Vow of Poverty is a really stupid feat.

[Spuddles]

I generally accept the mechanical argument that VoP makes your char weak if you even get like half the WBL you're supposed to get. I have never really accepted "VoP is a bad fluff feat because since it makes your char weak, you are less likely to do good" as too metagamey.

Until I actually started playing in a game with a VoP cleric. Mechanically, in pure numbers, at levels 1 and 2 it's not bad at all. Esp with a mage armor. Not as good as DMM, probably, but tanky.

But the problem comes up, esp at these low levels, when you have HUGE gear reliance. Can't borrow a magic weapon to fight off a shadow that can kill the whole party. Can't use a torch to keep the batswarm from killing the whole party. Can't use a wand to stop his friend from bleeding to death.

The level of being crippled makes him a HUGE liability, and he comes off as SELFISH more than he is selfless, because if he helps the party not die, he violates his vow. Some how it is more good for him to let his friends die to the claws of skeletons and a restless evil than to use a magic item to help his party out and save an innocent life.

We're still having a ton of fun with the character- an int 9 wisdom 20 cleric that loves ale and food and is in a non profit called Acquisitions Ltd. He even makes appraise checks for silver idols so he can bring them back for orphans.

[Cranthis]

I generally accept the mechanical argument that VoP makes your char weak if you even get like half the WBL you're supposed to get. I have never really accepted "VoP is a bad fluff feat because since it makes your char weak, you are less likely to do good" as too metagamey.

Until I actually started playing in a game with a VoP cleric. Mechanically, at levels 1 and 2 it's pretty good. Esp with a mage armor. Not as good as DMM, probably, but tanky.

But it's virtually crippling because at level 2, you have no way of righting a swarm or an incorporeal opponent. No torch, no magic weapon, no oil. His ****ing vow is a liability. A huge liability.

It is much better on a cohort and such. And it can be good on some classes, such as totemist.

[Dr.Epic]

But the problem comes up, esp at these low levels, when you have HUGE gear reliance. Can't borrow a magic weapon to fight off a shadow that can kill the whole party. Can't use a torch to keep the batswarm from killing the whole party. Can't use a wand to stop his friend from bleeding to death.

Where does it say you can't hold these items for like a minute, and what kind of party are you in that all these duties fall on you?

[Cranthis]

Where does it say you can't hold these items for like a minute, and what kind of party are you in that all these duties fall on you?

The feat says you can never make use of a magic item, but an ally can do it for you.

[ThiagoMartell]

As I always say, Vow of Poverty is not meant for that. It's meant for ascetic types. Someone who drinks ale whily nilly doesn't even feat VoP's definition. Basically, you're using the feat for something it wasn't designed to. It wasn't designed to make ascetics on par with people that used gear, it was designed for a very specific thing (allowing people who had voluntary poverty as part of their concept to not be as screwed as they are without VoP).
Is it weak? Yes. Does it do what it was supposed to do? Yes.
I wouldn't ever play a VoP character because ascetics don't appease to my tastes. I have already played a superstitious character that did not rely on magic, using a 3rd party feat called Ao Sabor do Destino (At Fate's Whim, in a free translation). It was weaker than using magical gear, but it was fine. I don't think all concepts need to be balanced, since it seems pretty obvious that all other things being equal, a guy with a magical sword is better at fighting compared to a guy that lacks a magical sword. VoP only breaks down if you see it under a game-y perspective of everything needing to be balanced, and the Book of Exalted Deeds is not written with this in mind (it even says so in the introduction).
/rant

[Hirax]

I don't think VoP is stupid, and I think putting that in the thread title was a very poor choice of words. It's poorly designed from a mechanical perspective, sure, but calling it stupid makes it sound like you're also putting down the character concept.

[Jack_Simth]

Where does it say you can't hold these items for like a minute
Book of Exalted Deeds, page 48:
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, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.
(emphasis added)

and what kind of party are you in that all these duties fall on you?
Spuddles is playing the cleric. If we assume the "expected" paradigm of Meatshield, Skillmonkey, Batman, and God-Botherer, the OP ends up as the party healer if nobody is optimizing that way.

[Coidzor]

No wonder he's having so many problems then. Isn't the only job you can really do as a VoP character skillmonkey with secondary melee duties?

[GoatBoy]

How are you functioning as a cleric with no holy symbol? You know, since holy a symbol is not listed as one of the allowed possessions.

Unless you are using a sane version of the feat which allows for a holy symbol, in which case you are not playing with Vow of Poverty, but a modified and far less ridiculous version of it.

[Jack_Simth]

No wonder he's having so many problems then. Isn't the only job you can really do as a VoP character skillmonkey with secondary melee duties?No, with enough thought and sources into it, you can build a reasonably effective healer or arcanist. Even primary melee, if you're so inclined. Will you be better at it with full WBL instead? Absolutely. But any party role is doable.

[Rubik]

No wonder he's having so many problems then. Isn't the only job you can really do as a VoP character skillmonkey with secondary melee duties?Not really, since a lot of skills that skillmonkeys rely on require tools you simply can't use, such as lockpicks. VoP works on druids, psions, and totemists, but just about everything else requires gear.

[Cranthis]

Not really, since a lot of skills that skillmonkeys rely on require tools you simply can't use, such as lockpicks. VoP works on druids, psions, and totemists, but just about everything else requires gear.

A cleric can get way with it too, I believe.

[Rubik]

A cleric can get way with it too, I believe.Except no holy symbol and no expensive material components (which means turning undead and raising party members are right out).

[Cranthis]

Except no holy symbol and no expensive material components (which means turning undead and raising party members are right out).

You are allowed to beg items off of other players, provided you return it immediately after, in the case of the holy symbol.

And other players may provide the materials for spells.

[Deophaun]

Except no holy symbol and no expensive material components (which means turning undead and raising party members are right out).
Regarding material components, VoP does give suggested mechanics for replacing them. It's as rules legal as the unarmed swordsage.

[herrhauptmann]

Except no holy symbol and no expensive material components (which means turning undead and raising party members are right out).

If you're going to play an ascetic, why not be a flagellant as well?
Cut the outline of your gods symbol into your own palm/face/chest, and use that for your casting.
http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/77

[Spuddles]

Where does it say you can't hold these items for like a minute,

This part:To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any
material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may
carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple
weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking
stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun
robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical
properties.


and what kind of party are you in that all these duties fall on you?

A 4 member party with 2 characters that can use a wand of lesser vigor. One is bleeding out. Another is about to bleed out. Now the only char that can use the wand has to choose between violating his vow and saving his friend.

Or how about a 9 HP sorc trying to fight a swarm with a torch. Not going to happen. The 17 HP cleric could, if he didn't have VoP.


As I always say, Vow of Poverty is not meant for that. It's meant for ascetic types. Someone who drinks ale whily nilly doesn't even feat VoP's definition. Basically, you're using the feat for something it wasn't designed to. It wasn't designed to make ascetics on par with people that used gear, it was designed for a very specific thing (allowing people who had voluntary poverty as part of their concept to not be as screwed as they are without VoP).
Is it weak? Yes. Does it do what it was supposed to do? Yes.
I wouldn't ever play a VoP character because ascetics don't appease to my tastes. I have already played a superstitious character that did not rely on magic, using a 3rd party feat called Ao Sabor do Destino (At Fate's Whim, in a free translation). It was weaker than using magical gear, but it was fine. I don't think all concepts need to be balanced, since it seems pretty obvious that all other things being equal, a guy with a magical sword is better at fighting compared to a guy that lacks a magical sword. VoP only breaks down if you see it under a game-y perspective of everything needing to be balanced, and the Book of Exalted Deeds is not written with this in mind (it even says so in the introduction).
/rant

But the problem isn't that your character is weaker because it has a few less HP, your character has a strong mechanical incentive to let his friends die because he isn't allowed to save them. How is saving a single charge on a wand somehow more good (exalted) than not using that wand?

This isn't a rhetorical question. Play a low level game with an exalted party member. It's hard, unless the party is built around the fact that one of your members can't be arsed to save you.

If it was "Vow of Misership" it'd make more sense, but "Vow of let my companions die because orphans are really expensive (wink wink)"? Pffffff.


I don't think VoP is stupid, and I think putting that in the thread title was a very poor choice of words. It's poorly designed from a mechanical perspective, sure, but calling it stupid makes it sound like you're also putting down the character concept.

It also turns out it's bad from the fluff side. I always thought it was an alright feat for clerics and druids, but as it is currently written, it's terrible on low level characters because saving their allies from death in many circumstances requires violating a vow. It's a huge failings in the rules that somehow it is more good to allow your friends dies because loot.


No wonder he's having so many problems then. Isn't the only job you can really do as a VoP character skillmonkey with secondary melee duties?

I am actually playing a sorcerer.

And good luck skill monkeying without being able to use lock picks or getting enough magical kit to make your search checks. Or getting enough DPS/armor/flying to "secondary melee".

Mechanically, VoP works best on clerics (if you ignore the cost of a holy symbol) and druids, as their spells mesh very well.


How are you functioning as a cleric with no holy symbol?

Tattoo (or scar?) of holy symbol acquired prior to taking the feat. Not sure what it was, but the DM agreed that consumption of things prior to the feat didn't negate the feat. For instance, a fat character who then became an ascetic wouldn't violate his vow because he was fat.


Except no holy symbol and no expensive material components (which means turning undead and raising party members are right out).

You can burn xp in place of expensive components.

[Lord_Gareth]

As I always say, Vow of Poverty is not meant for that. It's meant for ascetic types. Someone who drinks ale whily nilly doesn't even feat VoP's definition. Basically, you're using the feat for something it wasn't designed to. It wasn't designed to make ascetics on par with people that used gear, it was designed for a very specific thing (allowing people who had voluntary poverty as part of their concept to not be as screwed as they are without VoP).
Is it weak? Yes. Does it do what it was supposed to do? Yes.

No.

There are not words for how much I reject this reasoning. Being completely unable to truly guess developer intent is part of it, of course - you can't define what VoP was 'supposed' to do. But more importantly, doing design like that is bad design. It's sloppy, it punishes players, it disables rather then enables the concept it's supposed to bring to life, and it punishes the rest of the party as well because they don't even get the courtesy of the oathbound's share of the loot (oh no - they've gotta donate that stuff to charity).

Rather more importantly, the feat system implies that if you spend a rare resource (a feat slot) on a feat you will receive a net positive. Spending your feat on Vow of Poverty is in a very important way trading something that you will never get back, and as a result you don't even break even on your personal power level. That's not just sloppy design, that's a slap to the collective faces of your player base. Vow of Poverty's design isn't just ill-done, it's inexcusable.

[Spuddles]

No.

There are not words for how much I reject this reasoning. Being completely unable to truly guess developer intent is part of it, of course - you can't define what VoP was 'supposed' to do. But more importantly, doing design like that is bad design. It's sloppy, it punishes players, it disables rather then enables the concept it's supposed to bring to life, and it punishes the rest of the party as well because they don't even get the courtesy of the oathbound's share of the loot (oh no - they've gotta donate that stuff to charity).

Rather more importantly, the feat system implies that if you spend a rare resource (a feat slot) on a feat you will receive a net positive. Spending your feat on Vow of Poverty is in a very important way trading something that you will never get back, and as a result you don't even break even on your personal power level. That's not just sloppy design, that's a slap to the collective faces of your player base. Vow of Poverty's design isn't just ill-done, it's inexcusable.

from vop:
In many cultures and belief systems, the height of purity is
embodied in an ascetic lifestyle that involves forswearing all
material possessions. Such a life is hard for most D&D charac-ters even to imagine, since their possessions—particularly their
magic items—are such an important part of their capabilities. A
character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate
feats, Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, cannot own magic items,
but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh
the lack of those items. These benefits depend on his character
level. The level at which the character swears the vow (and takes
the appropriate feats) is irrelevant; if he gives up his possessions
at 10th level he gains all the benefits of a 10th-level ascetic char-acter, with the exception of bonus exalted feats

no need to guess intent

[Lord_Gareth]

from vop:
In many cultures and belief systems, the height of purity is
embodied in an ascetic lifestyle that involves forswearing all
material possessions. Such a life is hard for most D&D charac-ters even to imagine, since their possessions—particularly their
magic items—are such an important part of their capabilities. A
character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate
feats, Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, cannot own magic items,
but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh
the lack of those items. These benefits depend on his character
level. The level at which the character swears the vow (and takes
the appropriate feats) is irrelevant; if he gives up his possessions
at 10th level he gains all the benefits of a 10th-level ascetic char-acter, with the exception of bonus exalted feats

no need to guess intent

Emphasis mine. I can use that word and sentence as "evidence" that Vow of Poverty is supposed to equal or exceed items, but other people will use it as "evidence" that it's not supposed to equal items. Hence why developer intention is in that realm of Things Not Normally Worth Debating.

[Spuddles]

{Scrubbed}

[Kelb_Panthera]

Maybe I'm missing something here. Why exactly is it that the cleric doesn't simply cast a cure spell? Did he trade that ability away? If he did, how is that VoP's fault and not the player's?

I'm sorry you're having a tough time with someone elses character not pulling his weight in your eyes but it sounds to me like VoP isn't the only thing at fault here.

Also, in such a truly desperate situation as half the party being down, if doing so can salvage the situation the ascetic should break his vow. A good DM will allow an atonement in spite of the fact he willingly broke his vow, and if that's a no go then low levels means he can catch up to WBL pretty quick.

More than a little of what's in BoED is expected to be run through the filters of reason and logic at the hands of the playgroup even more than the content of other supplements. This is probably more true of the sacred vows than practically anything else in the 3.5 system.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The AC bonus from VoP doesn't stack with any Armor bonuses to AC, such as from Mage Armor.

You can get someone in your party to cast (Greater) Magic Weapon on your VoP-approved simple weapon. A torch is considered a simple weapon (club), so you actually can carry and use one of those.

That dying character should have been wearing a Healing Belt (MIC) that he could have used to heal himself. A VoP character can still make a Heal skill check to stabilize a dying character.

If you want to play an exalted character, go Druid with Exalted Companion and have a Celestial animal companion, which can then take VoP. Your character is completely unhindered by the limitations of that feat, and the companion wouldn't normally get a share of the treasure anyway.

[ThiagoMartell]

There are not words for how much I reject this reasoning. Being completely unable to truly guess developer intent is part of it, of course - you can't define what VoP was 'supposed' to do.
You don't need to guess, it's written in the book.

But more importantly, doing design like that is bad design. It's sloppy, it punishes players, it disables rather then enables the concept it's supposed to bring to life, and it punishes the rest of the party as well because they don't even get the courtesy of the oathbound's share of the loot (oh no - they've gotta donate that stuff to charity).
Congratulations, you just called all of White Wolf games rubbish. You just called GURPS rubbish. You just called all games that are not kick-in-the-door-and-kill-monsters rubbish.
Like it says right there in the introduction for Book of Exalted Deeds, that's not what the book is aimed at.


Rather more importantly, the feat system implies that if you spend a rare resource (a feat slot) on a feat you will receive a net positive. Spending your feat on Vow of Poverty is in a very important way trading something that you will never get back, and as a result you don't even break even on your personal power level. That's not just sloppy design, that's a slap to the collective faces of your player base. Vow of Poverty's design isn't just ill-done, it's inexcusable.
Excuse me while I hide my White Wolf books in case you want to burn them for being inexcusable.


Emphasis mine. I can use that word and sentence as "evidence" that Vow of Poverty is supposed to equal or exceed items, but other people will use it as "evidence" that it's not supposed to equal items. Hence why developer intention is in that realm of Things Not Normally Worth Debating.
Spuddles said it right, but I'll just emphasize that you're debating something you just said is not worth debating.



Also, in such a truly desperate situation as half the party being down, if doing so can salvage the situation the ascetic should break his vow. A good DM will allow an atonement in spite of the fact he willingly broke his vow, and if that's a no go then low levels means he can catch up to WBL pretty quick.

Amen. Then the character could retrain VoP away and everything. Nothing lost.
Unless you somehow missed that whole section in Player's Handbook 2, have never heard of Psychic Reformation and/or Shun/Embrace the Dark Chaos. Because feats are FOREVER. :smallsigh:

[The Redwolf]

I'm still missing why he isn't allowed to wave the torch around since it's nonmagical, I mean, it's a mundane item, it shouldn't be disallowed by the vow as far as I'm aware.

[Flickerdart]

You don't need to guess, it's written in the book.

Congratulations, you just called all of White Wolf games rubbish. You just called GURPS rubbish. You just called all games that are not kick-in-the-door-and-kill-monsters rubbish.
Like it says right there in the introduction for Book of Exalted Deeds, that's not what the book is aimed at.


Excuse me while I hide my White Wolf books in case you want to burn them for being inexcusable.
White Wolf didn't publish the BoED. The way they balance their content has nothing to do with the way D&D does it.

[OracleofWuffing]

A torch is considered a simple weapon (club), so you actually can carry and use one of those.
Acutally, it's treated as a one-handed improvised weapon akin to a gauntlet.


I'm still missing why he isn't allowed to wave the torch around since it's nonmagical, I mean, it's a mundane item, it shouldn't be disallowed by the vow as far as I'm aware.
I can't say for sure if it's the clause that's in concern, but a torch is listed under Goods and Services, not Weapons. VoP only allows simple weapons, clothes, food, and a spell component pouch. I suppose one could consider torches as a weapon because of the aforementioned line about using them in combat, but at that point, well, "I'm going to use this solid diamondium piano as an improvized weapon. It's nonmagical, so I can carry it around without breaking my vow."

More realistically, there's also another foggy line where it is unclear that improvised weapons can also be simple weapons. In the given torch example, it just says that it just deals damage like a gauntlet, but it doesn't actually say it's a simple weapon.

[ThiagoMartell]

White Wolf didn't publish the BoED. The way they balance their content has nothing to do with the way D&D does it.
{Scrubbed}

[Zrak]

I don't think VoP is stupid, and I think putting that in the thread title was a very poor choice of words. It's poorly designed from a mechanical perspective, sure, but calling it stupid makes it sound like you're also putting down the character concept.

Well, I think the meaning was that the feat is bad because its mechanics reflect the character concept pretty poorly. I can't really think of an idea of a vow of poverty that would make a lot of the restrictions the feat makes, simply because those restrictions have nothing to do with poverty; if you find a man dying of thirst who asks you to use his decanter of endless water to pour him some water, you can't help because using the item, even to help another at no benefit to yourself, would break the vow. Oh, what's that, your friend broke his arm and wants you to carry his bag of holding? Too bad, he has to suck it up, because you won't help him carry his stuff. That's against your vow. I can only assume this was an attempt to block off power-gamers attempting to abuse the feat by gaining its benefits and "borrowing" items, but the result is the feat not really representing a lot of ascetic character concepts, or, really, any. Unless the character concept is a different kind of Monk (http://sharetv.org/images/monk-show.jpg) than one usually imagines, only with an arbitrary monetary value instead of germs. In other words, it's not that title is trying to call the concept stupid, it's saying that it's stupid that the mechanics of Vow of Poverty do a rather bad job of, you know, representing a vow of poverty.


If you want to quote out of context and be willfully ignorant, I suppose you could misuse modern literary critique to pretend you don't understand the copypasta. In which case I'll just start bolding single words in your posts to demonstrate that no one truly understands what you're posting.

I don't believe Lord Gareth's intent was to launch into Derridean criticism so much as to point out that the phrase "gains spiritual benefits that can help outweigh" could be understood to mean more than one thing, in context. One could read it as saying that the mechanical abilities granted by the feat ("spiritual benefits") are intended to at least compensate for its mechanical restrictions, but one could just as easily read its reference to "spiritual benefits" as saying that the warm, fuzzy feeling of a vow of poverty gives a character, in character, is worth its mechanical restrictions. One could, from the sentence, assume either to be the developer's intent with essentially equal merit.


Your premise itself contains the very same flaw- as if you can claim that D&D has a purpose and that VoP violates the purpose.
You were making a descriptive claim about the intentions and opinions of others, he was making a normative claim about his own opinions. In other words, his argument doesn't rely on the intention of the developers, but his opinion of the results; whatever the intention behind Vow of Poverty was, he finds the feat badly designed.

[dascarletm]

Oh my, all this aside, I would think that holding to the letter of the vow, and holding to it no matter what, would seem more LN than anything. If saving a persons life because the current situation demands using a magical item (the only possible way that is) then, as said before, I'd like to think any DM might just either allow your oath to keep or a quick atonement. That doesn't sound quest worthy for the spell.

Anyway, I'd always thought, to fix the vow, it would be better if the party got to keep most of the wealth, but maybe have the VOP player able to requisition some of the party wealth to help those he finds in need. Maybe just say to be lenient when using items or charges for dire situations. Let the players pitch in more to make up for it? If he's not trying to cheat the system where is the harm? Maybe even take away his abilities for the rest of the day like a druid and metal?

It always seems weird to me a VOP person needs to "santa" tons of wealth around giving orphans +3 broadswords, and Daggers of Giantslaying. Then giving a destitute family a gold crown w/ topaz inlays. Also it means that any items the party doesn't want gets given to the poor.

VOP Char: Here little timmy, take this magical spiked chain sized for a huge creature, noone in my party can use it.:smallcool:
Timmy: Oh... thanks?:smallconfused:

[Zrak]

"What troubles you, little Timmy?"

"It's just, Mr. VoP Char, my family cannot use this chain, and it's too heavy for my frail, impoverished orphan arms to carry to the market. Could you help me carry it there?"

"Sorry, Timmy, I can't. I took a vow, little bro. Someday, when you're older and your Wis score has risen accordingly, you'll understand."

"Dude, seriously? I'm totally gonna be a blackguard when I grow up." :smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Book of Exalted Deeds, page 48: (emphasis added)

Spuddles is playing the cleric. If we assume the "expected" paradigm of Meatshield, Skillmonkey, Batman, and God-Botherer, the OP ends up as the party healer if nobody is optimizing that way.

If you want a reasonable example of a fictional cleric who fits the vow of poverty trope, look to Tripitarka from Monkey (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Monkey). You beer-swilling cleric is no Tripitarka.

Note that Tripitarka's "horse" is technically a dragon cohort.

[dascarletm]

"What troubles you, little Timmy?"

"It's just, Mr. VoP Char, my family cannot use this chain, and it's too heavy for my frail, impoverished orphan arms to carry to the market. Could you help me carry it there?"

"Sorry, Timmy, I can't. I took a vow, little bro. Someday, when you're older and your Wis score has risen accordingly, you'll understand."

"Dude, seriously? I'm totally gonna be a blackguard when I grow up." :smalltongue:

Poor Timmy...

Another good one is that it doesn't say how to distribute the wealth so in a game I VoP'd I gave roughly 40,000 gp of stuff (Armor, Sword, other stuff, and some Silver and Copper pieces.) to random vagrant in town X. He became a power mad evil Baron.

It seems that maybe not all crazy people eating rat heads in the sewers should be given power/ a Daren's (Right name?) Instant Fortress.

[Spuddles]

I'm still missing why he isn't allowed to wave the torch around since it's nonmagical, I mean, it's a mundane item, it shouldn't be disallowed by the vow as far as I'm aware.

That was a fail on the cleric Player misreading the text re: weapon posessions. Thought it was only a quarterstaff or club. A torch is neither of those things. I suppose improvised weapon isn't an ordinary simple weapon, either.


Maybe I'm missing something here. Why exactly is it that the cleric doesn't simply cast a cure spell? Did he trade that ability away? If he did, how is that VoP's fault and not the player's?

I'm sorry you're having a tough time with someone elses character not pulling his weight in your eyes but it sounds to me like VoP isn't the only thing at fault here.

Also, in such a truly desperate situation as half the party being down, if doing so can salvage the situation the ascetic should break his vow. A good DM will allow an atonement in spite of the fact he willingly broke his vow, and if that's a no go then low levels means he can catch up to WBL pretty quick.

More than a little of what's in BoED is expected to be run through the filters of reason and logic at the hands of the playgroup even more than the content of other supplements. This is probably more true of the sacred vows than practically anything else in the 3.5 system.

We're playing in PF so defensive casting is very difficult and he also was all out of spells. You only get 3 at level 1.


The AC bonus from VoP doesn't stack with any Armor bonuses to AC, such as from Mage Armor.

You can get someone in your party to cast (Greater) Magic Weapon on your VoP-approved simple weapon. A torch is considered a simple weapon (club), so you actually can carry and use one of those.

That dying character should have been wearing a Healing Belt (MIC) that he could have used to heal himself. A VoP character can still make a Heal skill check to stabilize a dying character.

If you want to play an exalted character, go Druid with Exalted Companion and have a Celestial animal companion, which can then take VoP. Your character is completely unhindered by the limitations of that feat, and the companion wouldn't normally get a share of the treasure anyway.

AC bonus is exalted fom vop. Mage armor is armor bonus. Different bonus types stack.

There is no one in the party to cast magic weapon. But that's more of a problem of having incorporeal creatures vs a level 1 party than the vow itself.

A healing belt is way too expensive for a 1st level party to have; much less a irst level character.

The problem here isn't with getting enough +to hit, in theory, it's that if the vop character picks up a magic weapon to stop evil, he breaks his vow. If someone says "here, use this wand to remove my disease/heal my wounds/ cure the blind", the vop char has to say "no, I am too good for that."


Well, I think the meaning was that the feat is bad because its mechanics reflect the character concept pretty poorly. I can't really think of an idea of a vow of poverty that would make a lot of the restrictions the feat makes, simply because those restrictions have nothing to do with poverty; if you find a man dying of thirst who asks you to use his decanter of endless water to pour him some water, you can't help because using the item, even to help another at no benefit to yourself, would break the vow. Oh, what's that, your friend broke his arm and wants you to carry his bag of holding? Too bad, he has to suck it up, because you won't help him carry his stuff. That's against your vow. I can only assume this was an attempt to block off power-gamers attempting to abuse the feat by gaining its benefits and "borrowing" items, but the result is the feat not really representing a lot of ascetic character concepts, or, really, any. Unless the character concept is a different kind of Monk (http://sharetv.org/images/monk-show.jpg) than one usually imagines, only with an arbitrary monetary value instead of germs. In other words, it's not that title is trying to call the concept stupid, it's saying that it's stupid that the mechanics of Vow of Poverty do a rather bad job of, you know, representing a vow of poverty.



I don't believe Lord Gareth's intent was to launch into Derridean criticism so much as to point out that the phrase "gains spiritual benefits that can help outweigh" could be understood to mean more than one thing, in context. One could read it as saying that the mechanical abilities granted by the feat ("spiritual benefits") are intended to at least compensate for its mechanical restrictions, but one could just as easily read its reference to "spiritual benefits" as saying that the warm, fuzzy feeling of a vow of poverty gives a character, in character, is worth its mechanical restrictions. One could, from the sentence, assume either to be the developer's intent with essentially equal merit.


You were making a descriptive claim about the intentions and opinions of others, he was making a normative claim about his own opinions. In other words, his argument doesn't rely on the intention of the developers, but his opinion of the results; whatever the intention behind Vow of Poverty was, he finds the feat badly designed.

Zaq, you understand exactly my gripe regarding vop. Re: your last paragraph, however, I would say we can't really tell what Lord Gareth was trying to say as we only have authorial statement not authorial intent.

[Lord_Gareth]

Zaq, you understand exactly my gripe regarding vop. Re: your last paragraph, however, I would say we can't really tell what Lord Gareth was trying to say as we only have authorial statement not authorial intent.

Damn straight. Though in this case I'll clarify in an attempt to make my position (and thus intention) more certain: I find VoP to be poorly designed regardless of authorial intent.

Additionally, the intent Thiago keeps bringing up in the introduction to the Book of Exalted Deeds makes no mention of mechanical strength at all. It says that the Book of Exalted Deeds was written for players that want to explore a good alignment, who seek excitement from rewards beyond the next awesome weapon or slavering monster, and who wish to explore difficult moral questions. Whether or not the book managed to do any of that is a subject for extreme debate, though it did set some interesting precedents. Less debatable is the fact that they presented BoED's mechanical options as being equal to, or more powerful than, other mechanical options.

What do I present as evidence for this? Statements in the book itself. The Feat chapter calls out Exalted feats as being "more powerful" than other feats, which is made up for by their stricter requirements (including needing a supernatural endowment to take them at all, by the way). It's prestige classes are presented as champions of Good - not supporters, but exemplars meant to crush evil and succor the weak. Nowhere do they say, "These options may be weaker than others published in Dungeons and Dragons, but they are presented for players wishing to express their character's alignment mechanically." They're billed and sold as being just as viable as other options, and they are not, which is one of the many varieties of bad design.

[Spuddles]

"What troubles you, little Timmy?"

"It's just, Mr. VoP Char, my family cannot use this chain, and it's too heavy for my frail, impoverished orphan arms to carry to the market. Could you help me carry it there?"

"Sorry, Timmy, I can't. I took a vow, little bro. Someday, when you're older and your Wis score has risen accordingly, you'll understand."

"Dude, seriously? I'm totally gonna be a blackguard when I grow up." :smalltongue:

The magnitude of wealth, and wealth in really bizarre forms, that a vop char generates is staggering. A single +1 sword can feed like an orphanage for a year. Maybe I exaggerate, but if you do some quick math, it doesn't even make sense that you are some how doing more good giving hundreds of thousands of gp in loot when you could be using it to save the world.

It's even worse than in your example; a vop char that finds a wand of remove blindness has to give it to a blind orphan. "sorry timmy, it's better that you have his than me heal you."

That seems very lawful to me, but in no way exalted. That level of ascetism seems to parallel monks who follow an inner path, not extremely good people that should heal everyone all the time.


If you want a reasonable example of a fictional cleric who fits the vow of poverty trope, look to Tripitarka from Monkey (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Monkey). You beer-swilling cleric is no Tripitarka.

Note that Tripitarka's "horse" is technically a dragon cohort.

The cleric is aggressively "feed the orphans". It's hilarious to see how vop actually plays out with RAW.


Poor Timmy...

Another good one is that it doesn't say how to distribute the wealth so in a game I VoP'd I gave roughly 40,000 gp of stuff (Armor, Sword, other stuff, and some Silver and Copper pieces.) to random vagrant in town X. He became a power mad evil Baron.

It seems that maybe not all crazy people eating rat heads in the sewers should be given power/ a Daren's (Right name?) Instant Fortress.

Yeah the wealth distribution problems with vop are crazy. I guess a church can turn vop wealth into diamonds for raising saints and magic swords for paladins.

As a business, in our game, the whole party is going to maximize profits. The cleric's share will go towards an orphanage and guards and stuff, I guess.

[Cranthis]

I believe this entire thread comes down to this:

Mechanically: No. VoP is bad.
Character-wise: Yes, it can be good.

[Psyren]

As I always say, Vow of Poverty is not meant for that. It's meant for ascetic types. Someone who drinks ale whily nilly doesn't even feat VoP's definition. Basically, you're using the feat for something it wasn't designed to. It wasn't designed to make ascetics on par with people that used gear, it was designed for a very specific thing (allowing people who had voluntary poverty as part of their concept to not be as screwed as they are without VoP).
Is it weak? Yes. Does it do what it was supposed to do? Yes.
I wouldn't ever play a VoP character because ascetics don't appease to my tastes. I have already played a superstitious character that did not rely on magic, using a 3rd party feat called Ao Sabor do Destino (At Fate's Whim, in a free translation). It was weaker than using magical gear, but it was fine. I don't think all concepts need to be balanced, since it seems pretty obvious that all other things being equal, a guy with a magical sword is better at fighting compared to a guy that lacks a magical sword. VoP only breaks down if you see it under a game-y perspective of everything needing to be balanced, and the Book of Exalted Deeds is not written with this in mind (it even says so in the introduction).
/rant

You seem to have taken some flack for this post, but I support your reasoning fully.

If one did want to make the feat a little stronger mechanically though, I'm rather fond of the idea (floated on these boards some weeks back) of letting the bonus feats it grants be Incarnum ones.

[Spuddles]

Damn straight. Though in this case I'll clarify in an attempt to make my position (and thus intention) more certain: I find VoP to be poorly designed regardless of authorial intent.

Additionally, the intent Thiago keeps bringing up in the introduction to the Book of Exalted Deeds makes no mention of mechanical strength at all. It says that the Book of Exalted Deeds was written for players that want to explore a good alignment, who seek excitement from rewards beyond the next awesome weapon or slavering monster, and who wish to explore difficult moral questions. Whether or not the book managed to do any of that is a subject for extreme debate, though it did set some interesting precedents. Less debatable is the fact that they presented BoED's mechanical options as being equal to, or more powerful than, other mechanical options.

What do I present as evidence for this? Statements in the book itself. The Feat chapter calls out Exalted feats as being "more powerful" than other feats, which is made up for by their stricter requirements (including needing a supernatural endowment to take them at all, by the way). It's prestige classes are presented as champions of Good - not supporters, but exemplars meant to crush evil and succor the weak. Nowhere do they say, "These options may be weaker than others published in Dungeons and Dragons, but they are presented for players wishing to express their character's alignment mechanically." They're billed and sold as being just as viable as other options, and they are not, which is one of the many varieties of bad design.

Then I think we are in agreement, save your interpretation of "power". The benefits of exalte feats are actually really great. Would you pick up vow of poverty if you didn't actually have to take a vow of poverty or be good? Righteous wrath and ancestral weapon are also both great. There are a few other feats in boed that are mechanically more powerful in their benefits. Because they have bigger benefits, they have bigger drawbacks. In most cases, the drawbacks are actually greater than thee benefit. So overall, yes, the feats are weak. But the benefit of vow of nonviolence is twice as good as 16 other feats.

[Lord_Gareth]

To be fair to Ancestral Weapon, it's not actually tagged as [Exalted] unless I missed an errata somewhere. But though gems like Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace are hidden in BoED, there's also options like Knight of Stars, Nimbus of Light, Righteous Wrath (which has this problem where only frenzied berserkers stop telling friend from foe during rage) and the like. The prestige classes range from the underwhelming (Wonderworker) to having hidden and highly confusing requirements (to become an Anointed Knight, you need to have a caster level) that are not immediately obvious. The work smacks of hasty or ill-done design.

[Spuddles]

I believe this entire thread comes down to this:

Mechanically: No. VoP is bad.
Character-wise: Yes, it can be good.

Then you haven't been following the thread.

Mechanically, vop is alright, especially if you're a caster, there is random loot, and you don't get to send your pet to town every time you acquire enough wealth to upgrade your equipment.

Character-wise, it leads to the nonsensical behavior of characters that should be paragons of virtue and goodness, but instead worry more about stuff than their allies.

In fact, most of the vows in BoED don't make much sense in the context of PHB Good at all. They seem more like promises you make to a vengeful, lawtul deity.

Personally, the more I play with the BoED, the more problems it seems to introduce. Claims that it offers a "certain playstyle" and "you have to be mature" used to hold traction with me. Until it came to actual play. What the hell sort of saint has to think twice about picking up a magic weapon to save his friends from a ghost? And why is it that the character that makes sure the dead have a respectful burial some how less good than the character who refuses to sully himself? Do you know how many undead are create by improper burial? It seems really selfish and irresponsible to hold your cleanliness laws above the good of a community.

[Cranthis]

Then you haven't been following the thread.

Mechanically, vop is alright, especially if you're a caster, there is random loot, and you don't get to send your pet to town every time you acquire enough wealth to upgrade your equipment.

Character-wise, it leads to the nonsensical behavior of characters that should be paragons of virtue and goodness, but instead worry more about stuff than their allies.

In fact, most of the vows in BoED don't make much sense in the context of PHB Good at all. They seem more like promises you make to a vengeful, lawtul deity.

Personally, the more I play with the BoED, the more problems it seems to introduce. Claims that it offers a "certain playstyle" and "you have to be mature" used to hold traction with me. Until it came to actual play. What the hell sort of saint has to think twice about picking up a magic weapon to save his friends from a ghost? And why is it that the character that makes sure the dead have a respectful burial some how less good than the character who refuses to sully himself? Do you know how many undead are create by improper burial? It seems really selfish and irresponsible to hold your cleanliness laws above the good of a community.

I agree with you.

[ThiagoMartell]

Damn straight. Though in this case I'll clarify in an attempt to make my position (and thus intention) more certain: I find VoP to be poorly designed regardless of authorial intent.

Additionally, the intent Thiago keeps bringing up in the introduction to the Book of Exalted Deeds makes no mention of mechanical strength at all. It says that the Book of Exalted Deeds was written for players that want to explore a good alignment, who seek excitement from rewards beyond the next awesome weapon or slavering monster, and who wish to explore difficult moral questions. Whether or not the book managed to do any of that is a subject for extreme debate, though it did set some interesting precedents. Less debatable is the fact that they presented BoED's mechanical options as being equal to, or more powerful than, other mechanical options.

What do I present as evidence for this? Statements in the book itself. The Feat chapter calls out Exalted feats as being "more powerful" than other feats, which is made up for by their stricter requirements (including needing a supernatural endowment to take them at all, by the way). It's prestige classes are presented as champions of Good - not supporters, but exemplars meant to crush evil and succor the weak. Nowhere do they say, "These options may be weaker than others published in Dungeons and Dragons, but they are presented for players wishing to express their character's alignment mechanically." They're billed and sold as being just as viable as other options, and they are not, which is one of the many varieties of bad design.

Yeah, the book is completely underpowered. It doesn't have Words of Creation, Apostle of Peace, Stalker of Kharresh, Fist of Raziel, Swanmay and Starmantle in it. In fact, when it was published, Fist of Raziel was THE prestige class for paladins. Stalker of Kharresh still is one of the best Ranger prestige classes, even BoED being published so early in 3.5.
Gareth, if you can't see how "seeking excitement from rewards beyond the next weapon or monster" means those options were not meant to be seen as not being kick-in-the-door, I don't know what to say. Except maybe you misread what I said.
Also, VoP does make you more powerful compared to someone else with no gear. Which is what it was supposed to do. In fact, as others have pointed out, it can be a powerful feat in some cases.
My problem with this is not people thinking VoP is wrong, is people calling it (and the playstyle it supports) stupid. I told Gareth how his broad statement meant most games were stupid and he not even answered. I can only understand that's really what he meant.



What the hell sort of saint has to think twice about picking up a magic weapon to save his friends from a ghost?
The kind that doesn't care about losing a few benefits for saving his friends, of course. I guess that's the only kind of saint there is.


And why is it that the character that makes sure the dead have a respectful burial some how less good than the character who refuses to sully himself?
That's a gross misunderstand of what spiritual vows mean.


It seems really selfish and irresponsible to hold your cleanliness laws above the good of a community.
Then do it and don't take the vows. :smallconfused:
Or take it and then break them.
All of the stuff you're complaining about is exactly the kind of stuff saints of legend did. Their devotion to the powers of good and their vows was greater than mortal concerns. This is discussed in the book itself, man.
@Psyren, thanks for the support.

[Lord_Gareth]

My problem with this is not people thinking VoP is wrong, is people calling it (and the playstyle it supports) stupid. I told Gareth how his broad statement meant most games were stupid and he not even answered. I can only understand that's really what he meant.

The "playstyle" that Vow of Poverty supports is a fallacy; it "supports" the idea that mechanical viability and roleplaying potential are mutually exclusive. You don't need to be playing a dungeon crawl to care about a character's mechanical ability. After all, your mechanics are how you define a large extent of your character's interactions and knowledge about the game world!

Rather more importantly, I'm not understanding where you took my statements to be emphasizing a 'kick-in-the-door' style game. If the PCs are asked to ferret out corruption in a Good-aligned church and they discover that a Baatorian cult is at the heart of it, you know what happens a the climax? They fight the cultists. Caring about the weak and innocent and spending time succoring and teaching the common man doesn't mean you're not also a champion of justice. Adventurers adventure - it's what defines them. Even if the champions of Good don't do so at the bottom of a dungeon, inevitably their job will not simply be to undo evil but to crush it. You'll note that with very few exceptions, the bonuses from Vow of Poverty are geared to help the character that takes it fight evil both in the metaphorical and literal senses.

Good design means not having to sacrifice viability to bring a concept to life. There's a few systems that manage to pull that off beautifully, and many others that try.

And for all future reference, and speaking as a fan of many White Wolf games (nWoD, Exalted, Scion, Pimp: the Backhanding) - White Wolf is guilty of awful, awful design. Left, right, up, down, center, forward, backward, diagonal. White Wolf's mechanics are horrifically bad - which is why, as many of their fans do, I just sort of blissfully ignore the worst offenders and bask in the glow of their glorious worldbuilding prowess.

[Thiyr]

Strangely, this is reminding me of an issue that came up in the formation and texts of a well known real-world religion. Not mentioning the specifics at all, there were instances of a sect of the predecessor religion concerning themselves with the specifics of following the rules to the letter, and using this as an excuse to get away with completely disregarding the spirit of it all, which was addressed in said text. The same issue is coming up here, where the big issue is that the vows encourage you to start concerning yourself with following the letter of the rules (No wealth! NONE! NEVERRRRRRRRRR), without considering any other aspect of it. The biggest problem, I'd say, is that you're still expected to work with a party, so there's still a ton of wealth around that is largely a practical thing rather than a convenience thing, which I'd think is ignoring a part of the spirit of these vows as well. It seems more about sacrificing convenience, comfort, and luxury than anything, and while that works when rejecting the +5 orcish shotput of impactful piercing and maiming, it makes less sense when rejecting the blessed bandage of making sure my allies don't die a gruesome death. Either that, or the vows are less about being exalted and more about being axiomatic.

[ThiagoMartell]

The "playstyle" that Vow of Poverty supports is a fallacy; it "supports" the idea that mechanical viability and roleplaying potential are mutually exclusive. You don't need to be playing a dungeon crawl to care about a character's mechanical ability. After all, your mechanics are how you define a large extent of your character's interactions and knowledge about the game world!
That's what you are saying. That's not I said. I would agree completely with you if D&D was a game where your mechanics always influence how you interact with the world and if the thread was not littered with "I can't fight ghosts so it sucks".


Rather more importantly, I'm not understanding where you took my statements to be emphasizing a 'kick-in-the-door' style game. If the PCs are asked to ferret out corruption in a Good-aligned church and they discover that a Baatorian cult is at the heart of it, you know what happens a the climax? They fight the cultists. Caring about the weak and innocent and spending time succoring and teaching the common man doesn't mean you're not also a champion of justice. Adventurers adventure - it's what defines them. Even if the champions of Good don't do so at the bottom of a dungeon, inevitably their job will not simply be to undo evil but to crush it. You'll note that with very few exceptions, the bonuses from Vow of Poverty are geared to help the character that takes it fight evil both in the metaphorical and literal senses.
And this is where it becomes obvious you grossly misunderstood what I've been saying. My point (and I have it stressed it enough throughout these few last posts) is that VoP is an option you take when you want to be a saint without gear. It's only logical in any barely simulationist games that being without gear is worse than being with gear.


Good design means not having to sacrifice viability to bring a concept to life. There's a few systems that manage to pull that off beautifully, and many others that try.
That's a broad generalization and a bad one at that. Most systems support some concepts and if you try to go outside them you have trouble. And that's alright, because most systems have some degree of simulationism. A sword is not as good as a bazooka, unless your setting sets it up that way. And then the guy that wanted to have a bazooka as his main weapon is screwed. That happens in most systems. What you don't seem to understand is that your point is not true at all. In many settings, having all options be viable would be bad.


And for all future reference, and speaking as a fan of many White Wolf games (nWoD, Exalted, Scion, Pimp: the Backhanding) - White Wolf is guilty of awful, awful design. Left, right, up, down, center, forward, backward, diagonal. White Wolf's mechanics are horrifically bad - which is why, as many of their fans do, I just sort of blissfully ignore the worst offenders and bask in the glow of their glorious worldbuilding prowess.
Once again, broad generalizations prove to be wrong. White Wolf is also guilty of excellent game design, such as Street Fighter StG (the best tactical combat system I've ever seen and it is considerably old) and Burn Legend. The mechanics here are excellent - the math in the SF StG core rulebook is so precise it's breathtaking. The core mechanic for nWoD is very sound. The skill list is pretty much the best one I ever saw for a modern-era game.
I'm guessing you never played GURPS, because it's simulationism flies straight in the face of everything you're claiming to be good design.

[Spuddles]

The kind that doesn't care about losing a few benefits for saving his friends, of course. I guess that's the only kind of saint there is.

Huh, I just reread the rules for sainthood. The cleric player has been telling us that you won't qualify if you ever have to atone, but it's actually atonement FOR AN EVIL ACT.

Nevermind then. :smallredface:


That's a gross misunderstand of what spiritual vows mean.

Then do it and don't take the vows. :smallconfused:
Or take it and then break them.
All of the stuff you're complaining about is exactly the kind of stuff saints of legend did. Their devotion to the powers of good and their vows was greater than mortal concerns. This is discussed in the book itself, man.
@Psyren, thanks for the support.

But most of the vows have nothing to do about good. Given the way the rest of the rules of work, from wealth being a character resource and a fluff thing, to a leveling system, to the freaking rules for objective morality itself, BoED and the hilariously antiquated concepts of "good" are at huge odds with the systrm itself. The saints from legend BoED tries to emulate are all LAWFUL. It has little to do with Good, per the SRD definition. This gets into real world religion really fast, but I would happil take this discussion up with you via PM, as it's something I've been thinking a lot about.

Anyway, I can see how a vow of nonviolence or poverty can be good. Vow of chastity is exalted? Purity? And how about how these vows make you not just weaker mechanically (many don't, as you point out), but that the limitations they create are not only arbitrary and have little to do with d&d's concept of good, but they actively prevent you from doing good? And not in a "well I need the christmas tree loot effect to kill an evil dragon", but in a "sorry, it is some how more good to observe these arbitrary and archaic traditions than save the world."

Most vows are lawful, extremely lawful. The system has two axes to cover these sorts of things. But BoED is sort of a painfully huge fail.

[Spuddles]

That's what you are saying. That's not I said. I would agree completely with you if D&D was a game where your mechanics always influence how you interact with the world and if the thread was not littered with "I can't fight ghosts so it sucks".


And this is where it becomes obvious you grossly misunderstood what I've been saying. My point (and I have it stressed it enough throughout these few last posts) is that VoP is an option you take when you want to be a saint without gear. It's only logical in any barely simulationist games that being without gear is worse than being with gear.

I don't have a problem with VoP ipso facto. It'd be nice if it offered a little better parity (flight, teleport/ethereal or something, and so forth).

My problem is that it is in the book of exalted deeds with an exalted tag. It should be in the Libram of Perfect Axioms.

[ThiagoMartell]

Spuddles, I understand your point, but I think BoED as a whole is internally consistent. It looks like your vision of good does not match the designers' vision of good, which is fine, it happens. The D&D Wizard doesn't fit my vision of a wizard, as well. I don't it's stupid because of that. I just think it's a different vision. It doesn't really match the PHB's broad definitions though, I'll give you that.

[Spuddles]

Spuddles, I understand your point, but I think BoED as a whole is internally consistent. It looks like your vision of good does not match the designers' vision of good, which is fine, it happens. The D&D Wizard doesn't fit my vision of a wizard, as well. I don't it's stupid because of that. I just think it's a different vision. It doesn't really match the PHB's broad definitions though, I'll give you that.

I am actually a huge fan of D&D's definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos. Unfortunately, the authors of the BoED didn't read it.

[Silentone98]

I didnt read the whole thing,.. so i don't know if this was covered...
but cant he have his holy symbol tattoed on him?
That's what I am doing for my cleric,.. DM's idea.

[ThiagoMartell]

I am actually a huge fan of D&D's definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos. Unfortunately, the authors of the BoED didn't read it.

That's pretty much what I said in my post, so I don't really the point here, other than yet another jab at the book.

[Psyren]

I agree that the vows are tied more to Law than Good, and even then are tied more to some internal code version of Law that rejects rather than obeys prevailing societal rules.

BoED has plenty of flaws, but I wouldn't call it a failure. Crunch-wise, it has plenty of good material that has withstood the test of time, considering how early in 3.5's run the book came out. (I believe only Miniatures Handbook came before it splatwise?) And fluff-wise, it may have some odd pronouncements in places, but it was still the first D&D book - perhaps ever - to specifically point out that killing monsters just because they have green skin may not be the most morally upright way of going about things, or that good characters should probably consider accepting surrender from and giving quarter to their loot piñatas.

Were it rewritten today, are there things I would want to see changed? Yes - for starters, I'd want a clearer distinction between poisons and ravages, and definitely the Vows would have to be completely overhauled, as well as providing some form of spiritual feats for CG characters as well. But until then, what we have is what we've got, and I see no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater for this or any other sourcebook.

[Zrak]

Zaq, you understand exactly my gripe regarding vop. Re: your last paragraph, however, I would say we can't really tell what Lord Gareth was trying to say as we only have authorial statement not authorial intent.

Haha, that's true, we can't know for certain.


I believe this entire thread comes down to this:

Mechanically: No. VoP is bad.
Character-wise: Yes, it can be good.

Again, I think VoP's primary failing is its staggering inability to represent a Vow of Poverty that anyone even slightly concerned with helping others would actually take.


That's what you are saying. That's not I said. I would agree completely with you if D&D was a game where your mechanics always influence how you interact with the world and if the thread was not littered with "I can't fight ghosts so it sucks".

Sure, mechanics don't always influence how you interact with the world, but in most campaigns, mechanics influence quite a bit of the interaction, and the mechanics of Vow of Poverty, in examples of much greater variety and breadth than "fighting ghosts," render one mechanically unable to interact with the world in a lot of ways that, conceivably, a character who vowed to forsake personal wealth would still want to interact with the world. In other words, the feat is so narrow and extreme, mechanically, that a character who takes it is essentially forced to play a caricature of an ascetic, rather than a representation of one.

[ThiagoMartell]

I agree that the vows are tied more to Law than Good, and even then are tied more to some internal code version of Law that rejects rather than obeys prevailing societal rules.

BoED has plenty of flaws, but I wouldn't call it a failure. Crunch-wise, it has plenty of good material that has withstood the test of time, considering how early in 3.5's run the book came out. (I believe only Miniatures Handbook came before it splatwise?) And fluff-wise, it may have some odd pronouncements in places, but it was still the first D&D book - perhaps ever - to specifically point out that killing monsters just because they have green skin may not be the most morally upright way of going about things, or that good characters should probably consider accepting surrender from and giving quarter to their loot piñatas.

Were it rewritten today, are there things I would want to see changed? Yes - for starters, I'd want a clearer distinction between poisons and ravages, and definitely the Vows would have to be completely overhauled, as well as providing some form of spiritual feats for CG characters as well. But until then, what we have is what we've got, and I see no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater for this or any other sourcebook.
*slowclap*
Dude, you're my favorite playgrounder ever.

[Mystral]

I'm curious, has anyone on this board ever tried to create a homebrewed version of "Vow of Poverty" that actually works and is mechanically viable?

If not, I think I might have a go at it.

[Arcanist]

I'm curious, has anyone on this board ever tried to create a homebrewed version of "Vow of Poverty" that actually works and is mechanically viable?

If not, I think I might have a go at it.

Many have tried. All have failed.

[Mystral]

Any links to some of the failed tries? Maybe I can learn from them.

[Arcanist]

Any links to some of the failed tries? Maybe I can learn from them.

1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140428)
2 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/228026-new-exalted-feats-fix-vow-poverty.html)
3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213640)
4 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198956)
6 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192642)
7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234970)

Keep me updated on how your quest for perfect asceticism proceeds :smallsmile:

I'd like to just give you a small heads up while I'm at it. Try to make your VoP effectively contain the benefits of whatever reasonable item that a non-VoP character would have. The feat really breaks down at Epic level to the point where it would require a long LONG discussion on what exactly would balance Epic level (Which requires a strong Gentlemen's Agreement among players that you have to remove to make Balanced... weird...) :smallsigh:

[Telonius]

A character who swears off all wealth and possessions, and then takes the Vow of Poverty feat, is usually going to be less powerful than a character that doesn't.

A character who swears off all wealth and possessions, and doesn't take Vow of Poverty, is going to be quite a bit worse.

The feat, as-written, is pretty much universally accepted as being awful. Whether the intent was granting equal power or enabling a character concept, it didn't fully do its job. It only got about halfway there on either goal, IMO.

(Side-note: In my campaigns, Devils have a similar pact they offer to mortals. No feat required; the character gets all of the VoP benefits and drawbacks, with the earned gold paid to the devil directly (and the option of either using Vile feats, or evil equivalents of Exalted feats). The devil gets their soul if they ever break the vow).

[Arcanist]

In my campaigns, Devils have a similar pact they offer to mortals. No feat required; the character gets all of the VoP benefits and drawbacks, with the earned gold paid to the devil directly (and the option of either using Vile feats, or evil equivalents of Exalted feats). The devil gets their soul if they ever break the vow).

If you're going to make an "Evil" Vow of Poverty, I recommend using Evil Brand instead of Unspeakable Vows (Drows of the Underdark).

I'm still looking to one day play an Evil Cleric of Tiamat who offers all of his gold and treasure to the Beautiful Queen of Evil Dragonkind.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pdq0WhToDsM/TwncsGtMahI/AAAAAAAAAv4/psBK5VzRnuM/s1600/Tiamat+%2528Lucas+Graciano%2529.jpg

[Razanir]

Vow of Poverty (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty)

I like the PF version. Admittedly I still wouldn't take it on a PC, but I'm using this on a plot-critical NPC. Partly because her backstory has her as an exiled royal so this fits in quite nicely with the idea. Also, I found a loophole. "or similar magical items where the item is consumed and is valueless thereafter" As a DM, I would allow a VoP character to use the last charge on a wand because it's effectively valueless afterward

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.