc Race) = 48 Str

[Talya]

Martial characters with the vow of poverty however will not be dealing good damage. They are truly and wholly bad, they will make designing encounters hard because of how much worse they are than the rest of the party. Complete Warrior Samurai with basic equipment (just magic armor and stuff directly relating to fighting stuff not flying, true seeing, etc) will be out-damaging them by a large margin.

That is a serious exaggeration. In fact, I believe I once designed a VOP Monk 2/Unarmed Swordsage 8/Shadow Sun Ninja 10 that would easily keep up with equipped version of that class.

In general, you're right, its a bad option for melee classes. I do not believe a CW Samurai is going to keep up to a VOP martial adept, however.

[GeekGirl]

Vow of Poverty has a questionable ruling that could make it actually somewhat workable; technically, only the first feat has to be Exalted. With the now massive amount of feats that you get, you can get access to flying and whatnot in other ways. However, despite this, it is still probably worse than just going for good magic items.

I hope this doesn't bite me in the ass, but I have to ask; How is it read that way? I very well may be reading something wrong. I get how it doesn't specifically say exalted feat, but its listed under the "Bonus Exalted Feat" header. Wouldn't that mean it's a bonus exalted feat? Again, I could be reading it wrong, but that's what I for out of it every time I've looked at it.

[Zonugal]

Everyone keeps throwing out 20th-level Barbarians as the example (which I find highly unreasonable) so lets simply see what a sixth level Barbarian might pick up.


AC Bonus +6
Three bonus Exalted feats
Endure Elements
Exalted Strike +1
Sustenance
Deflection +1


So what are we looking at? A boost to your armor class (although you'll be unarmored...), a few bonus feats (perhaps Touch of the Golden Ice, Nimbus of Light and Subduing Strike) and some abilities to assist you in surviving harsh environments. So at an extremely low-level Vow of Poverty is actually a viable feat for those suffering in a harsh region of any campaign world. The ability to shrug of hunger and the freezing cold of the mountains might be worth it for a few tundra barbarians.

[Talya]

I hope this doesn't bite me in the ass, but I have to ask; How is it read that way? I very well may be reading something wrong. I get how it doesn't specifically say exalted feat, but its listed under the "Bonus Exalted Feat" header. Wouldn't that mean it's a bonus exalted feat? Again, I could be reading it wrong, but that's what I for out of it every time I've looked at it.

It's nitpicking at words. I quoted the relevant section above. And yes, you're right. The issue it specifically calls it a bonus exalted feat at level 1, then just more bonus feats after that. However, the heading does read "Bonus Exalted Feats." This makes the reading that only the first needs to be exalted...well, hogwash.

[Prime32]

Vow of Poverty is supposed to be a "reward" (really just protection against a hostile world) for adhering to a strictly ascetic lifestyle because of religious commitment. If you have a good in-character reason that your barbarian would do this—and are willing to accept and abide by the limitations it requires—then you should take it. If you're taking it strictly to augment character stat performance and/or have plans for getting around the limitations, then the GM should block you now or strip the vow later when you start synergizing it.I should note that the designers of PF's Vow of Poverty basically said "If a player is making a sacrifice it should feel like he's making a sacrifice. If he wasn't weaker than the rest of his party it wouldn't fit the flavour. People would give up all their magic items anyway, this is just throwing them a bone."

Which is pretty screwed-up logic, but whatever.

[tacho101]

Zonugal: great idea on the vow of pride, that would be really cool for flavor. i'll have to remember it for later
initially i was gonna have leadership to call upon a raging druid from my chars past to help him unlock his rage abilities and inner strength(VoP) while on his journey for redemption.

but it just seems that would be too restricted aside from being decent at saves and obscene str, con abilities.

[Dragonsoul]

Actually the only thing that's wrong with VoP is that you can't lever your WBL, if you could it be an excellent feat- How? ... Watch this space.:smallsmile:

[Zonugal]

Zonugal: great idea on the vow of pride, that would be really cool for flavor. i'll have to remember it for later
initially i was gonna have leadership to call upon a raging druid from my chars past to help him unlock his rage abilities and inner strength(VoP) while on his journey for redemption.

but it just seems that would be too restricted aside from being decent at saves and obscene str, con abilities.

Thanks! The idea for the Vow of Pride initially came from a request from someone on the internet for a vile version of Vow of Pride. I suggested the Vow of Pride (but with the necessary 'good' bonuses & such being changed to evil and the exalted feats being swapped out for the player's choice of vile, deformity or devil-touched feats.).

[nyarlathotep]

Assuming 18 Str with bonuses from Rage, Level, possibly Race, and the Enhancement bonus provided, as well as a +5 Inherent bonus to Str from 5 consecutive wish spells (5 different 17th level wizard NPCs, paid for by the barbarian's share of party loot before it got donated or tithed, or possibly just by another sympathetic party member or by a caster of the party themselves (a possible +2 or +3 bonus in that case), then you're looking at a total of 42-48 Str at level 20 during a Mighty Rage. Wielding a +5 Morningstar in both hands is going to deal 1d8+29-1d8+33 damage, without Power Attack. With Power Attack, approximately 1d8+49-1d8+53. It's lower than a normal martial character's, but it's still respectable for 20th level.

Edit: Breakdown

18 (Initial) + 8 (Mighty Rage) + 8 (Enhancement from Vow of Poverty) + 5 (Wish) + 5 (Level) + 4 (Orc Race) = 48 Str

Paying for wishes out of your party is disallowed by the same ruling that disallows you from just giving it to the rest of the party. Your share is donated.

Also that seems a bit too optimized for someone previously stating that optimizing would only disrupt a campaign. Assuming there are 5 different 17th level wizards willing to cast wish for you. I smell a dirty power gamer out to ruin fun. :smallbiggrin:


That is a serious exaggeration. In fact, I believe I once designed a VOP Monk 2/Unarmed Swordsage 8/Shadow Sun Ninja 10 that would easily keep up with equipped version of that class.

In general, you're right, its a bad option for melee classes. I do not believe a CW Samurai is going to keep up to a VOP martial adept, however.

My bad I should have specified non TOB, but ToB makes everything better and unarmed swordsage VOP is completely viable.

[MeeposFire]

I should note that the designers of PF's Vow of Poverty basically said "If a player is making a sacrifice it should feel like he's making a sacrifice. If he wasn't weaker than the rest of his party it wouldn't fit the flavour. People would give up all their magic items anyway, this is just throwing them a bone."

Which is pretty screwed-up logic, but whatever.

Nobody should ever use the PF designers logic when it comes to balancing mechanics they are frankly bad at it and behind by about 1/2 an edition.

[NeoSeraphi]

Paying for wishes out of your party is disallowed by the same ruling that disallows you from just giving it to the rest of the party. Your share is donated.

Also that seems a bit too optimized for someone previously stating that optimizing would only disrupt a campaign. Assuming there are 5 different 17th level wizards willing to cast wish for you. I smell a dirty power gamer out to ruin fun. :smallbiggrin:


You make a fair point. Remove the Inherent bonus, or make it +1 for a nice wizard who's in the party that and feels that it's worth the XP to lend a hand to his party members (I would if I were a wizard with wish). Also, since he's playing a dwarf as stated in the OP, remove the racial bonus. You end up with 40 Str. My point is that the weapon is not dealing the damage, nor are your items. It's your feats and your character that pump out serious damage (Str bonus that is higher than the highest non-epic enhancement bonus from an item, combined with Power Attack, Shock Trooper, whatever)

If you want to talk about damage-contributing magic items, you've got the Valorous weapon enhancement (Which is technically campaign specific, as it comes from Unapproachable East), and the little 1d6 from acidic/flaming/etc. I know that you need items to handle encounters, but you don't need them to do damage.

(I should know. Playing a Shifter Barbarian/Weretouched Master/Warshaper pre-errata and getting my Strength up to 52 with only a +5 Inherent bonus and a +6 Belt of Magnificence at level 12, all my power came from my classes, not my items. And since I was using natural attacks, my damage came from them too)

[Talya]

Paying for wishes out of your party is disallowed by the same ruling that disallows you from just giving it to the rest of the party. Your share is donated.


BoED gives rules for "goodwill" which you can generate by donating to various institutions, including temples or religions or churches (which are perfectly viable targets for which to donate your share of the wealth.) That goodwill could easily be built up high enough that the organization in question would arrange to get you the wishes you need.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nobody should ever use the PF designers logic when it comes to balancing mechanics they are frankly bad at it and behind by about 1/2 an edition.

Yep. They actually gave the spellcasters more hit points. The fighter still doesn't have actual class features except for the Archetypes, which are just ACFs, wizards can still fly at fifth level, clerics can still walk on water at 5th level and call down divine fire and raise the dead at 9th level, and fighters can still only swing a sword at 20th level.

[Prime32]

Yep. They actually gave the spellcasters more hit points. The fighter still doesn't have actual class features except for the Archetypes, which are just ACFs, wizards can still fly at fifth level, clerics can still walk on water at 5th level and call down divine fire and raise the dead at 9th level, and fighters can still only swing a sword at 20th level.You forgot that a PF human sorcerer has 63 spells known where a 3.5e one has 34, plus extra class features and Use Magic Device as a class skill. :smalltongue: Meanwhile, wizards get the ability to cast anything in their spellbook spontaneously, can craft any kind of item without spending feats, and can negate the drawbacks of specialisation with a feat while keeping the benefits (which are greater than in 3.5).

[Divide by Zero]

Yes, Vow of Poverty does limit your character's options, but really, fluff-wise, why should a martial character have the ability to fly or see through illusions anyway?
A martial character should be able to deal with those things because his opponents can do them. If you cannot hit your opponent, then you are not a good martial character.

That is a serious exaggeration. In fact, I believe I once designed a VOP Monk 2/Unarmed Swordsage 8/Shadow Sun Ninja 10 that would easily keep up with equipped version of that class.
I think Swordsage is probably better off than most other martial characters, due to some of the more supernatural maneuvers/stances giving it otherwise unavailable options. A more mundane example might be more convincing.

[PollyOliver]

Yeah, swordsages can get flight, spider climb, teleportation, miss chances, swift greater invisibility, free movement, extra actions, and blind sense from class features alone.

[TOZ]

Nobody should ever use the PF designers logic when it comes to balancing mechanics they are frankly bad at it and behind by about 1/2 an edition.

By CHOICE no less. And possibly more than half an edition. They reprinted a 2E spell as a PF feat. (Taunt to Antagonize.)

[MeeposFire]

By CHOICE no less. And possibly more than half an edition. They reprinted a 2E spell as a PF feat. (Taunt to Antagonize.)

I was trying to be nice. It just seems like they did not learn anything from the various mechanics created in later 3.5 and seems content to continue making mechanics that were created for 3.0 (which are in many cases derivative of 2e stuff which is barely changed from 1e and at times even basic).

[Taelas]

That...I've never noticed that. The wording is unclear for that one sentence. It is, however, going to be hard to get that past your DM, and not only because the heading makes clear to which feats you have access.

"Bonus Exalted Feats: At 1st level, an ascetic gets a bonus exalted feat, and another bonus feat at 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter."

Eh, the header isn't exactly a problem if you want to argue that, since the first bonus feat is exalted no matter what.

[Lassaurus]

...and a jerk DM might not let a divine caster use a holy symbol).

Can this be solved by tattoing or carving a symbol on your body?

[hamishspence]

There's also an orison in Complete Champion that allows you to summon a holy symbol temporarily.

[GeekGirl]

It's nitpicking at words. I quoted the relevant section above. And yes, you're right. The issue it specifically calls it a bonus exalted feat at level 1, then just more bonus feats after that. However, the heading does read "Bonus Exalted Feats." This makes the reading that only the first needs to be exalted...well, hogwash.

Thank you, that's kinda what I figured ^_^

[Prime32]

Can this be solved by tattoing or carving a symbol on your body?There was a story of a paladin who tried to cast a spell while basically naked. When the DM objected that he didn't have a holy symbol he said...

I am a holy symbol!

[Divide by Zero]

Can this be solved by tattoing or carving a symbol on your body?

That's what I did with my VoP cleric, but apparently some people are of the opinion that "holy symbol" only refers specifically to the wooden/silver holy symbols listed in the equipment section.