VoP, can't see shortcomings [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

TypoNinja

2013-06-25, 03:08 AM

I did an experiment where I built a 15th level Monk with regular WBL and a 15th level Monk with Vow of Poverty.

Either I wasn't buying the right stuff or I did something wrong because the VoP monk was strait out better.

So, I ask you experts, what eq would you buy at 15th level wbl to make your monk better than a VoP monk?

If you try to duplicate VoP's bonuses with WBL VoP comes out better by the numbers. That is to say you get more goodies than you could buy. Its problem is versatility.

Your powers are in an extremely narrow field, and you can literally do nothing outside it. You basically end up with practically zero ability to adapt. Flying enemies are your most obvious weakness and that is just the most obvious.

VoP's weakness is that your powers are fixed, where as a character without could buy something with situational value. You also lack any real magical utility options, no belt of battle, no anklet of translocation, no chrono charms. Basically every magic item you've ever used that wasn't a weapon or armor is forbidden to you.

Now depending on your game it might not be a terrible option, but unless you really like the flavor of it, you are better off buying your own gear. I'm playing a VoP monk and having fun with it, but the only reason he's keeping up with the rest of the party is because its a low magic setting.

sonofzeal

2013-06-25, 06:00 AM

If you try to duplicate VoP's bonuses with WBL VoP comes out better by the numbers. That is to say you get more goodies than you could buy.
Actually, it doesn't. Your goodies will be in an arrangement that isn't precisely practical conventionally, but you can get entirely comparable results with plenty of gold left over.

For example, +6 to one ability score is pretty darn expensive even at this level (36k gp), but the VoPer only has +6/+4/+2 overall. The WBLer could easily have +4/+4/+4/+4 to Str/Dex/Con/Wis for that same 36k gp, and I'd say that array of bonuses is more useful overall.

The VoPer also has a +9 armor bonus. Getting a +9 armor bonus alone is is 81k gp... but the VoPer is only looking at a +12 AC total, and the WBLer can get a +13 AC for 67.5k gp, just in core, and that's including a Monk's Belt which comes with increased UAS damage.

Lord Haart

2013-06-25, 06:51 AM

Well, to be very, very just, such arguements usually forget to mention that VoP monk still gets his normal dose of non-exalted feats, which is enough to get flight covered, at the very least.

TypoNinja

2013-06-25, 07:28 AM

Actually, it doesn't. Your goodies will be in an arrangement that isn't precisely practical conventionally, but you can get entirely comparable results with plenty of gold left over.

For example, +6 to one ability score is pretty darn expensive even at this level (36k gp), but the VoPer only has +6/+4/+2 overall. The WBLer could easily have +4/+4/+4/+4 to Str/Dex/Con/Wis for that same 36k gp, and I'd say that array of bonuses is more useful overall.

The VoPer also has a +9 armor bonus. Getting a +9 armor bonus alone is is 81k gp... but the VoPer is only looking at a +12 AC total, and the WBLer can get a +13 AC for 67.5k gp, just in core, and that's including a Monk's Belt which comes with increased UAS damage.

Well the fact that its powers also represent a non-optimal distribution of spending for a given set of bonuses is another problem yea.

Well, to be very, very just, such arguements usually forget to mention that VoP monk still gets his normal dose of non-exalted feats, which is enough to get flight covered, at the very least.

Thanks for reminding me. The other problem.

If you aren't a paladin exalted feats SUCK.

You really start to run out of exalted feats to take before you finish a 20 level progression of VoP if you can't take the Paladin/Cleric specific ones. To say nothing of the fact that half of them just flat out suck anyway. Whooooo I glow like a torch! Totally worth a whole feat. Touch of golden ice, because a DC13 fortsave ability is going to scale so well! Look at me I can burn Con to heal somebody elses HP, and oh yes undead standing within 10 feet of me take 1d4 damage a round!

If you want to play a VoP beg your DM to invent some Exalted feats for a non-paladin that don't suck.

sonofzeal

2013-06-25, 07:56 AM

Well the fact that its powers also represent a non-optimal distribution of spending for a given set of bonuses is another problem yea.
That's not even really a problem. If you're designing something like VoP, it makes sense to just pile up generic bonuses, whereas a WBLer is going to be wanting to pick up as many different small bonuses as they can. Dusty Rose Ioun stone for Insight-to-AC, for instance. VoP doesn't, and really shouldn't, model precise gear purchases like that. What it should do is give comparable outcomes. Which... it doesn't. A WBL Monk can have more offence, more defence, and more utility than a VoP Monk. And that's on top of the flexibility WBL offers.

And that's just sad.

Maginomicon

2013-06-25, 08:43 AM

Strict number-crunching aside, the ultimate strength of VoP monk (like the strength of the paladin) is largely in the fluff (which most GMs don't seem to use), the same as why a warlock can be better off than a wizard in certain situations. Most obviously, if you're beaten senseless, thrown in jail, and have all your stuff taken away, the warlock is generally-speaking still just as effective as before they had their stuff taken away. The wizard however is missing his spellbook and material components pouch and is therefore screwed. In the same way, a VoP monk in jail is every bit as powerful as out of jail while the tricked-out monk is screwed.

There's a million reasons why your group might be arrested or otherwise get their stuff taken from them. The VoP monk can do more things that might get them mugged and still come out of it with no discernable losses.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that GMs that never (not even occasionally) mug the party aren't giving the players enough incentive to be paranoid. There's more ways to bring a party low than killing characters.

LordHenry

2013-06-25, 08:57 AM

What I always thought was a VERY good thing about VoP is that the other party members end up with the share the monk is missing out! That should not be forgotten.

ShneekeyTheLost

2013-06-25, 09:01 AM

What I always thought was a VERY good thing about VoP is that the other party members end up with the share the monk is missing out! That should not be forgotten.

Actually, that is not correct. According to the rules for VoP, you should demand your share of the treasure, then donate it to a worthy cause

GnomeGninjas

2013-06-25, 09:03 AM

What I always thought was a VERY good thing about VoP is that the other party members end up with the share the monk is missing out! That should not be forgotten.

That isn't the case, the VoP character needs to donate his share to charity (or some other cause). She can't just give it to the party.

dascarletm

2013-06-25, 09:07 AM

What I always thought was a VERY good thing about VoP is that the other party members end up with the share the monk is missing out! That should not be forgotten.

Technically they don't get that share. the VoP character is supposed to donate his share.

LordHenry

2013-06-25, 09:07 AM

Ah, forgot about that, then it remains complete and utter garbage.
It's only a viable option for the DM then, when he does not want to give out too much loot to his PC's...

RoyVG

2013-06-25, 09:11 AM

What I always thought was a VERY good thing about VoP is that the other party members end up with the share the monk is missing out! That should not be forgotten.

This is actually adressed in the description of VoP. You're supposed to give it away to charity or the poor, not to your party iirc.

Edit: Ninja'd, Swordsage'd and .... something else, they were first

CarpeGuitarrem

2013-06-25, 09:17 AM

The clear answer is for the party to do the paperwork to become a non-profit NGO.

Nettlekid

2013-06-25, 09:18 AM

My vote (not really pertinent to the thread, sorry, but in case anyone likes VoP flavor but doesn't want to deal with the bad sides) is that VoP is great on a Cohort. NPCs get like 1/10 the WBL of an adventurer, so suddenly all the many bonuses are likely worth more than the piddly WBL the NPC would have otherwise. You still have all your WBL, and can use it to aid/protect you Cohort so long as you don't break their VoP by giving them magic items (Master has given Dobby a sock!) And reasonably, if the Cohort has WBL but just not actual wealth, then I'd say they could put the wealth that they would have once had into making things like Contingent Spells for their master, at cost so they don't profit from it, and so long as their master is just and noble, then their wealth IS going toward a good source for the betterment of the world. I've just built a VoP Cleric (actually not a Cleric, but goes into Apostle of Peace) and I think it's gonna work quite well.

Kalirren

2013-06-25, 09:19 AM

1) Vow of Poverty is great on NPCs, who get NPC WBL, which is no where near as good as PC WBL.

2) Vow of Poverty is great in combination with Leadership. This is not merely true mechanically, where the cohort, who gets normal pay, helps supplement the PC's flexibility issue. This is also true thematically. A character who takes VoP still has to make the decision about how the character gets to give the proceeds from adventuring away. A good DM will be able to use this to give the character other forms of power, especially social power.

3) You can rewrite exalted feats to scale by level in a non-stupid way. As a 3.0 product that was converted to 3.5 just before going to press, BoED is legendarily poorly edited. It's justified.

Eldan

2013-06-25, 09:22 AM

I see one good point of VoP. "Urgh. I need to build a 12th level character in the next hour and I really don't want to dig through all those books for item."

ShneekeyTheLost

2013-06-25, 09:31 AM

I see one good point of VoP. "Urgh. I need to build a 12th level character in the next hour and I really don't want to dig through all those books for item."

All those books? The SRD and the MIC are about the only two you really need...

Eldan

2013-06-25, 09:43 AM

Probably true. Stlil saves a lot of time.

ahenobarbi

2013-06-25, 09:59 AM

Coidzor

2013-06-25, 10:11 AM

What I always thought was a VERY good thing about VoP is that the other party members end up with the share the monk is missing out! That should not be forgotten.

Actually, IIRC, you're still supposed to demand an equal share, you just can't carry it and have to donate it to orphans and churches and such.

edit: Serves me right for not refreshing first.

1) Vow of Poverty is great on NPCs, who get NPC WBL, which is no where near as good as PC WBL.

Saves time too.

A character who takes VoP still has to make the decision about how the character gets to give the proceeds from adventuring away. A good DM will be able to use this to give the character other forms of power, especially social power.

Influence, maybe, in the form of respect. Power, on the other hand... that seems like it would go against the spirit of such things.

3) You can rewrite exalted feats to scale by level in a non-stupid way. As a 3.0 product that was converted to 3.5 just before going to press, BoED is legendarily poorly edited. It's justified.

Not so much of a "can" so much as a "necessary to make it even halfway work," but... kinda Oberoni.

That's not even really a problem. If you're designing something like VoP, it makes sense to just pile up generic bonuses, whereas a WBLer is going to be wanting to pick up as many different small bonuses as they can. Dusty Rose Ioun stone for Insight-to-AC, for instance. VoP doesn't, and really shouldn't, model precise gear purchases like that. What it should do is give comparable outcomes. Which... it doesn't. A WBL Monk can have more offence, more defence, and more utility than a VoP Monk. And that's on top of the flexibility WBL offers.

And that's just sad.

So it's not a problem that it's "money" misspent except that it totally is a problem because the "money" being misspent means it's gimped in comparison? :smallconfused::smalltongue: I believe his point was that it was too little for too much.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-25, 10:14 AM

Coidzor

2013-06-25, 10:21 AM

Or you could spend all of your WBL on intrinsic bonuses. Grafts, tomes, rituals, locations. I think Tippy made one of them a while back. I'm plenty paranoid, and VoP never really appealed to me.

EDIT: More on topic, VoP sucks because you can't fufill most of this list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851). If you have a fix which covers everything on that list, it should be pretty decent.

He's played around with a couple of "virtual WBL" systems that make the bonuses intrinsic, IIRC.

Indeed. Thanks for linking, btw, I'd lost that thread.

Razanir

2013-06-25, 10:31 AM

It becomes easier with the PF!VoP, which is vague enough to argue for the use of a single magic item.

The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item. Five of these items must be of plain and simple make, though one can be of some value (often an heirloom of great personal significance to the monk). The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself for 1 week in modest accommodations. He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others. He is allowed to accept and use curative potions (or similar magical items where the item is consumed and is valueless thereafter) from other creatures.

Unlike the 3.5 version, this doesn't include a clause about forswearing magic items. That family heirloom could be a monk's belt, or better yet, a winged mask.

sonofzeal

2013-06-25, 10:33 AM

It becomes easier with the PF!VoP, which is vague enough to argue for the use of a single magic item.

Unlike the 3.5 version, this doesn't include a clause about forswearing magic items. That family heirloom could be a monk's belt, or better yet, a winged mask.
Yyyyyyyyeah.... but a 3.5 VoP Monk was at least playable. A PF VoP Monk..... seriously isn't, unless you're doing some major-league op-fu with your one item.

Suddo

2013-06-25, 10:34 AM

Or you could spend all of your WBL on intrinsic bonuses. Grafts, tomes, rituals, locations. I think Tippy made one of them a while back. I'm plenty paranoid, and VoP never really appealed to me.

EDIT: More on topic, VoP sucks because you can't fufill most of this list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851). If you have a fix which covers everything on that list, it should be pretty decent.

I always wondered about this. So its assumed you have to give your tens of thousands of gold to an infinite black hole of poor people for no benefit. But are you allowed to do things like this, even if its at the party's expense.

Rubik

2013-06-25, 10:43 AM

Strict number-crunching aside, the ultimate strength of VoP monk (like the strength of the paladin) is largely in the fluff Actually, the absolutely worst thing about VoP is the fluff.

Have a friend that's unconscious and dying because the T-Rex mauled him, but there's a nice potion of Cure Serious Wounds lying right there, with nobody else to help? Sorry, you can't use it or you lose 50% of your character. Letting your friend die is apparently more exalted than using a potion to save him. The world is about to be destroyed and you're the only one available who's good enough to wield the really expensive magical item that can save it? Sorry, you can't do that either.

Basically, it promotes selfishness, and that's not what exalted should mean. And that's not even including the fact that you're essentially burning powerful magic items that could be used to better the world, and instead giving them to orphans which really don't need +1 brilliant energy longswords.

VoP is really, really stupid.

Der_DWSage

2013-06-25, 11:04 AM

I...think you're missing something there, Rubik.

The 'take someone else's potion to save a life' is pretty weak, both rules and fluff wise. You're not the one benefiting from the potion which is all the feat goes on about, and no sane GM would strike you down because you used a potion on someone else, and said potion was unclaimed. A better argument would be 'You can't have a kit of healing potions or even a masterwork healing kit to save dying allies and victims, even if you never intend to use them for yourself.' (The bit about not being able to hold the Ultimate Weapon is still legit, though. Especially since you can't even Atone afterwards to get it back.)

The bit about donating +1 Brilliant longswords to orphans...do you know how many homes that would buy? Mouths that would feed? Small economies that would rejuvenate? That's what they're trying to encourage-thinking about something besides the 'Christmas Tree' effect on your character, and giving Christmas back to the Whos down in Whoville. So you're not quite as effective against the next dragon you face-so what? Your faith provides, and even if you die, the Sacred Beggar that revitalized twelve townships, provided for three orphanages, and saved the Sacred Kingdom of Imaginatia from economic decline with his donations is going to die knowing that he did something better than killing dragons. (Even if they were all a bunch of silly NPCs.)

That said, it's still a pretty bad feat with no level of flexibility, nor enough interesting abilities to make it tempting enough to let go of my Christmas Tree. The main issue with it is that D&D is very much a loot-based game, and has been for some time. Take out that loot, and you're just left with...punching things with your BAB until they fall over, as opposed to taking a ten-foot teleportation trip right behind him for a flanking bonus, the little joys of adding up bonuses to hit, and gleefully telling the DM his latest baddy is eating Bebelith Poison with a Wounding kicker four times over.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-06-25, 11:07 AM

It becomes easier with the PF!VoP, which is vague enough to argue for the use of a single magic item.

Except for how PF VoP actually works. 3.5 VoP at least gave you the equivalents of a magic weapon, a few magic defensive items, and a Cloak of Resistance.

Razanir

2013-06-25, 11:11 AM

Yyyyyyyyeah.... but a 3.5 VoP Monk was at least playable. A PF VoP Monk..... seriously isn't, unless you're doing some major-league op-fu with your one item.

I was arguing more for the looser vow PF has. Mechanically, 3.5!VoP is better. I'm just saying it'd be marginally more playable if the restrictions of the vow itself were written like in PF and allowed a magic item.

Blackfang108

2013-06-25, 11:12 AM

Well, to be very, very just, such arguements usually forget to mention that VoP monk still gets his normal dose of non-exalted feats, which is enough to get flight covered, at the very least.

Got to ask: how?

Flickerdart

2013-06-25, 11:14 AM

Got to ask: how?
Leadership for a wizard follower.

Karnith

2013-06-25, 11:19 AM

Got to ask: how?
Shape Soulmeld can give you limited flight capabilities (through Airstep Sandals or in combination with Open Chakra feats through Astral Vambraces), Outisder Wings is very limited in who can take it but straight-up gives you a flight speed, and there are probably others.

Alternately, you could be a Dragonborn or Raptoran or some other race that gets to fly.

Der_DWSage

2013-06-25, 11:19 AM

Blackfang108

2013-06-25, 11:20 AM

Leadership for a wizard follower.

I suppose that WOULD work...

eggynack

2013-06-25, 11:24 AM

Really? I was going to say Leadership for a totally OP second Monk who also had VoP, and had all his Orphan Underlings just throw him really hard into the air. (An 8 STR Orphan is about as strong as a wizard, right? I mean, they've got levels in Commoner!)

Don't forget they're brimming with magic weapons, since he's been 'donating' to them.
Ya see, you're being sarcastic, because of the blue text, but this is the greatest plan ever created. I almost want to run a VoP monk with leadership, just so he can take on a local orphanage as a source of followers. There's a billion ways to make that ridiculous, and you listed some great ones, but there's a part of my brain that tells me that there's a way to make this work.

Waker

2013-06-25, 11:32 AM

Ya see, you're being sarcastic, because of the blue text, but this is the greatest plan ever created. I almost want to run a VoP monk with leadership, just so he can take on a local orphanage as a source of followers. There's a billion ways to make that ridiculous, and you listed some great ones, but there's a part of my brain that tells me that there's a way to make this work.

Using the Orphorde as a source of Aid Another fodder? You could go around playing Diplomancer asking for donations with your loyal minions giving people puppy dog eyes and saying "I'm so hungry."

Blackfang108

2013-06-25, 11:51 AM

Using the Orphorde as a source of Aid Another fodder? You could go around playing Diplomancer asking for donations with your loyal minions giving people puppy dog eyes and saying "I'm so hungry."

My DM is REALLY going to hate you all the next time I play 3.x

Waker

2013-06-25, 12:00 PM

My DM is REALLY going to hate you all the next time I play 3.x

I think it would be funny. Confront the BBEG, "Please Mr. Don't destroy the world." *orphan lip quivering*

Vaz

2013-06-25, 12:10 PM

Shape Soulmeld can give you limited flight capabilities (through Airstep Sandals or in combination with Open Chakra feats through Astral Vambraces), Outisder Wings is very limited in who can take it but straight-up gives you a flight speed, and there are probably others.

Alternately, you could be a Dragonborn or Raptoran or some other race that gets to fly.

Airstep sandles, IIRC, require you to end the move on solid ground, or automatically fall. It will allow you to "leap" across large chasms, but certainly no overland flight.

In short, the class that the VoP was clearly meant for does not stand up to what WotC had in mind for it, requiring one of perhaps a half dozen races/template combinations or a two feats build to make it work.

A couple of classes can do "okay" with it, but do far more with items. A Totemist VoP, or a Totemist with a Necklace of Natural Attacks? A Psion VoP or a Psion with Dorje's to increase their powers utility?

dascarletm

2013-06-25, 12:33 PM

The world is about to be destroyed and you're the only one available who's good enough to wield the really expensive magical item that can save it? Sorry, you can't do that either.

I'm playing a VoP character with my friends, and the DM says:

DM: To destroy the big bad boss who is about to blow up the material plane, you, dascarletm must stab him with the blade of McGuffin.
Me: But why me, I'm not even proficient with bastard swords, unlike Swordy O'Stabbin the warblade. Can't he do it?
DM: NO, BECAUSE SCREW YOU! AHAHAHAAHAHAHA

I guess that situation would make more sense in a solo campaign, but...

Lord Haart

2013-06-25, 12:36 PM

Got to ask: how?
Besides shape soulmeld (which is also a great feat for a VoP character, but at getting flight it doesn't excel), from the top of my mind i can name either getting dragon-ish wings or aberrant ones.

Eldan

2013-06-25, 12:39 PM

Or Outsider Wings from one of hte planetouched races.

Flickerdart

2013-06-25, 12:45 PM

Or Outsider Wings from one of hte planetouched races.
Which means you either have to eat LA or hope your DM allows an optional rule.

If you're going to pick your race with an eye towards flight, Raptoran and Dragonborn are the best bets because they're LA0.

Augmental

2013-06-25, 12:46 PM

The bit about donating +1 Brilliant longswords to orphans...do you know how many homes that would buy? Mouths that would feed? Small economies that would rejuvenate? That's what they're trying to encourage-thinking about something besides the 'Christmas Tree' effect on your character, and giving Christmas back to the Whos down in Whoville. So you're not quite as effective against the next dragon you face-so what? Your faith provides, and even if you die, the Sacred Beggar that revitalized twelve townships, provided for three orphanages, and saved the Sacred Kingdom of Imaginatia from economic decline with his donations is going to die knowing that he did something better than killing dragons.

What if those dragons the VoP character didn't kill go on to terrorize the Sacred Kingdom of Imaginatia?

sonofzeal

2013-06-25, 12:55 PM

So it's not a problem that it's "money" misspent except that it totally is a problem because the "money" being misspent means it's gimped in comparison? :smallconfused::smalltongue: I believe his point was that it was too little for too much.
It's the result that matters, not the process of getting there. I don't care how the VoPer gets +12 AC, except insofar as it affect touch/flatfooted calculations, but that's pretty easy. What matters is the total.

It's not a problem that the process of getting to +12 AC would have been suboptimal for a WBLer, because the VoPer isn't using that process. It IS, however, a problem that the overall numbers are sub-par in addition to the other limitations and the feat tax. AC is close enough, I guess, but by lvl 15 who's kicking around with a meager +2 to saves? Seriously! And I think by that point you can do a bit better than a +3 weapon with no special qualities. The Soulknife's Mindblade gets a lot of hate, but by this level its equivalent gold value is four times that of what VoP is offering.

Again, though I talk about equivalent gold value above, that's not actually what's important. The VoPer should, overall, have roughly equivalent offence and defence to the WBLer - or else they've blown two feats to make themselves worse and limit future options at the same time. But even just in Core, the WBLer is going to have much better saves (remember, broader ability score boosters help here too), moderately better AC depending on class and level, and significantly better offence.

That's... pretty damning. And that's what matters, not the literal gold piece conversion.

Tvtyrant

2013-06-25, 01:01 PM

Razanir

2013-06-25, 01:30 PM

dascarletm

2013-06-25, 01:34 PM

I think a VoP character could be decent in E6, ie low levels. You get 4 extra feats, +7 to AC, sustenance, immunity to normal weather, and all of your attacks are magical. It is hardly optimal, but on an E6 Druid it might even out with WBL considering you have so little gold and clasps are so expensive.

I don't know. When they start passing lvl 6 the feat discrepancy will eventually go towards meaningless, and while the rest of the team gets more and more items at level 6+ the VoP gets nothing else. You'd have to add feats for them specifically that increase their given bonus' to keep up/also give them additional bonus feats as they hit 5000xp (maybe 1 extra every other 5000xp)

Flickerdart

2013-06-25, 01:35 PM

You'd also need to start giving them bonus non-Exalted feats, because there's like three good ones and everything else is just DCFS fuel.

Sceluvia

2013-06-25, 01:46 PM

The VoP is stronger then the WBL if you try to duplicate it.
SO in a low magic campaign the VoP is pretty powerfull.
While in a high magic campaign you would get weaker.

VoP is a good flavor thingy.
Aswell look through the rules.
You can only wear simple clothing. well it is woven with metal which gives some strenght so a +1AC perhaps?

But VoP is not very versertile. If you wanna go the VoP way with magic items the Vow would be better.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-06-25, 01:48 PM

SO in a low magic campaign the VoP is pretty powerfull.
While in a high magic campaign you would get weaker.

Default D&D is high magic. And it does not play well with others. DO NOT play a low-magic D&D campaign without coming up with an extensive homebrew system to replace WBL.

eggynack

2013-06-25, 01:49 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-25, 02:13 PM

I'm playing a VoP character with my friends, and the DM says:

DM: To destroy the big bad boss who is about to blow up the material plane, you, dascarletm must stab him with the blade of McGuffin.
Me: But why me, I'm not even proficient with bastard swords, unlike Swordy O'Stabbin the warblade. Can't he do it?
DM: NO, BECAUSE SCREW YOU! AHAHAHAAHAHAHA

I guess that situation would make more sense in a solo campaign, but...

Aside from DM doucebaggery making this particular scenario biased (in the extreme) that feels like a scenario where an exalted character should think "I will save the world/kingdom/realm/what-have-you if I break my vow.

Hey Swordy McStabbington, when it comes time to deliver the final blow, toss me that thing so I can finish him."

Since we're talking about killing the BBEG, one assumes we're talking about the last fight of the campaign; immediately after that is usually a good time to retire a character so the loss of the vow's features doesn't matter a whit.

Frankly though, I'd be much more inclined to call the DM on that douchebaggery than to try and find a work-around.

Flickerdart

2013-06-25, 02:18 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-25, 02:23 PM

Can't you get an atonement after? I mean, it's not like you decided to spend the dragon's hoard on prostitutes and drugs. You lost your vow to save the freakin' world! A simple "hey god bros, here's the deal" should be more than enough to get you reinstated into the ranks of the righteously poor.

Queue the VoP naysayers pointing out that you couldn't by RAW even though that's exactly the kind of situation in which RAW -should- be bypassed by a DM.

dascarletm

2013-06-25, 02:23 PM

My point was that it wouldn't make sense to need to use magic items in the example I gave. If the plot depends on you weilding an item then the DM is just being jerkish. It would be the same if the only way to stop the world from blowing up is to burn every spellbook a wizard has...

If it is the last session then whatever, but if it isn't then...:smallmad:

Kalirren

2013-06-25, 02:36 PM

A character who takes VoP still has to make the decision about how the character gets to give the proceeds from adventuring away. A good DM will be able to use this to give the character other forms of power, especially social power.
Influence, maybe, in the form of respect. Power, on the other hand... that seems like it would go against the spirit of such things.

My main point in bringing this up is that the Vow of Poverty necessitates the introduction of a different theme to D&D that not all games and not all DMs are prepared to explore. By default, D&D without VoP exhibits no inherent aspect of play that would challenge the paradigm of "loot to win". There are no mechanics that challenge PCs to do or or think otherwise. To reach any mention of how the PCs influence the world around them through the spending of their wealth, it takes an exceptional campaign, with DM and player together committing to the theme.

The reason why I said "power" is that typically, in order for the VoP to be proven worthwhile to the player who took it, they need not only to receive influence, but also some form of power, to compete with the straight-up powers they give up in comparison to the rest of their party. This is only true because D&D is still at heart a game focused on beating things up and being last man standing. When this happens, it's a way of bringing the theme to the game system.

This doesn't always happen. Sometimes the theme is so compelling that it drags the game out of its system, and redefines the terms of friendly rivalry between the players. In some cases it can feel like that the DM and at least one player have sort of stopped playing D&D.

But my bigger and simpler point is this. A DM who allows VoP in their game and is unprepared to tackle the theme of the use of wealth is not adding anything worthwhile to their game.

Chronos

2013-06-25, 06:51 PM

Rubik

2013-06-25, 06:52 PM

While the poor character must still receive (and donate) an equal share of the treasure, it can still help out the rest of the party's WBL indirectly. Everyone else just chooses which specific items they want, and whatever items nobody wants they can leave for the poor guy at full value, instead of vendoring them for half price.Or you just pump your Bluff skill up as high as it will go and convince the VoP character that those dull gray stones are incredibly valuable.

That's what I'd do.

Coidzor

2013-06-25, 07:39 PM

Queue the VoP naysayers pointing out that you couldn't by RAW even though that's exactly the kind of situation in which RAW -should- be bypassed by a DM.

But will not necessarily be.

Or you just pump your Bluff skill up as high as it will go and convince the VoP character that those dull gray stones are incredibly valuable.

That's what I'd do.

And pray that the DM doesn't lower loot to compensate.

danzibr

2013-06-25, 10:06 PM

I'm now curious how VoP would work in an imaginary WBL game.

Coidzor

2013-06-25, 11:44 PM

I'm now curious how VoP would work in an imaginary WBL game.

Well, there's no tradeoff of being able to get your own bonuses and stat boosters and the like, so you wouldn't need to try to replicate that, so that entire aspect can go out the window...

It seems like you'd have to come up with a completely different feat, really.

Jeff the Green

2013-06-25, 11:52 PM

It seems like you'd have to come up with a completely different feat, really.

I don't know that you'd even need a feat, honestly. You just roleplay the vow, and use the imaginary WBL to get whatever bonuses you want. You wouldn't be able to use it for consumables, but that's a problem with imaginary WBL anyway.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 12:57 AM

You can optimize to make Vow of Poverty useful but it involves having a caster who is willing to Chaos Shuffle all of your worthless feats into useful feats (there are maybe 2 exalted feats that don't mess up the whole party) and Wish up your Inherent bonuses for you.

Martial Monk 6/ Factotum 8/ Swordsage 10 is (even with VoP) an incredibly strong build. Especially on a Necropolitian Gray Elf.

With 38 Int you can get Font of Inspiration 14 times for 110 total Inspiration Points.

Martial Monk 6 gets you Spring Attack without having to take Dodge or Mobility and both Infinite Deflection and Exceptional Deflection (again without having the prerequisites). With Kung Fu Genius (shuffle your Improved Unarmed Strike for it as Unarmed Swordsage will give it to you as well) you pick up Int to AC for improved SAD and its feat neutral.

Factotum 8 gives you some spell casting but, most importantly, it gives you Cunning Insight, Cunning Surge, Cunning Strike, and Brains Over Brawn.

Swordsage 10 gets you 8th level maneuvers which means that you can take Balance on the Sky which is continuous air walk, it also gives you all of those nice standard action strikes.

Combine Adaptive Style with Cunning Surge and you can do the following: 1 use of Cunning Surge to get within range, multiple uses of Cunning Surge to use every standard action Strike Maneuver that you know, Full Round action to regain all your maneuvers, multiple uses of Cunning Surge to again use every standard action Strike Maneuver that you know.

If you are willing to nova doing it you can use thirty strike maneuvers on one turn.

Note that you do not want to take Snap Kick with this build as the -2 for each Snap Kick stacks and very soon you are hitting on nothing but a natural 20.

Feat wise you want Craven (if you DM will let it worth with Cunning Strike or Assassins Stance), Darkstalker, Quick Reconnoiter, Lifesense, Shadow Blade, Adaptive Style, Superior Unarmed Strike, Improved Natural Attack, and Kung Fu Genius (plus lots of Font of Inspiration).

You might also want to replace Swordsage with the Avenger (the non evil Assassin).

Monk 6/ Ur-Priest 2/ Assassin 3/ Mystic Theuge 8/ Mindbender 1 is also surprisingly good.

As is Monk 6/ Psion 3/ Assassin 3/ Cerebremancer 7/ Swordsage 1.

----
Straight Monk 19/ X 1 (as never, ever, take Monk 20) with VoP tends to royally suck though. It can't compensate for any of its weaknesses with class features and feats can only go so far.

----
Elan Psion 5/ Assassin 3/ Cerebremancer 7/ Psion 5 with Vow of Poverty is also surprisingly good.

So is VoP Psion 20.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-26, 01:01 AM

So is VoP Psion 20.

On this note, if you're a Psion 5/Thrallherd 10/Psion 5, you can get a StP erudite to Psychic Chirurgery a bunch of powers on you even as a VoP psion.

EDIT: Well if you cheese your alignment somehow.

Rubik

2013-06-26, 01:05 AM

Monk 6/ Ur-Priest 2/ Assassin 3/ Mystic Theuge 8/ Mindbender 1 is also surprisingly good.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that build can be Good-aligned.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 01:20 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that build can be Good-aligned.

Use the Avenger variant assassin and it can be.

eggynack

2013-06-26, 01:30 AM

Use the Avenger variant assassin and it can be.
Is there a way to enter Ur-priest without being evil, or otherwise retain access to the class after going good?

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 01:46 AM

Is there a way to enter Ur-priest without being evil, or otherwise retain access to the class after going good?

Yeah, just be evil when you take the first level. By RAW you only need to continue to meet PRC prerequisites for Complete Warrior PRC's.

Sure, you are taking VoP later but that doesn't hurt you much as this isn't a factotum build and so you don't need to burn a dozen+ feats on Font of Inspiration.

olentu

2013-06-26, 01:58 AM

Yeah, just be evil when you take the first level. By RAW you only need to continue to meet PRC prerequisites for Complete Warrior PRC's.

Sure, you are taking VoP later but that doesn't hurt you much as this isn't a factotum build and so you don't need to burn a dozen+ feats on Font of Inspiration.

How interesting. I suppose that likewise the warlock exception about what benefits they gain from prestige classes only applies to the prestige classes in complete arcane.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 02:12 AM

How interesting. I suppose that likewise the warlock exception about what benefits they gain from prestige classes only applies to the prestige classes in complete arcane.

Only applies to Warlocks actually. Not to, say, Factotums (technically).

olentu

2013-06-26, 02:16 AM

Only applies to Warlocks actually. Not to, say, Factotums (technically).

Huh? And I don't use that question mark lightly. I am talking about the warlock exception about prestige classes applying to warlocks with prestige classes and the case of said prestige classes either being from complete arcane or from some book other then complete arcane.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 02:25 AM

Huh? And I don't use that question mark lightly. I am talking about the warlock exception about prestige classes applying to warlocks with prestige classes and the case of said prestige classes either being from complete arcane or from some book other then complete arcane.

Complete Arcane is the primary source for Warlocks. It says that Warlocks who take Prestige Classes advance in a specific way.

Complete Warrior is the Primary Source for the Complete Warrior PRC's and says that you lose the benefits of said PRC's if you lose the prerequisites for them.

Rubik

2013-06-26, 02:30 AM

Complete Warrior is the Primary Source for the Complete Warrior PRC's and says that you loose the benefits of said PRC's if you loose the prerequisites for them.Fly, my pretties! Fly!

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 02:34 AM

Fly, my pretties! Fly!

Bah, it's 3:30 in the morning my time, I'm more than moderately intoxicated, and my girlfriend has very loud music blasting in the background. If I'm only misspelling two words a post then I'm doing great as far as I'm concerned.

olentu

2013-06-26, 02:35 AM

Complete Arcane is the primary source for Warlocks. It says that Warlocks who take Prestige Classes advance in a specific way.

Complete Warrior is the Primary Source for the Complete Warrior PRC's and says that you loose the benefits of said PRC's if you loose the prerequisites for them.

And perhaps you can point me to the appropriate section of the book that limits complete warrior to only the prestige classes in said book. You should probably do the same with complete arcane while we are at it. Without that I see no reason why the information should be treated differently.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 02:42 AM

And perhaps you can point me to the appropriate section of the book that limits complete warrior to only the prestige classes in said book. You should probably do the same with complete arcane while we are at it. Without that I see no reason why the information should be treated differently.

"Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a
table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence
when the short description in the beginning of the spells
chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves
book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for
example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC
races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something
on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guideor
the Monster Manualthat disagrees with the Player’s
Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbookis the
primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guideis the primary
source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special
material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual
is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and
supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

From the DMG 3.5 Errata.

DMG page 176, on Prestige Classes
"Unlike the basic classes found in the Player’s Handbook, characters must meet requirements before they can take their first
level of a prestige class. The rules for level
advancement (see page 58 of the
Player’s Handbook)apply to this system,
meaning the first step of advancement is
always choosing a class. If a character does
not meet the requirements for a prestige class
before that first step, that character cannot take
the first level of that prestige class."

The DMG is the primary source on Prestige Classes for 3.5. The DMG says that you need only meet the prerequisites for a PrC to take teh first level of that prestige class.

Complete Warrior page 16
"Meeting Class Requirements:It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position
where the character no longer qualifi es to be a member of the
class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character
death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important
ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class.
If a character no longer meets the requirements for a
prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features
or other special abilities granted by the class. The character
retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as
any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses
that the class provided."

The DMG is the Primary Source for Prestige Classes in General. Complete Warrior is the Primary Source for the Prestige Classes in Complete Warrior. Per the rules on source precedence for 3.5, Complete Warrior can not override the DMG.

Complete Arcane is the primary source for Warlocks.

olentu

2013-06-26, 02:47 AM

"Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a
table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence
when the short description in the beginning of the spells
chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves
book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for
example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC
races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something
on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guideor
the Monster Manualthat disagrees with the Player’s
Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbookis the
primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guideis the primary
source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special
material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual
is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and
supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

From the DMG 3.5 Errata.

DMG page 176, on Prestige Classes
"Unlike the basic classes found in the Player’s Handbook, characters must meet requirements before they can take their first
level of a prestige class. The rules for level
advancement (see page 58 of the
Player’s Handbook)apply to this system,
meaning the first step of advancement is
always choosing a class. If a character does
not meet the requirements for a prestige class
before that first step, that character cannot take
the first level of that prestige class."

The DMG is the primary source on Prestige Classes for 3.5. The DMG says that you need only meet the prerequisites for a PrC to take teh first level of that prestige class.

Complete Warrior page 16
"Meeting Class Requirements:It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position
where the character no longer qualifi es to be a member of the
class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character
death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important
ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class.
If a character no longer meets the requirements for a
prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features
or other special abilities granted by the class. The character
retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as
any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses
that the class provided."

The DMG is the Primary Source for Prestige Classes in General. Complete Warrior is the Primary Source for the Prestige Classes in Complete Warrior. Per the rules on source precedence for 3.5, Complete Warrior can not override the DMG.

Complete Arcane is the primary source for Warlocks.

There is no disagreement between those two bolded sections as they apply in separate circumstances. The first only applies in the situation that a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step which is not the same situation as when a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class. Different situations means there is no disagreement, means the primary source rule does not apply.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 02:50 AM

There is no disagreement between those two bolded sections as they apply in separate circumstances. The first only applies in the situation that a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step which is not the same situation as when a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class. Different situations means there is no disagreement means the primary source rules does not apply.

No, their is a disagreement. The DMG says that prerequisites only matter when taking the first level of a PrC. That is the only time a PrC checks prerequisites per RAW.

Complete Warrior changes that to being a constant check and makes those prerequisites matter at all times.

That is a rules conflict.

This has been hashed out dozens of times and the RAW conclusion has been the same every time.

Coidzor

2013-06-26, 02:51 AM

Is there a way to enter Ur-priest without being evil, or otherwise retain access to the class after going good?

There's the adaptation where it's for a dead god, isn't there?

olentu

2013-06-26, 02:52 AM

No, their is a disagreement. The DMG says that prerequisites only matter when taking the first level of a PrC. That is the only time a PrC checks prerequisites per RAW.

Complete Warrior changes that to being a constant check and makes those prerequisites matter at all times.

That is a rules conflict.

I see nothing in that entry which says the requirement matter only before taking the first level. The entry says they do matter before taking the first level but is completely silent on whether or not they matter at any other point in time. The lack of a rule is not in itself a rule.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 02:57 AM

I see nothing in that entry which says the requirement matter only before taking the first level. The entry says they do matter before taking the first level but is completely silent on whether or not they matter at any other point in time. The lack of a rule is not in itself a rule.

You bolded it.

"If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class."

By RAW that is all the prerequisites line means on any PRC that isn't from a small handful of sources (such as Complete Warrior, which has different rules).

You can take the second (and subsequent levels) of a PrC without meeting its prerequisites and you loose nothing if you loose said prerequisites (as you are no longer trying to take the first level of the PrC).

olentu

2013-06-26, 03:03 AM

You bolded it.

"If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class."

By RAW that is all the prerequisites line means on any PRC that isn't from a small handful of sources (such as Complete Warrior, which has different rules).

You can take the second (and subsequent levels) of a PrC without meeting its prerequisites and you loose nothing if you loose said prerequisites (as you are no longer trying to take the first level of the PrC).

There is nothing in that quote that says the perquisite entry means one and only one thing. Likewise it is silent on the matter of whether or not some other rule can reference the prerequisite entry. The lack of a rule is not a rule.

eggynack

2013-06-26, 03:28 AM

The rules seem pretty clearly in Tippy's favor on this one. It doesn't make much sense to have prestige classing rules vary depending on whether or not the prestige class comes from complete warrior, but then again, it doesn't make much sense to put critical prestige classing rules into complete warrior to begin with. Theoretically, there would be no contradiction in the rules if the complete warrior stuff were just put into the DMG as an addendum to PrC rules. However, they did not do this, so the rules in the DMG contradict the ones in complete warrior. I'd probably house rule the game to work one way or the other, but the RAW of the matter seems clear.

olentu

2013-06-26, 03:36 AM

Pickford

2013-06-26, 03:47 AM

Your powers are in an extremely narrow field, and you can literally do nothing outside it. You basically end up with practically zero ability to adapt. Flying enemies are your most obvious weakness and that is just the most obvious.

Couldn't the Monk go enlightened fist as a sorcerer and just 'cast' flying spells? (or anything else that's 'really' needed to adapt)

eggynack

2013-06-26, 03:47 AM

All right. Since you are a new perspective perhaps you can explain where the actual contradiction is since I really have no idea what you guys mean by said contradiction.
It's pretty simple. The DMG says that need prerequisites in order to enter a prestige class. Complete Warrior says that you need to continually have the prerequisites in order to have the benefits of a prestige class. There wouldn't be a contradiction, but the DMG is the absolute primary source for prestige classes. Complete Warrior actually doesn't have the authority to add rules to prestige classes in general, so the rule doesn't apply in general. It's less of a contradiction of rules in a direct sense, and more of a contradiction of rules when you add in the DMG's ultimate authority.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 03:49 AM

All right. Since you are a new perspective perhaps you can explain where the actual contradiction is since I really have no idea what you guys mean by said contradiction.

The DMG is the first source to introduce PrC's and their requirements. It does two things, first it says "To qualify to become and X, a character must fulfill all the following criteria". Second, it says "If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class."

It explains what the rules mean by "requirements" in relation to PrC's. Anything that expands on, rewrites, or contradicts said explanation must be Errata to the DMG and must explicitly override it.

Otherwise the expansion, rewrite, or contradiction is a specific rule for the given source that it appears in.

The Rules Compendium is the only place that this gets hazy, as it says that it explicitly overrides the DMG/PHB/MM but said sources also call out that the only things that can override them are errata. So that gets hazy. But such haziness is irrelevant to Complete Warrior.

eggynack

2013-06-26, 03:50 AM

Couldn't the Monk go enlightened fist as a sorcerer and just 'cast' flying spells? (or anything else that's 'really' needed to adapt)
Sure, I guess. That tells us absolutely zero about the monk's ability to retain any kind of versatility after VoP though, because nearly all of the versatility is coming from the sorcerer. It's like saying that monks are alright with VoP, because a monk 1/druid 19 is alright with VoP.

Pickford

2013-06-26, 03:54 AM

The DMG is the first source to introduce PrC's and their requirements. It does two things, first it says "To qualify to become and X, a character must fulfill all the following criteria". Second, it says "If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class."

It explains what the rules mean by "requirements" in relation to PrC's. Anything that expands on, rewrites, or contradicts said explanation must be Errata to the DMG and must explicitly override it.

Otherwise the expansion, rewrite, or contradiction is a specific rule for the given source that it appears in.

The Rules Compendium is the only place that this gets hazy, as it says that it explicitly overrides the DMG/PHB/MM but said sources also call out that the only things that can override them are errata. So that gets hazy. But such haziness is irrelevant to Complete Warrior.

Actually the Official FAQ specifically indicates you must maintain the pre-requisites:

Can a soulmeld or its chakra bind allow you to meet the
prerequisites for a feat or the requirements for a prestige
class?
Yes, but you only gain the benefits of the feat or prestige
class as long as you continue to meet its requirements. If you
unshape the meld or change the chakra bind, you would lose
the feat or prestige class benefits and wouldn’t be able to
advance further in the prestige class.

edit: Source
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

edit2:

Eggynack, well it says you don't need any magic items for one. Is there any 'other' important ability you would say can't be mimicked with minimal sorc/enlightened fist levels?

Jeff the Green

2013-06-26, 03:56 AM

Actually the Official FAQ specifically indicates you must maintain the pre-requisites:

edit: Source
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

Repeat after me, class: "The FAQ is not RAW."

eggynack

2013-06-26, 03:58 AM

Repeat after me, class: "The FAQ is not RAW."
"The FAQ is not RAW." *sigh* Once again, all is right with the world.

Pickford

2013-06-26, 03:58 AM

Repeat after me, class: "The FAQ is not RAW."

And? It's written, it's official, that makes it a ruling, that makes it rules as written.

From the web page:

Official D&D Game Rule FAQ

eggynack

2013-06-26, 04:01 AM

Eggynack, well it says you don't need any magic items for one. Is there any 'other' important ability you would say can't be mimicked with minimal sorc/enlightened fist levels?
It says that a sorcerer doesn't need magic items. Your ability to survive without magic items is basically directly proportional to the degree to which you are a sorcerer. Also, even as a full sorcerer, you're still quite a bit worse than a sorcerer without VoP. A belt of battle alone seems like it'd be more powerful than most of the vow.

Pickford

2013-06-26, 04:03 AM

It says that a sorcerer doesn't need magic items. Your ability to survive without magic items is basically directly proportional to the degree to which you are a sorcerer. Also, even as a full sorcerer, you're still quite a bit worse than a sorcerer without VoP. A belt of battle alone seems like it'd be more powerful than most of the vow.

Well, I think it really just says anyone who can cast fly or overland flight or the like doesn't need winged boots. Anything else is unfounded extrapolation.

Rubik

2013-06-26, 04:04 AM

It says that a sorcerer doesn't need magic items. Your ability to survive without magic items is basically directly proportional to the degree to which you are a sorcerer. Also, even as a full sorcerer, you're still quite a bit worse than a sorcerer without VoP. A belt of battle alone seems like it'd be more powerful than most of the vow.Please don't turn this into another Pickford monk thread.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-26, 04:05 AM

And? It's written, it's official, that makes it a ruling, that makes it rules as written.

From the web page:

It's written and official but it's not game rules. It's reviews and answers regarding the already written rules after the fact. It was intended to clarify how the actual game rules work but loses all credibility in light of the fact that a number of those answers are in direct opposition to very clear segments of RAW.

So once again: the FAQ is not RAW.

olentu

2013-06-26, 04:06 AM

It's pretty simple. The DMG says that need prerequisites in order to enter a prestige class. Complete Warrior says that you need to continually have the prerequisites in order to have the benefits of a prestige class. There wouldn't be a contradiction, but the DMG is the absolute primary source for prestige classes. Complete Warrior actually doesn't have the authority to add rules to prestige classes in general, so the rule doesn't apply in general. It's less of a contradiction of rules in a direct sense, and more of a contradiction of rules when you add in the DMG's ultimate authority.

Huh, you guys are working under the assumption that supplements can never expand upon the rules in the areas that the core rulebooks don't say anything about. Well I suppose that explains where you are getting a contradiction.

With something this fundamental causing the conflict I don't think there can be resolution.

eggynack

2013-06-26, 04:07 AM

Well, I think it really just says anyone who can cast fly or overland flight or the like doesn't need winged boots. Anything else is unfounded extrapolation.
Not really. There's an absolutely massive amount of stuff you can not do with VoP that you can do without VoP. You can make up for some of it with wizardry, but a monk does not have wizardry. I wouldn't really call it unfounded extrapolation to read VoP, find an ability on an item that VoP doesn't give you, and take a note of how stupid VoP is. Flight is a thing, but it's just the first thing. Just, I dunno, read the list of necessary magic items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851), and see how much of that you get from VoP. You get some, but you certainly don't get anywhere close to all of it. It's not the end of the advantages of WBL over VoP, but it's a start.

eggynack

2013-06-26, 04:10 AM

Huh, you guys are working under the assumption that supplements can never expand upon the rules in the areas that the core rulebooks don't say anything about. Well I suppose that explains where you are getting a contradiction.

With something this fundamental causing the conflict I don't think there can be resolution.
To be more accurate, there is a resolution, and it's basically what Tippy said. The DMG is the ultimate authority over the general rules to PrC's, and Complete Warrior is the ultimate authority over the specific rules to PrC's in Complete Warrior. This isn't an assumption we're working under. It's an actual rule of the game. Books that can be said to be the authority over a subject just have authority over that subject.

Pickford

2013-06-26, 04:11 AM

Not really. There's an absolutely massive amount of stuff you can do with VoP that you can not do without VoP. You can make up for some of it with wizardry, but a monk does not have wizardry. I wouldn't really call it unfounded extrapolation to read VoP, find an ability on an item that VoP doesn't give you, and take a note of how stupid VoP is. Flight is a thing, but it's just the first thing. Just, I dunno, read the list of necessary magic items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851), and see how much of that you get from VoP. You get some, but you certainly don't get anywhere close to all of it. It's not the end of the advantages of WBL over VoP, but it's a start.

/shrug. It simply occurs to me that as this is not a video game, and the DM is perfectly able to adapt encounters on the fly (yuk yuk), flight is not necessarily....necessary. Nor does it provide a guaranteed advantage. After all, the DM knows what spells the characters have, so they can, if they wish, tailor encounters/adventures to take those abilities into account.

Indeed...what DM wouldn't?

edit: Kelb, I don't see where you get the idea that it's not the rules. It's the game rules faq, it addresses the game rules, thus it's a ruling. Your position seems to have no more foundation than simply wanting it to not be the case.

Rubik

2013-06-26, 04:16 AM

Not really. There's an absolutely massive amount of stuff you can do with VoP that you can not do without VoP.You inverted that.

Not really. There's an absolutely massive amount of stuff you can do without VoP that you can not do without VoP.Fixed it for you.

olentu

2013-06-26, 04:17 AM

To be more accurate, there is a resolution, and it's basically what Tippy said. The DMG is the ultimate authority over the general rules to PrC's, and Complete Warrior is the ultimate authority over the specific rules to PrC's in Complete Warrior. This isn't an assumption we're working under. It's an actual rule of the game. Books that can be said to be the authority over a subject just have authority over that subject.

Eh, if it makes you feel better about your self feel free to believe that. I suppose I will have to live with the shame of knowing that you have declared yourself the victor. I will just have to fill the hole in my heart with a world where supplements can expand on the rules about feats, equipment, classes, etc. by introducing new rules (such as new feats, equipment, classes, etc.) that the core rulebooks do not cover.

Krazzman

2013-06-26, 04:23 AM

edit: Kelb, I don't see where you get the idea that it's not the rules. It's the game rules faq, it addresses the game rules, thus it's a ruling. Your position seems to have no more foundation than simply wanting it to not be the case.

To put it bruntly:
FAQ != RAW because the FAQ is a RAI(nterpreted) form of answering specific questions concerning the RAW.

TO elaborate further. In the DMG there stands that an ability does not Stack with the Keen weapon Property but "misses" the normal or similar effects clause. When asking about it you can have different rulings. Either the guys says clearly they missed that there or he says that it is ok according to the rules.

So it is more of a "DM-call" than RAW. More like openly expressed houserules.
Also RAI and RAI != RAW.

Pickford

2013-06-26, 04:26 AM

To put it bruntly:
FAQ != RAW because the FAQ is a RAI(nterpreted) form of answering specific questions concerning the RAW.

TO elaborate further. In the DMG there stands that an ability does not Stack with the Keen weapon Property but "misses" the normal or similar effects clause. When asking about it you can have different rulings. Either the guys says clearly they missed that there or he says that it is ok according to the rules.

So it is more of a "DM-call" than RAW. More like openly expressed houserules.
Also RAI and RAI != RAW.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see any evidence for it. That is: Where does it say, from WOTC that the FAQ is not raw?

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-26, 04:28 AM

/shrug. It simply occurs to me that as this is not a video game, and the DM is perfectly able to adapt encounters on the fly (yuk yuk), flight is not necessarily....necessary. Nor does it provide a guaranteed advantage.
Yes, flight is necessary. Especially for a Vow of Poverty non spell caster.

A Vow of Poverty pure monk is, quite literally, incapable of causing harm to *any* character that is more than seven hundred and fifty feet above it. The only ranged weapon that a VoP character can use is a Sling, which has a range increment of 50 ft. and a ranged weapon has a maximum range of 10 such increments (500 ft. in the case of a Sling) which the feat Far Shot increases by an additional 50% (to 750 ft.). The only way around this is with the Martial Monk variant from Dragon #310 and the feat Distant Shot.

I could build an ECL 5 Wizard that could slaughter an ECL 20 VoP Monk with ease if said Monk did not achieve flight in some manner..

After all, the DM knows what spells the characters have, so they can, if they wish, tailor encounters/adventures to take those abilities into account.

Indeed...what DM wouldn't?
Um, me? I play my encounters to the oppositions Int score and capabilities. If the opposition is a wizard then you can be damn sure that he will have the ability to Fly and that he will use that ability in combat. If you can't deal with that then, well, sucks to be you.

If you are going to make a VoP Monk then got Martial Monk 6/ Assassin (Avenger variant) 1/ Factotum 3/ Unarmed Swordsage 10. Use Martial Stance to get Balance on the Sky eventually. Possibly dump the Factotum and Asssassin for Monk +3/Exemplar 1 if you want more Monk.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-26, 04:29 AM

/shrug. It simply occurs to me that as this is not a video game, and the DM is perfectly able to adapt encounters on the fly (yuk yuk), flight is not necessarily....necessary. Nor does it provide a guaranteed advantage. After all, the DM knows what spells the characters have, so they can, if they wish, tailor encounters/adventures to take those abilities into account.

Indeed...what DM wouldn't?Haven't seen the oberoni fallacy matched quite this cleanly in a while. I feel like I should award some sort of morbid kudos.

edit: Kelb, I don't see where you get the idea that it's not the rules. It's the game rules faq, it addresses the game rules, thus it's a ruling. Your position seems to have no more foundation than simply wanting it to not be the case.

It's not the rules because it's not rules at all. It's rulings. There's a difference.

The FAQ doesn't expand, modify, or remove anything from RAW. It's only clarifications being made by someone who's reading the existing rules and making judgement calls. Given that some of those calls are blatantly wrong, the judgement of the document's author(s) is called into question.

Btw, "nuh-uh" isn't a valid argument, no matter how verbosely it's said.

mattie_p

2013-06-26, 05:09 AM

The FAQ doesn't expand, modify, or remove anything from RAW. It's only clarifications being made by someone who's reading the existing rules and making judgement calls. Given that some of those calls are blatantly wrong, the judgement of the document's author(s) is called into question.

Indeed.

As an example of this, I decided to pop open the FAQ and post the first error that I saw. (It was on page 3)

Do anthropomorphic felines lose their pounce abilities?
Yes; see the Special Attacks entry on page 215 of SS.

So I decided to pop open SS and see what it says.

Special Attacks: Attacks that rely on a nonhumanoid shape, such as hind-leg rakes, trampling, or a snake's constriction, are no longer available.

So is pounce shape-dependent? Pounce itself says the following:

Pounce
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

So the anthropomorphic should lose the rakes (if they had them at all) on the pounce by RAW, but I don't see anything in the ability that relies upon shape. Indeed, given that pounce is available via other means such as Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian ACF from CC, pounce has nothing to do with shape at all.

CRtwenty

2013-06-26, 05:27 AM

[Stuff about the FAQ contradicting itself and RAW]

Yep... but if the FAQ actually clarified things what would we have to discuss here? Hooray for a contradictory FAQ! :smallbiggrin:

Chronos

2013-06-26, 05:55 AM

Krazzman

2013-06-26, 06:02 AM

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see any evidence for it. That is: Where does it say, from WOTC that the FAQ is not raw?

Serious answer to this: it's common sense.

Follow my logic step for step. RAI counts as Rules as Interpreted.

YOu see a rules text: RAW.
You read it: still RAW.
You Interpret it: RAI.

Or other way:
You see rules text (RAW), don't understand it enough so you ask for a ruling about it. This Person either explains it to you (RAW) or gives you their ruling (RAI).

rulings = RAI, since RAI != RAW, rulings != RAW.

Eldan

2013-06-26, 06:13 AM

Nightraiderx

2013-06-26, 06:46 AM

Pure monk + VOP is a big no no, if you even want to use vop
to certain effect, you can dip a level in incarnate and totemist, grab
a whole bunch of soul meld/chakra bind feats and at least do that.
even if you just get two feats to bind airstep shoes people often forget that
the monk's enhancement speed bonus applies to ALL special movement as well,
which is kind of cool for burrowing at +60 ft a round.

Beast strike.

olentu

2013-06-26, 08:00 AM

Do note that, if any sort of continued prerequisites rule applies to Ur-Priest, the class is completely useless. Every ur-priest fails to continue to qualify for the class once they've taken their first level. The class requires an inability to cast divine spells, and it grants the ability to cast divine spells.

Eh, it is not like essentially nonsense rules have never been written before. Take for example the fact that an antimagic field spell cancels itself. That the ur-priest class does essentially the same thing is nothing shocking.

Talya

2013-06-26, 08:14 AM

TypoNinja, I don't disagree with your initial premise of there being few Exalted feats that are very good (and several of those have charisma as a prerequisite, further increasing the Monk's brutal MADness), but I take exception to some of the details. For instance:

Touch of golden ice, because a DC13 fortsave ability is going to scale so well!

The DC is 14, as I recall, but that's not the point. Even at high levels, you've got a minimum 5% chance of crippling your target on every single hit, and the monk is making a LOT of attacks. Against undead it's actually devastating, as they're explicitly vulnerable to its damage, take EXTRA damage, and have a low fort save and no constitution score. This one is seriously worth taking, right after Nymph's Kiss at level 1. It's an unlimited number of save-or-suck/lose attacks. Even without VOP, I'd take Touch of Golden Ice on a good monk focused on fighting evil.

A lot of the other feats add a bunch of versatility for oddball, off-the-wall situations, stuff you'd normally never take a feat for, but it's those same situations people bemoan the lack of gear to resolve.

Ultimately, VOP is still a net loss in performance, and the feats are still lacking. The already weak monk should not generally take it, but I just find people have a tendency to overstate their case here, and make absolutes out of things while ignoring the positives. (Case in point, watch how often Sorcerers are said to "suck" and be so terrible in every respect...meanwhile they're only being compared to overpowered tier 1s, they're still too powerful in relation to most classes.)

Pickford

2013-06-26, 11:49 AM

Indeed.

As an example of this, I decided to pop open the FAQ and post the first error that I saw. (It was on page 3)

So I decided to pop open SS and see what it says.

So is pounce shape-dependent? Pounce itself says the following:

So the anthropomorphic should lose the rakes (if they had them at all) on the pounce by RAW, but I don't see anything in the ability that relies upon shape. Indeed, given that pounce is available via other means such as Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian ACF from CC, pounce has nothing to do with shape at all.

Apparently their pounce is dependent on their having a rake attack. No rake attack, no pouncing. That's not the FAQ being wrong, but in fact correcting any possible confusion.

Krazzman: If common sense were the answer to everything we'd never see anyone suggesting it's RAW that drowning can heal you (it can't) or that unarmed strikes require weapon proficiency (they don't) or that ...and so on. So while I appreciate your reasoning, it doesn't hold true.

edit: Tippy, not tailoring your game to the players is bad form. You can do it, but it doesn't make for a happy table.

danzibr

2013-06-26, 12:01 PM

I have to admit this is a very interesting thread (and that's all I have to say).

137beth

2013-06-26, 12:05 PM

Apparently their pounce is dependent on their having a rake attack. No rake attack, no pouncing. That's not the FAQ being wrong, but in fact correcting any possible confusion.

Krazzman: If common sense were the answer to everything we'd never see anyone suggesting it's RAW that drowning can heal you (it can't) or that unarmed strikes require weapon proficiency (they don't) or that ...and so on. So while I appreciate your reasoning, it doesn't hold true.

edit: Tippy, not tailoring your game to the players is bad form. You can do it, but it doesn't make for a happy table.

Don't you just love it when you get your own house rules confused with RAW?:smalltongue:

Big Fau

2013-06-26, 12:13 PM

Apparently their pounce is dependent on their having a rake attack. No rake attack, no pouncing. That's not the FAQ being wrong, but in fact correcting any possible confusion.

Show me the rules for that, because as it stands that is little more than your fluff-based justification for the FAQ's illogical ruling.

mattie_p

2013-06-26, 01:15 PM

Apparently their pounce is dependent on their having a rake attack. No rake attack, no pouncing. That's not the FAQ being wrong, but in fact correcting any possible confusion.

I am interested as well. If having pounce is dependant upon rake (no where in the pounce description does it state this, by the way), then how does a 7 HD feral creature gain pounce? It only gets rake if it has 8 HD. Savage Species 116.

Would you prefer core? The Deinonychus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#deinonychus) gains pounce without having rake. As does the megaraptor. And the dragonne. And the red Slaad.

Now, sample creatures are well known for being flawed examples. But the feral template is explicit. What about creatures that get rake but no pounce such as the Behir (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/behir.htm)? Just because they are sometimes associated does not mean they always are. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.

dascarletm

2013-06-26, 01:51 PM

I am interested as well. If having pounce is dependant upon rake (no where in the pounce description does it state this, by the way), then how does a 7 HD feral creature gain pounce? It only gets rake if it has 8 HD. Savage Species 116.

Would you prefer core? The Deinonychus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#deinonychus) gains pounce without having rake. As does the megaraptor. And the dragonne. And the red Slaad.

Now, sample creatures are well known for being flawed examples. But the feral template is explicit. What about creatures that get rake but no pounce such as the Behir (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/behir.htm)? Just because they are sometimes associated does not mean they always are. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.

also barbarians with that one variant... (Lion Totem?)

mattie_p

2013-06-26, 01:56 PM

also barbarians with that one variant... (Lion Totem?)

Spirit lion totem, to be precise, from complete champion. But I already mentioned that.

Threadnaught

2013-06-26, 02:21 PM

Apparently their pounce is dependent on their having a rake attack. No rake attack, no pouncing.

Hold on now, lemme repost that quote.

Pounce
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

Underlined by me for emphasis. Rake isn't necessary for Pounce, but if a Rake attack is part of a creature's Full Attack action, then it can be used as part of a Pounce.

You misread the rule Pickford.

Scow2

2013-06-26, 02:26 PM

Eh, if it makes you feel better about your self feel free to believe that. I suppose I will have to live with the shame of knowing that you have declared yourself the victor. I will just have to fill the hole in my heart with a world where supplements can expand on the rules about feats, equipment, classes, etc. by introducing new rules (such as new feats, equipment, classes, etc.) that the core rulebooks do not cover.
Splatbooks that expand on rules not covered by the DMG/PHB are not affected by the Primary Source rule because the Primary Source does not conflict with them. Being silent doesn't mean it's saying "This doesn't exist."

And, it also means the rules in the supplements are optional - you don't NEED to buy "Stormwrack" if you want a boat in your campaign, or "Sandstorm" because your campaign setting has a sun. Furthermore, because CWar is not a primary source, other sourcebooks and the DMG's PrC's are not saddled with the "Constant prereq" clause.

However, something to keep in mind about ALL versions of D&D is that one of the rules is that all rules can be changed, adjusted, tweaked, or re-interpreted by the DM as he sees fit (Also known as Rule 0). D&D's a Tabletop, not Computer, game.

Rubik

2013-06-26, 04:09 PM

Don't you just love it when you get your own house rules confused with RAW?:smalltongue:Pickford is quite the happy pony, I think.

snoopy13a

2013-06-26, 04:15 PM

That isn't the case, the VoP character needs to donate his share to charity (or some other cause). She can't just give it to the party.

Wouldn't a good-aligned adventuring party be a charity? They are risking their lives to help those in need.

Sith_Happens

2013-06-26, 04:38 PM

Wouldn't a good-aligned adventuring party be a charity? They are risking their lives to help those in need.

You probably want to organize as a formal non-profit adventuring/mercenary company just to be sure.

blackhalo

2013-06-26, 04:52 PM

Huh, you guys are working under the assumption that supplements can never expand upon the rules in the areas that the core rulebooks don't say anything about. Well I suppose that explains where you are getting a contradiction.

With something this fundamental causing the conflict I don't think there can be resolution.

I was thinking the same thing while skimming through the posts.
A quick flip through a dictionary would have solved this whole debacle.
Expanding upon doesn't in and of itself cause disagreement. Which means primary source based rules are irrelevant.

Blackfang108

2013-06-26, 05:34 PM

You probably want to organize as a formal non-profit adventuring/mercenary company just to be sure.

My 4e group actually did that, in-universe.

5 times.

No, this isn't a joke. It actually happened. Mostly for the limited liability, though.

olentu

2013-06-26, 05:41 PM

Splatbooks that expand on rules not covered by the DMG/PHB are not affected by the Primary Source rule because the Primary Source does not conflict with them. Being silent doesn't mean it's saying "This doesn't exist."

And, it also means the rules in the supplements are optional - you don't NEED to buy "Stormwrack" if you want a boat in your campaign, or "Sandstorm" because your campaign setting has a sun. Furthermore, because CWar is not a primary source, other sourcebooks and the DMG's PrC's are not saddled with the "Constant prereq" clause.

However, something to keep in mind about ALL versions of D&D is that one of the rules is that all rules can be changed, adjusted, tweaked, or re-interpreted by the DM as he sees fit (Also known as Rule 0). D&D's a Tabletop, not Computer, game.

Of course if you are not using complete warrior and complete arcane then the rule from those books about failing to qualify for prestige classes will not be part of that game. This is no different then excluding any part of the rules, supplement or not. But the thing is, I was working under the "default discussion assumption" that being, among other things, the books of the complete series are being included.

And really if there is no conflict then it does not matter in the slightest that the DMG is the primary source and not complete warrior or complete arcane. As you said since there is no conflict the primary source rule does not apply and thus there is nothing keeping the rule from those books from applying to all things, provided that the books are being used. Or at least if there is I have not seen it.

I was thinking the same thing while skimming through the posts.
A quick flip through a dictionary would have solved this whole debacle.
Expanding upon doesn't innately cause disagreement. Which means, primary source based rules are irrelevant.

Ah, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately I can not think of any way to resolve this fundamental disagreement but feel free to have a go at it if you like.

animewatcha

2013-06-26, 07:16 PM

Wouldn't a monk with wands of magic missile and invisible fist sub levels trash a vop monk?

Augmental

2013-06-26, 07:22 PM

Wouldn't a monk with wands of magic missile and invisible fist sub levels trash a vop monk?

Is the invisible fist monk trashing the VOP monk, or are the wands of magic missile trashing the VOP monk?

animewatcha

2013-06-26, 07:35 PM

invisible fist monk having high enough wisdom for the blink ability ( exemplars of evil ) to last more than 3 rounds ( usable once every 3 rounds ) to fly himself ( regardless of race ) up out of reach of vop monk and proceeds to use wands of magic missile of very high caster level ( wisdom for prepared ) to bypass the ac problem and damage from afar. It could be wands of any DD with proper caster level and range provided the resistance is bypassed ( wands of magic missile is force ).

So invisible fist monk was wisely ( aka wisdom ) prepared on using his WBL and class abilities.

dascarletm

2013-06-26, 07:39 PM

Marnath

2013-06-26, 07:47 PM

But the VoP monk is in an orphanage donating his money. Thus either no LoS or within reach. (orphanages are usually of poor construction and the ceilings are very low.):smalltongue:

Bar the door and set it on fire. Chances are good that you're already some kind of evil if you've got reason to try to kill an exalted character. :smalltongue:

Pickford

2013-06-26, 09:00 PM

Indeed.

As an example of this, I decided to pop open the FAQ and post the first error that I saw. (It was on page 3)

So I decided to pop open SS and see what it says.

So is pounce shape-dependent? Pounce itself says the following:

So the anthropomorphic should lose the rakes (if they had them at all) on the pounce by RAW, but I don't see anything in the ability that relies upon shape. Indeed, given that pounce is available via other means such as Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian ACF from CC, pounce has nothing to do with shape at all.

Pounce (Ex) is a special attack, not a feat. Special Attacks are things the creatures have access to by virtue of being said creature.

So when the creature is no longer themselves (that is to say, their form has changed) they no longer have access to form dependent abilities.

In other words: If you have pounce because you're a cat, and now you're a dog, you can't pounce any more.

The rake was just a red herring *(like communism)
Bonus points if you know the movie that's from

edit: In case the above wasn't totally clear, retention of abilities is entirely dependent on the 'sources' of those abilities.

mattie_p

2013-06-26, 09:10 PM

Pounce (Ex) is a special attack, not a feat. Special Attacks are things the creatures have access to by virtue of being said creature.

So when the creature is no longer themselves (that is to say, their form has changed) they no longer have access to form dependent abilities.

In other words: If you have pounce because you're a cat, and now you're a dog, you can't pounce any more.

The rake was just a red herring *(like communism)
Bonus points if you know the movie that's from

edit: In case the above wasn't totally clear, retention of abilities is entirely dependent on the 'sources' of those abilities.

The source of pounce, as you mentioned, is Extraordinary...

Clue, which is a hilarious movie

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

You might be thinking of natural abilities...

Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Oh, but Pounce is, in all the monster abilities, extraordinary, which does not reply at all upon physical form.

Pickford

2013-06-26, 09:28 PM

Ah, but polymorph (as a school of things) dictates:

In all other ways the subject's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the assumed form. The subject loses all the special abilities it has in its natural form, including its class features, even if the assumed form would normally be able to use these class features.

That's from PHB 320.

So losing the form would remove even class feature pounce.

edit: I'll check back in later. so don't worry if I don't respond soonish

olentu

2013-06-26, 09:32 PM

NinjaInTheRye

2013-06-26, 09:35 PM

On VoP flight, you can take Animal Devotion from Complete Champion it lets you fly as overland flight (or use some other pretty nice buffs) once a day as a swift action. You can take the feat multiple times for extra uses, and/or dip a level of cleric to gain turn attempts to fuel extra uses of the feat.

Big Fau

2013-06-26, 09:41 PM

Ah, but polymorph (as a school of things) dictates:

That's from PHB 320.

So losing the form would remove even class feature pounce.

edit: I'll check back in later. so don't worry if I don't respond soonish

When did the subject of the discussion change from a savage species template to the polymorph subschool.

Olentu stole the words right out of my mouth. What bering does the Polymorph spell have the Anthropomorphic template? Polymorphing is not involved in the creation of Anthro creatures (indeed, it's completely impossible to Polymorph into one).

Augmental

2013-06-26, 11:46 PM

When did the subject of the discussion change from a savage species template to the polymorph subschool.

Wouldn't a better question be "when did the subject of the discussion change from VoP to the polymorph subschool"?

TypoNinja

2013-06-27, 01:22 AM

I think hes still trying to justify why the FAQ should count as RAW. If the Pounce contradiction goes away the contention that the FAQ is useless because its known to be wrong also goes away.

Too bad that's not the only place the FAQ has messed up. >_>

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-27, 01:31 AM

When did the subject of the discussion change from a savage species template to the polymorph subschool.That's not even from the polymorph subschool. It's from the, pre-eratta, PHB. It's not even extant rules text anymore, IIRC, nevermind completely irrelevant to the template in question.

I think hes still trying to justify why the FAQ should count as RAW. If the Pounce contradiction goes away the contention that the FAQ is useless because its known to be wrong also goes away.

Too bad that's not the only place the FAQ has messed up. >_>

On that note: can we get a few more examples. I'd do it myself, but no Acrobat Reader.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 01:32 AM

Too bad that's not the only place the FAQ has messed up. >_>
My real question here is, what does it even mean for the FAQ to mess up in this argument? If the FAQ exactly fit the rules, it wouldn't matter if it had RAW authority or not, because there would be no contradictions. The fact of the matter is, the FAQ can only have the authority to answer questions about the rules, but it doesn't have any authority to change, effect, or add to those rules. Thus, if there's anything in the FAQ that doesn't exactly match what's in the actual rules, it might as well not exist, because the FAQ didn't have the authority to make that jump. For this reason, the FAQ is not RAW, and that's in the best possible outcome.

olentu

2013-06-27, 02:08 AM

That's not even from the polymorph subschool. It's from the, pre-eratta, PHB. It's not even extant rules text anymore, IIRC, nevermind completely irrelevant to the template in question.

I suppose, though I still find it eerily similar to this section of the polymorph subschool.

"In all other ways, the target’s normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the assumed form. The target loses all the special abilities it has in its natural form, including its class features, even if the assumed form would normally be able to use these class features."

Of course it is still irrelevant either way but still rather similar.

137beth

2013-06-27, 04:09 AM

My real question here is, what does it even mean for the FAQ to mess up in this argument? If the FAQ exactly fit the rules, it wouldn't matter if it had RAW authority or not, because there would be no contradictions. The fact of the matter is, the FAQ can only have the authority to answer questions about the rules, but it doesn't have any authority to change, effect, or add to those rules. Thus, if there's anything in the FAQ that doesn't exactly match what's in the actual rules, it might as well not exist, because the FAQ didn't have the authority to make that jump. For this reason, the FAQ is not RAW, and that's in the best possible outcome.

The pathfinder FAQ is different, as it occasionally calls out things which are "future errata". Also, the PF FAQ sometimes says "RAW says X, while RAI says either X or Y, and Y would be a reasonable house-rule." The point of that is that it gives PFS the authority to use Y as a PFS house-rule (since PFS is normally restricted to RAW), and SKR said they sometimes do that if they either a) don't really have a preference as to whether X or Y should be used, or
b)switching RAW from X to Y would push something in the core-rulebook on to the next page, throwing off all page references in other books.
However, the PF FAQ does have the authority of RAW, and it occasionally overrides the rules, since it can be updated faster than the CRB can be re-printed.

The 3.5 FAQ is completely different, though: it cannot override RAW, and hence either the FAQ is wrong or says the same thing as the books, so there is never a reason to cite it in RAW-forum-debates.

TypoNinja

2013-06-27, 05:44 AM

My real question here is, what does it even mean for the FAQ to mess up in this argument? If the FAQ exactly fit the rules, it wouldn't matter if it had RAW authority or not, because there would be no contradictions. The fact of the matter is, the FAQ can only have the authority to answer questions about the rules, but it doesn't have any authority to change, effect, or add to those rules. Thus, if there's anything in the FAQ that doesn't exactly match what's in the actual rules, it might as well not exist, because the FAQ didn't have the authority to make that jump. For this reason, the FAQ is not RAW, and that's in the best possible outcome.

The FAQ's theoretical use is as an authority on the rules and mechanics of the game. Able to fill the gap between RAI and RAW.The problem is we know its not actually very good at times. (Probably because its run by Marketing or PR, instead of somebody from QA, or whoever does rule design. That's just a guess however).

Since we know the FAQ is not reliable it becomes useless as a resource. Think about it this way, when you look for a ruling in the FAQ, one of two thinks are going to happen. It'll either agree with your interpretation, or disagree with you. If it disagrees, that disagreement can be discarded because you know its not a reliable source, and if it agrees with you, it's only provided a sort of conformation bias.

So in attempting to resolve a rules dispute, its not actually helpful to consult it, it can't actually settle anything. It also makes useless statements like "The sage suggests no". You suggest I shouldn't? So the rules don't forbid it, you just think its a bad idea? How helpful.

The FAQ is a great document and I'm sure it helps many players. It just isn't written for this particular crowd.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 05:54 AM

The FAQ's theoretical use is as an authority on the rules and mechanics of the game. Able to fill the gap between RAI and RAW.The problem is we know its not actually very good at times. (Probably because its run by Marketing or PR, instead of somebody from QA, or whoever does rule design. That's just a guess however).

Since we know the FAQ is not reliable it becomes useless as a resource. Think about it this way, when you look for a ruling in the FAQ, one of two thinks are going to happen. It'll either agree with your interpretation, or disagree with you. If it disagrees, that disagreement can be discarded because you know its not a reliable source, and if it agrees with you, it's only provided a sort of conformation bias.

So in attempting to resolve a rules dispute, its not actually helpful to consult it, it can't actually settle anything. It also makes useless statements like "The sage suggests no". You suggest I shouldn't? So the rules don't forbid it, you just think its a bad idea? How helpful.

The FAQ is a great document and I'm sure it helps many players. It just isn't written for this particular crowd.
The problem with that, is that the argument isn't about the validity of the document as a tool. The argument is about the validity of the document as a source of RAW. Logically, if the FAQ had the RAW constructing properties of errata, or the rules compendium, it wouldn't matter how many differences you point out between the books and the FAQ. The FAQ would have the authority to alter the rules, so the solution to, say, an argument about the rules to pounce, would be that the books are just wrong. The FAQ would possess infinite amounts of reliability, because it would just overwrite the existing rules. That makes a discussion about the differences between the two sources pointless, with regards to this argument. I'm not sure if I'm currently disagreeing with you, but I felt that a clarifying post was in order. Also, I would be fine with discussing differences between the FAQ and RAW, but it would be intrinsically detached from this side argument. Maybe someone should start a new thread or something.

olentu

2013-06-27, 06:02 AM

Eh, the answer is that whether or not the FAQ is right is completely meaningless since the whole situation boils down to the fundamental disagreement in assumption I explained before. So long as there is disagreement over whether or not the lack of existence of a rule is a rule I can see no way for the situation to be resolved.

Threadnaught

2013-06-27, 07:55 AM

eggynack

2013-06-27, 07:59 AM

When is a Human Lion Totem Barbarian Druid allowed to Pounce?
Never, because the lion totem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#lionTotemClassFeatures ) variant only gives you run as a bonus feat, a +2 bonus on hide checks, and a +2 bonus on damage rolls on a charge. :smallbiggrin:

Threadnaught

2013-06-27, 08:47 AM

Never, because the lion totem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#lionTotemClassFeatures ) variant only gives you run as a bonus feat, a +2 bonus on hide checks, and a +2 bonus on damage rolls on a charge. :smallbiggrin:

Okay then, umm Spiritual Dire Lion Totema what'sit?

That thing from... Complete Warrior? Player Handbook 2?

The one that isn't in the SRD. :smalltongue:

Coidzor

2013-06-27, 08:52 AM

Bar the door and set it on fire. Chances are good that you're already some kind of evil if you've got reason to try to kill an exalted character. :smalltongue:

That, or you're in a party with one.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 08:55 AM

Okay then, umm Spiritual Dire Lion Totema what'sit?

That thing from... Complete Warrior? Player Handbook 2?

The one that isn't in the SRD. :smalltongue:
Spirit lion totem from complete champion. I was mostly just bringing it up, because that line was a pretty perfect set up. Otherwise, I'd usually figure that most people know what you're talking about when you talk about "lion totem".

Threadnaught

2013-06-27, 09:06 AM

Spirit lion totem from complete champion. I was mostly just bringing it up, because that line was a pretty perfect set up. Otherwise, I'd usually figure that most people know what you're talking about when you talk about "lion totem".

I figured it was a joke with the colour of the text and the emoticon at the end.

As you can tell, I don't have a lot of the sourcebooks. :smallredface:

eggynack

2013-06-27, 09:09 AM

I figured it was a joke with the colour of the text and the emoticon at the end.
Technically speaking, I use gray text to indicate nitpicking, rather than humor. Your evaluation of the emoticon was correct though. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Pickford

2013-06-27, 09:52 AM

When did the subject of the discussion change from a savage species template to the polymorph subschool.

The pertinent question was what happens when a creature has their form changed. The answer is that they lose access to abilities granted by the form they lost.

The FAQ is official rules clarification, that means it overrides.

edit: Threadnaught, I believe the part you quoted answered your query. Or you can flip to PHB 320 and read that.

edit2: I think maybe my answer was too vague. Spiritual Totem is an alternative class feature from the Complete Champion. The quoted section indicates class features are also lost.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 09:53 AM

The pertinent question was what happens when a creature has their form changed. The answer is that they lose access to abilities granted by the form they lost.

The FAQ is official rules clarification, that means it overrides.

We're still waiting for your response to questions above, though, regarding abilities granted by the form. Where does it say that pounce depends on physical form or has a prerequisite of rake?

Pickford

2013-06-27, 09:57 AM

We're still waiting for your response to questions above, though, regarding abilities granted by the form. Where does it say that pounce depends on physical form or has a prerequisite of rake?

What? It says it in the PHB, in the back on page 320. The new PHB, the one with the errata built in. When your form changes, you lose your special abilities, including those which are class features even if you could reasonably use them in your new form.

edit: As I had said the first time I responded to you mattie, I considered rake a red herring, it's not the salient point.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:00 AM

The pertinent question was what happens when a creature has their form changed. The answer is that they lose access to abilities granted by the form they lost.

The FAQ is official rules clarification, that means it overrides.

edit: Threadnaught, I believe the part you quoted answered your query. Or you can flip to PHB 320 and read that.

Are you talking about the errata rule: primary sources thing? That seems to prove you absolutely wrong. If you weren't talking about that, I am. Specifically, the quote in question is, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." The books are a primary source, while the FAQ is strictly a secondary source. It is not an official errata file, so it has no authority to override a primary source. Thus, given its lack of authority on this and any matters, the FAQ is not RAW.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 10:01 AM

What? It says it in the PHB, in the back on page 320. The new PHB, the one with the errata built in. When your form changes, you lose your special abilities, including those which are class features even if you could reasonably use them in your new form.

edit: As I had said the first time I responded to you mattie, I considered rake a red herring, it's not the salient point.

Unfortunately I do not have that. Could you provide the exact text of what you are describing?

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:02 AM

What? It says it in the PHB, in the back on page 320. The new PHB, the one with the errata built in. When your form changes, you lose your special abilities, including those which are class features even if you could reasonably use them in your new form.
That's referring to baleful polymorph. That's a different thing from polymorph, which is a different thing from what other folks are talking about. Different things are different.

Pickford

2013-06-27, 10:09 AM

Are you talking about the errata rule: primary sources thing? That seems to prove you absolutely wrong. If you weren't talking about that, I am. Specifically, the quote in question is, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." The books are a primary source, while the FAQ is strictly a secondary source. It is not an official errata file, so it has no authority to override a primary source. Thus, given its lack of authority on this and any matters, the FAQ is not RAW.

No. I'm talking about the new PHB 3.5 which you can buy from WoTC right now on their Web site or via Amazon.

Could it be that I'm the only one here with the correct rulebooks?

edit: Mattie_p, yes I could and did it's in my first post which quotes it. The part you quoted no less.

edit2: From the PHB, page 320

In all other ways the subject's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the assumed form. The subject loses all the special abilities it has in its natural form, including its class features, even if the assumed form would normally be able to use these class features.

Karnith

2013-06-27, 10:12 AM

Could it be that I'm the only one here with the correct rulebooks?
Some people don't enjoy paying $30 per core rulebook for errata. Crazy, innit?

Pickford

2013-06-27, 10:13 AM

Some people don't enjoy paying $30 per core rulebook for errata. Crazy, innit?

I do think it's crazy to argue rules like you're haggling over your first-born with rumplestiltskin when you don't actually have access to the rules.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:14 AM

No. I'm talking about the new PHB 3.5 which you can buy from WoTC right now on their Web site or via Amazon.

Could it be that I'm the only one here with the correct rulebooks?

You were a bit unclear as to what you were responding or referring to. There's been a lot of stuff said, so it'd be helpful if you'd indicate what particular rule you're referring to. I'm pretty sure the rulebooks I'm using are perfectly accurate. Also, I'm looking at the errata file right now, and it makes no mention of polymorph. It does make mention of the quote I said, which disproves your arguments about the FAQ rather handily.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 10:16 AM

No. I'm talking about the new PHB 3.5 which you can buy from WoTC right now on their Web site or via Amazon.

Could it be that I'm the only one here with the correct rulebooks?

edit: Mattie_p, yes I could and did it's in my first post which quotes it. The part you quoted no less.

edit2: From the PHB, page 320
In all other ways the subject's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the assumed form. The subject loses all the special abilities it has in its natural form, including its class features, even if the assumed form would normally be able to use these class features.

So, now if you could clarify how an anthropomorphic animal requires polymorph, you'd be in business. I'm away from books, but I'm pretty sure the word polymorph does not come up at all. Anthropomorphic animals are brand new creatures, it is a template you apply, not polymorph.

Pickford

2013-06-27, 10:17 AM

You were a bit unclear as to what you were responding or referring to. There's been a lot of stuff said, so it'd be helpful if you'd indicate what particular rule you're referring to. I'm pretty sure the rulebooks I'm using are perfectly accurate. Also, I'm looking at the errata file right now, and it makes no mention of polymorph. It does make mention of the quote I said, which disproves your arguments about the FAQ rather handily.

It's the 'last' page of the new PHB, which is page 320, describing the polymorph sub school. The purpose is to show what happens when a creature has their form changed. Though there are some exceptions based off the spell.

It also doesn't mention baleful polymorph at all, so I have no idea why you keep referencing that.

edit: Oh, I didn't realize that anthropomorphic animals underwent no change of form at all. Assuming that, they would retain special attacks. However...if they do change form...

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:20 AM

From the PHB, page 320

In all other ways the subject's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the assumed form. The subject loses all the special abilities it has in its natural form, including its class features, even if the assumed form would normally be able to use these class features.

I just did a check through my downloaded errata file, and it makes no mention of that text anywhere. Perhaps they changed it from this line: "With those exceptions, the target’s normal game statistics are replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features." However, that line is listed under "baleful polymorph", not "polymorph". In fact, I can't find a single mention of the spell, "polymorph" in the errata.

Edit: I keep mentioning baleful polymorph, because it's all I can find that even comes close. I'm using the errata file found here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a). If they changed it somehow, I'm unaware of it.

Karnith

2013-06-27, 10:27 AM

Edit: I keep mentioning baleful polymorph, because it's all I can find that even comes close. I'm using the errata file found here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a). If they changed it somehow, I'm unaware of it.
It's part of the updated Polymorph subschool description. If you don't have the new Player's Handbook with errata, see e.g. Player's Handbook II, pp. 95-96, after the description of traits that you keep in a new form (which uses basically the same language):

In all other ways, the target's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all of the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features (even if the new form would normally be able to use these class features).
Of course, this doesn't affect Anthropomorphic creatures at all, and additionally doesn't apply to most core polymorph-based spells. It only applies to effects relating to spells of the polymorph subschool, and is overridden if a spell's text contradicts the subschool rules.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 10:30 AM

I just did a check through my downloaded errata file, and it makes no mention of that text anywhere. Perhaps they changed it from this line: "With those exceptions, the target’s normal game statistics are replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features." However, that line is listed under "baleful polymorph", not "polymorph". In fact, I can't find a single mention of the spell, "polymorph" in the errata.

Edit: I keep mentioning baleful polymorph, because it's all I can find that even comes close. I'm using the errata file found here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a). If they changed it somehow, I'm unaware of it.

eggynack, polymorph subschool is also in phb2. Might check there for wording. However, the template doesn't use polymorph. At least, I don't think it does.

Flickerdart

2013-06-27, 10:32 AM

Fun fact about the Polymorph subschool: Even though it's apparently intended to rein in Polymorph, it makes the mistake of mentioning that its restrictions only apply unless the spell says otherwise, and Polymorph explicitly lets you keep your spellcasting (inheriting the clause from Alter Self).

Karnith

2013-06-27, 10:32 AM

eggynack, polymorph subschool is also in phb2. Might check there for wording. However, the template doesn't use polymorph. At least, I don't think it does.
It does not, in fact. Pickford is (or, at least, was) using the argument that polymorph subschool rules applied whenever a creature changed its form.

Which, uh, it doesn't, in case anyone wasn't clear, and doesn't apply in the case of Anthropomorphic creatures anyway, because they don't change shape.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:33 AM

It's part of the updated Polymorph subschool description. If you don't have the new Player's Handbook with errata, see e.g. Player's Handbook II, pp. 95-96, after the description of traits that you keep in a new form (which uses basically the same language):

Of course, this doesn't affect Anthropomorphic creatures at all, and additionally doesn't apply to most core polymorph-based spells. It only applies to effects relating to spells of the polymorph subschool
Thanks. Now I can stop searching the web to figure out this odd discrepancy. More importantly, I can accurately evaluate the efficacy of Pickford's claims. I suspect that he is wrong, particularly because that's what everyone is saying.

Edit: Yeah, it looks like Pickford is wrong. Or, at least he's wrong about spirit lion totem barbarian. I dunno how we got there from where we were, but yeah. As my evidence, I cite the line in polymorph that states, "This spell functions like alter self," and the line in alter self that states, "You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels." So, because polymorph gives you this stuff, the polymorph sub-school can't take it away, and our noble barbarian is just fine. Seriously though, this is some major tangenting we're pulling here.

undead hero

2013-06-27, 10:38 AM

My general rule of thumb on VoP is...

Totemist

My second rule of thumb is...

Incarnate

If the class you want to put VoP on isn't one of the two then the answer is "no".

Pickford

2013-06-27, 10:39 AM

It does not, in fact. Pickford is (or, at least, was) using the argument that polymorph subschool rules applied whenever a creature changed its form.

Which, uh, it doesn't, in case anyone wasn't clear, and doesn't apply in the case of Anthropomorphic creatures anyway, because they don't change shape.

I was making the argument that the polymorph subschool covers what happens, base-line, when a creature has its form changed.

This was because the FAQ was addressing what happens if a character qualifies for a PrC on the basis of a mutable feature (i.e. I don't have flippers, but I can somehow transform my hands into flippers to qualify for the Dauphin PrC...what happens if I lose my flippers? Answer: You lose the benefits of the thing depending on them....i.e. the PrC)

Flickerdart

2013-06-27, 10:41 AM

I was making the argument that the polymorph subschool covers what happens, base-line, when a creature has its form changed.
A spell subschool only applies to (surprise, surprise) spells with that subschool.

My general rule of thumb on VoP is...

Totemist

My second rule of thumb is...

Incarnate

If the class you want to put VoP on isn't one of the two then the answer is "no".
Druids aren't really meaningfully impeded by VoP either. Unless you ban them.

Pickford

2013-06-27, 10:43 AM

A spell subschool only applies to (surprise, surprise) spells with that subschool.

So you're going to argue that losing the ability to do a thing doesn't stop one from doing said thing? :smallsigh: Interesting...weird imo but interesting.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:43 AM

I was making the argument that the polymorph subschool covers what happens, base-line, when a creature has its form changed.

It doesn't. That text is only referring to spells. That seems ultra clear. Also, now that I see that Flickerdart is about to ninja me (maybe I shouldn't be posting this), I will also note that my quote about primary sources and errata seems far more relevant than all of this flimshaw about polymorph put together. That's why the FAQ isn't RAW. It has nothing to do with feral whatevers, and oddly placed errata in new books.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 10:44 AM

I was making the argument that the polymorph subschool covers what happens, base-line, when a creature has its form changed.

This was because the FAQ was addressing what happens if a character qualifies for a PrC on the basis of a mutable feature (i.e. I don't have flippers, but I can somehow transform my hands into flippers to qualify for the Dauphin PrC...what happens if I lose my flippers? Answer: You lose the benefits of the thing depending on them....i.e. the PrC)

To which we wanted to discuss the various flaws of the FAQ. So have we agreed that the FAQ is wrong on the anthropomorphic animals yet? If so, the FAQ might be wrong in the case of the "lose the pre-requisite, lose the benefits of the class" thing as well. Which we believe it is.

Flickerdart

2013-06-27, 10:47 AM

So you're going to argue that losing the ability to do a thing doesn't stop one from doing said thing? :smallsigh: Interesting...weird imo but interesting.
Shapeshifting has no default rules. I recommend you read the description of Alternate Form, which most shapechanging effects refer to.

Karnith

2013-06-27, 10:48 AM

So you're going to argue that losing the ability to do a thing doesn't stop one from doing said thing? :smallsigh: Interesting...weird imo but interesting.
Unless the new PHB changed something, you may have missed or may be ignoring something important about the Polymorph subschool.

A spell of the polymorph subschool changes the target's form from one shape to another. Unless stated otherwise in the spell's description, the target of a polymorph subschool spell takes on all the statistics and special abilities of an average member of the new form in palce of its own except as follows:
[...]
In all other ways, the target's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all of the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features (even if the new form would normally be able to use these class features).
(Emphasis mine)

I notice that in the errata, the polymorph subschool uses the word "subject" instead of "target," but I would be willing to bet that it doesn't change the fact that these rules only affect creatures subject to polymorph spells. Polymorph subschool rules only apply to spells of the polymorph subschool. It is not a general rule. Shapeshifting through other means, say, through Alternate Form, is unaffected.

And I still don't see what any of this has to do with Antrhopomorphic animals.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:49 AM

If so, the FAQ might be wrong in the case of the "lose the pre-requisite, lose the benefits of the class" thing as well. Which we believe it is.
Oh god, is that where this started? I've just lost so much track of this one. Why are we talking about the FAQ, when Complete Warrior is right there, being infinitely more RAW than the FAQ is. At least CWar has some claim to legitimacy, being the progenitor of that particular rule, and thus the theoretical authority over that precise rule. The FAQ is so pointless in all of this. What have we become. *Sobs uncontrollably*

dascarletm

2013-06-27, 10:50 AM

So you're going to argue that losing the ability to do a thing doesn't stop one from doing said thing? :smallsigh: Interesting...weird imo but interesting.

(I think he is arguing that the polymorph sub-school rules apply to the polymorph sub-school.) But maybe that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) works too.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 10:53 AM

Oh god, is that where this started? I've just lost so much track of this one. Why are we talking about the FAQ, when Complete Warrior is right there, being infinitely more RAW than the FAQ is. At least CWar has some claim to legitimacy, being the progenitor of that particular rule, and thus the theoretical authority over that precise rule. The FAQ is so pointless in all of this. What have we become. *Sobs uncontrollably*

Pickford's claim (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15503658&postcount=92) is that the FAQ extends the CWar rule to ALL prestige classes (instead of the usual "martial prestige classes described here") via this:

Can a soulmeld or its chakra bind allow you to meet the
prerequisites for a feat or the requirements for a prestige
class?
Yes, but you only gain the benefits of the feat or prestige
class as long as you continue to meet its requirements. If you
unshape the meld or change the chakra bind, you would lose
the feat or prestige class benefits and wouldn’t be able to
advance further in the prestige class.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 10:59 AM

Pickford's claim (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15503658&postcount=92) is that the FAQ extends the CWar rule to ALL prestige classes (instead of the usual "martial prestige classes described here") via this:
I think I got that far. It's just all so ridiculous and tangential. I mean, discussing the polymorph subschool is what? A tangent to a tangent to a tangent to a tangent to a tangent? That might not even be all of it. Hence, the uncontrollable sobbing.

Arundel

2013-06-27, 11:01 AM

I think I got that far. It's just all so ridiculous and tangential. I mean, discussing the polymorph subschool is what? A tangent to a tangent to a tangent to a tangent to a tangent? That might not even be all of it. Hence, the uncontrollable sobbing.

My friend, there are some posts you just ignore. Allow me to share some life advice passed down from my father:

Do. Not. Engage. Crazy.

dascarletm

2013-06-27, 11:03 AM

My friend, there are some posts you just ignore. Allow me to share some life advice passed down from my father:

Do. Not. Engage. Crazy.

words of wisdom. Must be sporting a 3+ Mod.

Anyway VoP's shortcomings can be negated for the most part, it isn't optimal, but isn't the worst thing you can do. For some classes (druids) it can be pretty good... moving on...

Pickford

2013-06-27, 11:40 AM

To which we wanted to discuss the various flaws of the FAQ. So have we agreed that the FAQ is wrong on the anthropomorphic animals yet? If so, the FAQ might be wrong in the case of the "lose the pre-requisite, lose the benefits of the class" thing as well. Which we believe it is.

Does the FAQ even 'mention' anthropomorphic animals? I would think not, because it's a 3.0 thing, not a 3.5 thing. (i.e. it does not exist in 3.5 unless you shoe-horn it in)

So no, the FAQ is not wrong.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 11:48 AM

So no, the FAQ is not wrong.
Well, it is, in the sense that it has absolutely no impact on the rules whatsoever. Seriously, it's just not RAW. I dunno why we're stuck on this thing.

Pickford

2013-06-27, 11:50 AM

Well, it is, in the sense that it has absolutely no impact on the rules whatsoever. Seriously, it's just not RAW. I dunno why we're stuck on this thing.

I don't know why you think that given that it specifically clarifies the rules, clarifying is an impact.

Can you give a 'reason' for your position?

137beth

2013-06-27, 11:51 AM

My friend, there are some posts you just ignore. Allow me to share some life advice passed down from my father:

Do. Not. Engage. Crazy.

Well, it is, in the sense that it has absolutely no impact on the rules whatsoever. Seriously, it's just not RAW. I dunno why we're stuck on this thing.

We are in a forum where we have a 6 page thread about whether it is acceptable for a paladin to slaughter innocent babies. Arguing about whether the non-RAW FAQ is secretly RAW, while silly, is by no means the silliest thing on the forums:smalltongue:

Can you give a 'reason' for your position?
Scare quotes and straw-men on the same page?

eggynack

2013-06-27, 11:56 AM

I don't know why you think that given that it specifically clarifies the rules, clarifying is an impact.

Can you give a 'reason' for your position?
I already have, but I suppose I can restate it for the purpose of clarity. In the player's handbook errata, under the section labelled, "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", is the line, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Thus, in any conflict between one of the actual books, which are primary sources, and the FAQ, which is not one, the actual books win. Due to this, the FAQ has no ability to alter or effect the rules, so it is not RAW.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 11:57 AM

Does the FAQ even 'mention' anthropomorphic animals? I would think not, because it's a 3.0 thing, not a 3.5 thing. (i.e. it does not exist in 3.5 unless you shoe-horn it in)

So no, the FAQ is not wrong.

It does. I posted on it in page 4. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15503821&postcount=110)

Do anthropomorphic felines lose their pounce abilities?
Yes; see the Special Attacks entry on page 215 of SS.

That's when we started talking about rake.

dascarletm

2013-06-27, 12:00 PM

I already have, but I suppose I can restate it for the purpose of clarity. In the player's handbook errata, under the section labelled, "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", is the line, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Thus, in any conflict between one of the actual books, which are primary sources, and the FAQ, which is not one, the actual books win. Due to this, the FAQ has no ability to alter or effect the rules, so it is not RAW.

I'm going to need you to repeat that in triplicate and get it signed by the queen of England.

Flickerdart

2013-06-27, 12:04 PM

I'm going to need you to repeat that in triplicate and get it signed by the queen of England.

Very well.

I already have, but I suppose I can restate it for the purpose of clarity. In the player's handbook errata, under the section labelled, "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", is the line, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Thus, in any conflict between one of the actual books, which are primary sources, and the FAQ, which is not one, the actual books win. Due to this, the FAQ has no ability to alter or effect the rules, so it is not RAW.

I already have, but I suppose I can restate it for the purpose of clarity. In the player's handbook errata, under the section labelled, "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", is the line, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Thus, in any conflict between one of the actual books, which are primary sources, and the FAQ, which is not one, the actual books win. Due to this, the FAQ has no ability to alter or effect the rules, so it is not RAW.

I already have, but I suppose I can restate it for the purpose of clarity. In the player's handbook errata, under the section labelled, "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", is the line, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Thus, in any conflict between one of the actual books, which are primary sources, and the FAQ, which is not one, the actual books win. Due to this, the FAQ has no ability to alter or effect the rules, so it is not RAW.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Queen_Victoria_Signature.svg/490px-Queen_Victoria_Signature.svg.png

137beth

2013-06-27, 12:07 PM

Very well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Queen_Victoria_Signature.svg/490px-Queen_Victoria_Signature.svg.png

Oh, sorry, the FAQ says that that isn't really a valid signature, and so now we have to continue arguing about whether the FAQ is RAW (even though it isn't):smalltongue:

eggynack

2013-06-27, 12:08 PM

Very well.

I believe that you have won all the internets. I don't know how many internets there are, or how you even win one of them, but there ya go.

Augmental

2013-06-27, 01:28 PM

So, how does everyone think Vow of Poverty would do in a no-magic game?

dascarletm

2013-06-27, 01:40 PM

Very well.

/Impressed. I think you just won. Argument over.

Threadnaught

2013-06-27, 01:55 PM

Threadnaught, I believe the part you quoted answered your query. Or you can flip to PHB 320 and read that.

No it did not.

I quoted two parts, which really didn't explain anything about when a creature that gains Pounce as a Class Ability, is allowed to use Pounce.

Especially with the point you made about Rakes.

You hadn't said anything about Pouncing as an ACF, therefore you haven't answered my question at all. You're just trying to avoid answering.

I do not appreciate this Pickford. :smallsigh:

Supermouse

2013-06-27, 01:58 PM

So, how does everyone think Vow of Poverty would do in a no-magic game?

Are we talking about an absolutely no-magic game, as in, no magic itens, no spells, nothing? Also, no substitutes to magic, like technology, psionics, etc? Just pointy sticks against plate armor?

If so, the VoP would be terribly broken, because while it doesn't keep par with the WBL on a high fantasy game, it gives more bonuses than any mundane equipment.

This game would be one where a VoP Monk would be absolute cheese.

eggynack

2013-06-27, 02:04 PM

This game would be one where a VoP Monk would be absolute cheese.
Well, it'd be a VoP monk at its best. I don't think that'd really be cheese though. You're still a crapsack compared to higher power options, like the unarmed swordsage. I suppose some ACF's could help out, but still, monk.

mattie_p

2013-06-27, 03:08 PM

No it did not.

I quoted two parts, which really didn't explain anything about when a creature that gains Pounce as a Class Ability, is allowed to use Pounce.

Especially with the point you made about Rakes.

You hadn't said anything about Pouncing as an ACF, therefore you haven't answered my question at all. You're just trying to avoid answering.

I do not appreciate this Pickford. :smallsigh:

OK, I opened a new thread to discuss the FAQ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289930).

Let's take it there.

Samalpetey

2013-06-27, 03:22 PM

This is confusing me Pickford, what are you trying to argue?

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-27, 03:55 PM

I was making the argument that the polymorph subschool covers what happens, base-line, when a creature has its form changed.As others have already stated, this is just plain wrong. Polymorph subschool only applies to transmutation spells with that subschool. It means absolutely nothing to alternate form and its ilk.

In particular, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropomorphic creature template, as that template has nothing at all to do with shapechanging creatures at all.

This was because the FAQ was addressing what happens if a character qualifies for a PrC on the basis of a mutable feature (i.e. I don't have flippers, but I can somehow transform my hands into flippers to qualify for the Dauphin PrC...what happens if I lose my flippers? Answer: You lose the benefits of the thing depending on them....i.e. the PrC)Templates are not classes or feats. Even if FAQ was RAW this has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand.

Does the FAQ even 'mention' anthropomorphic animals? I would think not, because it's a 3.0 thing, not a 3.5 thing. (i.e. it does not exist in 3.5 unless you shoe-horn it in)

So no, the FAQ is not wrong.

This is dead wrong. The official rule is just the opposite; 3.0 material is legal for a 3.5 game unless it's already been updated to a 3.5 version.

Rubik

2013-06-27, 04:00 PM

This is confusing me Pickford, what are you trying to argue?This was just moved to a new thread.

Don't engage him here, please. It's a fool's folly.

Threadnaught

2013-06-27, 04:09 PM

OK, I opened a new thread to discuss the FAQ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289930).

Let's take it there.

My issue isn't with the FAQ, it's getting a straight answer out of Pickford.

This was just moved to a new thread.

Don't engage him here, please. It's a fool's folly.

I will not stop until I get it. Wherever he may be.

Rubik

2013-06-27, 04:15 PM

I will not stop until I get it. Wherever he may be.He has a recurring habit of blithely ignoring any and everything that absolutely disproves him, and he continues using the same arguments, straw-men, and non-arguments over and over for things that have already been irrefutably disproven. If you want to continue, please don't drag more of that into this thread. Use the other one, instead, please.

undead hero

2013-06-27, 05:49 PM

This is dead wrong. The official rule is just the opposite; 3.0 material is legal for a 3.5 game unless it's already been updated to a 3.5 version.

Could you please show/tell me where this rule is found.

Karnith

2013-06-27, 06:05 PM

Could you please show/tell me where this rule is found.
Each of the three Core (3.5) rulebooks contains a sidebar in their respective introductions titled "Why A Revision?," relating to the changes from 3.0 to 3.5. See e.g. the Player's Handbook, p. 4. These sidebars say that 3.5 material is largely compatible with 3.0 material.

If you used the prior version of this book, rest assured that the revision is a testament to our dedication to continuous product improvement. We've updated errata, clarified rules, and made the game even better than it was. But also rest assured that this is an upgrade of the d20 system, not a new edition of the game. The revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.
(Emphasis mine)

3.0 material is compatible with 3.5 material, provided that a DM is willing to make said "minor adjustments," usually on the order of updating skills and feats to their proper 3.5 counterparts. The Alchemy skill becoming Craft (Alchemy) is one such example.

More generally, 3.5 material replaces 3.0 material because of how primary source rules and errata work. When a 3.5 product and a 3.0 product conflict, the 3.5 product takes precedence (because it is the most recent version), and hence 3.5 material overrides any 3.0 counterparts. Additionally, errata updating material to 3.5 (such as can be found on the WotC website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a)) naturally takes precedence over the original 3.0 material (because it is errata). Anything not updated can be used in a 3.5 game (because it is the most recent version of said material) with some minor tuning on the DM's part.

If you're curious, here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x) is a list of material from 3.0, along with the most recent official updates to said material.

olentu

2013-06-27, 07:30 PM

Could you please show/tell me where this rule is found.

Eh, they are just ignoring the "minor adjustments" section of the bit in the core rulebooks that says existing products can be used with only minor adjustments. Of course, some things have been updated to 3.5, such as the psionics handbook, but without that update DM fiat is required.

Edit:

I don't know why you think that given that it specifically clarifies the rules, clarifying is an impact.

Can you give a 'reason' for your position?

Look, since we are ostensibly on the same side of the argument allow me to give you some advice. The FAQ is unimportant and talking about it, enjoyable as it may be, is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the difference in assumption over whether or not the lack of a rule is a rule.